60,000 wakadoos
 

Except that the kid wast otherwise permitted by the state to carry a concealed gun. So the kid can carry it into a bar, a church, a city hall, a park, his car etc. etc. etc., but not into his classroom.

If I take the"permitted" part and the "a bar, a church, a city hall, a park, his car" part as premises, I don't see the campus thing as distinguishable (though I guess one could always argue hypotheticals).

Hello

what bugs me
 

Excuse me??

Ad(admitted to practice in more than one jurisdiction... what the hell were they thinking??)der

60,000 wakadoos
 

Virginia allows folks to carry concealed in bars!?! Not good.

I'd imagine the individual private business can ban it on premises.

I was going to construct an argument about the dangers of allowing young folks with (almost by definition) not fully mature judgment to carry weapons when surrounded by thousands like them in an atmosphere fraught with alcohol and sexual tension -- but hell, if you can carry in bars why not anywhere else?

Might as well let guns into the bleachers in Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park -- people would be much politer to each other and the players. (Isn't that the argument?)

S_A_M

60,000 wakadoos
 

ETA this first: "In 2002, Governor Warner supported permitting concealed handguns in public parks and buildings. In 2003, a bill to permit concealed handguns in bars passed the House of Delegates and was only stopped in the Senate by a tie vote in committee." This is from a google search, but the page had an honest face, so it appears that Virginia doesn't allow guns in bars (unless it allows unpermitted openly-carried guns in bars). I take it back.

There were articles in the Washington Post about some of the gun-rights people exercising their rights to "openly" carry (I think it was even without permit), and I don't recall exactly where they were banned at all.

I know from reading the Post that the issue has arisen in the context of Fairfax Co. (or some Co.'s) parks (ban overruled), and the Dulles Access road (overruled). It arose with respect to libraries in Falls Church?, and the gun people showed what they thought of the city instructing its employees to call the police at the sight of an openly-carried gun... by openly carrying guns into the next city council meeting.

I think I see where you are going though, and I'm not taking a position one way or another on it. If anything, I would take a position in favor of banning anyone who has taken alchohol in the last 24 hours from carrying a weapon.

Anyhoo, its all academic to me. Seems like these people really are pushing the issue into the fringes though.

Oh yeah, and I think you are right about individual private businesses.

In other news, Illinois just turned back all kinds of anti-gun measures, and passed a few that would curtail local jurisdiction on guns.

A few years ago, a guy up on the North Shore shot and wounded or killed a home-invader from Chicago. His town promptly charged him with violating guns laws. If government officials on both sides would just use a little better discretion on these issues, entire states wouldn't get up in arms like this. But where in the world can we trust government officials to use good discretion?

If the numbers ain't with ya ...
 

... then, by God, stop publishing the numbers.

Really, it's surprising that we had to wait until 2005 to see this happen. In the old days, they'd have been so on top of this stuff that we'd never have seen the 2004 statistics in the first place. With everybody on the road trying to sell Social Security, perhaps they're geting slow.

If the numbers ain't with ya ...
 

I don't get when you guys say this. No one trusts you guys to deal with terrorism. If the report indicates that terroism is increasing you guys would be less likely to win any office, not more likely.

Can you explain Gatti?

If the numbers ain't with ya ...
 

Maybe they're all looking at the government numbers and thinking the problems getting better.

If the numbers ain't with ya ...
 

Interesting point, Hank. Your argument that the Administration is actually choosing to help its opponents is somewhat counterintuitive here, especially given GOP flacks wanting to lynch McCain for suggesting this week that the nuclear option on filibusters might not be in the party's long term interests.

Sadly, your argument also suggests that Secretary Rice, in choosing to terminate the report, is a disloyal, treasonist fuck.


*Sniff* I, for one, shall miss her.

60,000 wakadoos
 

FWIW, every place in Texas that sells alcohol has to have a nice big "no guns" signs prominently displayed. Freaks foreigners out the first time they walk into a 7-11 or bar.

Hospitals and nursing homes also have to have the signs, and I've seen them on the local University of Texas buildings, so I'm guessing that we, not exactly known for gun-control, think that it's ok to prohibit firearms in some locations.

60,000 wakadoos
 

I'm not from Michigan either, but one of the google dwakadoo chat sites I saw seemed to indicate that permitted guns (or at least some type) are okay in bars in Michigan. FWIW, NTTAWWT (OMTI*).

Anyway, if anyone has any good articles, cites, sources, quotes or arguments that are generally against conceal-carry, I've got some time today to do some reading.

Hello

*Or Maybe There Is

what bugs me
 

I consider myself a recovering lawyer.

60,000 wakadoos
 

All I know is that California is almost anti-gun as it is pro-choice. When we run pro-choice Republicans, the gun stuff is where they go. We ran a guy here for Congress, a pro-choice Repubican, and he had a D- rating from the NRA. But his opponent had an F. So they ran all sorts of TV commercials showing that brutal bank robbery in LA (with the automatic weapons and body armour) and said that the Repubican candidate had a better rating from the NRA. I went to the NRA and begged them to give our candidate an F also, but they refused to believe that a bad rating from them was better for our candidate.

The gun laws in California are really strict, but this is the only state where I have had a gun held to my face. And I don't know why people, that are not being stalked, want to carry firearms. Guns are heavy and a pain in the ass to carry around.

It just seems to me there are more important issues.

60,000 wakadoos
 

Sorry to hear that you had a gun held to your face. Seriously.

I know that maybe you haven't been here long enough to pick this up, but crime of all sorts is sorta like my favorite topic. More specifically, ways to reduce crime without locking up 4 million minor drug offenders, without making good citizens feel afraid in our society, without grossly increasing governmental expenditures etc.

I agree with you, to a point, about "I don't know why people, that are not being stalked, want to carry firearms". Partly because I don't and don't want to carry a firearm.

But I'd extend your list from just "stalking victims" to storeowners and all kinds of other "good, certifiable" people in bad neighborhoods. In the genteel suburbs of Virginia, this seems almost entirely academic. But in Richmond, I'd imagine a few decent people might want to carry a gun just to walk around the neighborhood.

Which is another way of saying, while guns and conceal-carry stuff shouldn't be the priority item on our list of political points to make, crime should be. And a decent conceal-carry program, which strictly scrutinizes permit holders and which bans the carrying of weapons in specified institutions and while the would-be bearer is in a medicated or inebriated state, is one of many crime-related topics that simply makes sense to me.

And then there's the right to keep a weapon in your home. Even in a blue state like Illinois, if a municipality tries to enforce its liberal-wackadoo gun laws on a righteous homeowner who shoots a home-invader, the liberal-wackadoos will feel a backlash that they apparently never anticipated.

But, the bigger picture (and I'd assume this is true in California also, but correct me if I'm wrong) is that crime of all sorts is an issue at some level in most any local race in this country.
I think crime is what drives voter support for the gun-rights movement more than any other factor in this country.

60,000 wakadoos
 

Hey, you'll be happy to hear, then, that HB 254, which would restructure sentencing for low level marijuana possession, finally got out of the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Thursday. It got unanimous support in committee, and the only real worries were that representatives didn't want to look like they were getting soft on crime. The benefit, though, is that it clears up a lot of valuable jail space, and frees up law enforcement for other purposes. According to this fact sheet on the bill 57% of all 2003 drug possession arrests in Texas were for marijuana. Used to be in this state that you were thrown in jail for up to a year for possession. Looks like it's just going to be a hefty fine soon. More info on the bill here.

60,000 wakadoos
 

In Texas? Wow. That was my first choice pick for implementing my second choice option for drug users. If they ain't gonna just execute em in Texas, I need to think of a better second choice than execution!

On another note, some paper or another (of the majors... I think it was the NYT) this weekend had an opinion column about the "abortion reduced crime" thing. The writer was writing about a recent "debate" or something like it between the abortion-theory guy and one of the guys from the U of C... maybe even the one who argued that "concealed carry reduces crime". Anyway, according to the author, the consensus after the presentation is that the "abortion reduces crime" guy presents a pretty compelling case.

Even noting that New York legalized abortion 3 years before the rest of the country, and New York's drastic crime deduction started (arguably, of course) 3 years before the rest of the country.

Couldn't find the link. My apologies.

But this brings up another thought. I've heard in India or China, people are aborting girls waaaay disproportionately. I'd imagine here, people are aborting fetuses who are likely to be handicapped or ill etc. But I can't prove it. Anyone ever hear of any theories as to whether the incidence of Down's Syndrome kids or whatever is lower since 1973 or thereabouts... as a result of abortion? Couldn't help but wonder.

Hello

In his WaPo column today, Michael Kinsley parenthetically points out that the neo-conservatives did not predict the collapse of the Soviet Union -- "their theme had been that the Soviet Union was getting stronger and stronger while the United States diddled."

60,000 wakadoos
 

1) Anyone that is stupid enough to argue that abortion reduces crime (and therefore is a good thing) should be sterilized themselves. In all seriousness, this type of argument just bolsters the pro-life position. In China, I am sure that if they have access to the technology they would abort female fetuses. However, I do know that with the one child only policy, many families are killing their female babies so they can try again and get a male.

2) That is encouraging about texas. The fact that drug crimes are put in the same catagory as violent and sexual offences is "criminal". Most drug offenders need rehab not prison.

2)

A neocon as someone with a "messianic vision" of using American power to spread democracy, an indifference to the crucial distinction between what would be nice and what is essential to national security, and excessive optimism that we can arrange things according to our own values in strange and faraway lands.

That is me. Our foreign policy should be based on spreading free markets and democracy around the world. Not only does that help the rest of the world, but it also improves our national security. Woodrow Wilson was the first Neo-Con, and if the Senate had listened to him, I think the twentieth century would have been much better.

60,000 wakadoos
 

It was argued. Its not necessarily accepted, but its at least debated, and some people find his research/arguments somewhere between acceptable and compelling.

The article specifically notes that the guy who put the theory out has questions about the morality of abortion, and is not trying to justify an underlying position.

The column I couldn't find before is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/op...16tierney.html

(Reg. Req'd).

Anyway, I'm not taking a position on the whole thing, but it has been a topic of public debate for 18-24 months or more. I thought the column was worth reading, though I don't agree with several of the points made by various interviewees and/or the author.

Hello

60,000 wakadoos
 

Would you similarly reject the studies that suggests concealed weapons laws decrease crime?

It seems like a serious study that points out one of the ignored costs of the pro-life position.

60,000 wakadoos
 

I suspect that abortion of fetuses with Down's Syndrome or other detectable and severe developmental problems is disproportionately high in places other than China and India. Like in the US.

Once a woman reaches her late 30s -- I think it's 36 -- she is likely, if not required, to be screened during pregnancy for Down's Syndrome and several other serious developmental problems. That's because the incidence of such conditions begins to climb at that age (and increases to a really scary level within a few years). The process of this test leads people who would not otherwise consider having an abortion to consider it -- in other words, to consider terminating a pregnancy that was planned and desired, because they don't want to bring severely disabled child into the world. I have personally been through this discussion, though thankfully the tests were all negative and the decision we'd reached didn't have to be put into effect. And I know that I'm not alone in this. (In fact a friend recently went through the same process, but had to follow through with her decision.)

So, to answer your question -- I'm sure the incidence of Down's is lower than it would be because of abortion. I doubt that this trend began as early as 1973, however, because the testing procedures have gotten much more sophisticated and accurate in more recent years. And the overall incidence may well be up since, say, the 60s, because of other factors -- most importantly, more women waiting until they are in their late 30s or older to get pregnant.

My Girl Ann on Cover of Time
 

My Girl Ann on Cover of Time
 

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

Atom-bomb designer Freeman Dyson, in a review of Max Hastings' new book:

• The history of World War II teaches us . . . the immense importance of the Geneva Conventions on humane treatment of prisoners in mitigating the human costs of war. All through Hastings's narrative, we see a stark contrast between two kinds of war, the war in the West following the Geneva rules and the war in the East fought without rules. A large number of witnesses of the western war, German as well as British and American, owe their lives to the Geneva conventions. In the western war, soldiers fought as long as fighting made sense, and surrendered when fighting did not make sense, with a good chance of being treated decently as prisoners of war. Many of the prisoners on both sides were killed in the heat of battle before reaching prison camps, but most of them survived. Those who reached prison camps were treated in a civilized fashion, with some supervision by delegates of the International Red Cross. They were neither starved nor tortured.
  
  At the same time, on the eastern side of the war, brutality was the rule and the International Red Cross had no voice. Civilians were routinely raped and murdered, and prisoners of war were starved. Soldiers were expected to fight to the death, and most of them did, since they had litle hope of survival as prisoners. It is not possible to calculate the numbers of lives saved in the West and lost in the East by following and not following the Geneva rules. The numbers certainly amount to hundreds of thousands in the West and millions in the East. Americans who are trying today to weaken or evade the Geneva rules are acting shortsightedly as well as immorally.

more

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

The war in the East was rougher because the Germans were practicing genocide and the Soviets were responding in kind. It wasn't that one was not a party to the Convention- it was more that one group thought themselves superior and on God's side.

Meanwhile we're at war with people who chop of their prisoners heads. Does this sound more like the Eastern front or the Western front to you?

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

Stalin had his own genocidal thing going on, too. Meanwhile, the war in the Pacific was more like the Russian Front than the Western Front (as I pointed out in the blog entry I linked to at the bottom of that post). As brutal as the Japanese could be, the problem wasn't that they were "practicing genocide." And we were just as brutal in response. Neither side took prisoners, and that's just the start of it.

So I agree that the Geneva Conventions are not magic, but I also think that you are missing something.

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

I'm missing something? I agree it would be nice if the terroists were nice too! No more head chopping- that's not nice! No more airplane crashing- that's not nice either!

I was not debating whether the Geneva convention could have been better followed by the Germans- my point was that your point was vapid given our current enemy.

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

To start with, it was Freeman Dyson's point. I only adopted it. He's not someone who fits any definition of "vapid."

Second, the question is whether we will save lives (etc.) by following the Geneva Conventions, not whether by doing so we will eliminate inhumanity on the part of our enemies. Bad things happened on the Western Front, too. On this question, you're being willfully obtuse. The next enemy may decide what to do on the basis of what we're doing and saying now.

All sorts of well-put points in the Dyson review. Here's another:

• A fourth lesson of World War II is the moral ambiguity of war even when it is fought for a good cause. Armageddon is full of examples of moral ambiguity, both at the level of individual soldiers and at the level of governments. No matter whether their cause is just or unjust, individual soldiers in the heat of battle frequently kill prisoners of war or innocent bystanders. Women are raped, goods are stolen, and homes are destroyed. Horror stories are more horrible in the East but also occur in the West. Those who commit crimes are not always German. War is inherently immoral, and everyone who engages in war is doing things which under normal circumstances would be considered criminal. One of Hastings's witnesses was a private in an American infantry division during the German offensive in the Ardennes in December 1944. Speaking of German prisoners, he says, "If they wore the black uniforms of the SS, they were shot." He did not know that all German tank crews had black uniforms, whether they belonged to SS or to regular army units.

This reminds me of an exchange that club and I were having a ways back about the morality of different things done in the name of war, like torture. I heard club to be suggesting that war makes it all right. Dyson's point is obvious; it also refutes what I heard club to be saying.

This is what we bargained for when we invaded Iraq. As a country, we took it far too lightly, and too many of us are still denying as much of it as they can.

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

Among the "millions lost" were the civilians killed by the Nazis- are you saying the concentration camps could have been better run? The Geneva convention had no bearing on the East because it was one country fighting people it thought subhuman- if you're saying that if we didn't do the Iraq prison incidents things would have been better for the prisoners- cheers- we agree. If you think that would have any bearing on how US hostages are treated- sorry, no. Our guys must assume if they surrender they'll likely get their heads chopped off. If an insurgent surrenders he might assume we'll do some shit to him, not as bad as would have happened to him in an Iraqi prison a few years ago- but still not good. He wouold be surprised I bet, that that has been addressed and is no longer happening.

I mean do you have a point, or is it just another log on the old US is very bad because W is president fire.

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

Are you this dense in real life? I tend to doubt it.

"[A]re you saying the concentration camps could have bene better run?"

No.

"If you think that would have any bearing on how US hostages are treated- sorry, no."

In Iraq, maybe not. In the next fight, maybe so. Insurgencies are always less likely to take prisoners. They don't have the resources to deal with them, and they see too many advantages in being ruthless.

"He wouold be surprised I bet, that that has been addressed and is no longer happening."

Because Scott McClellan said so? Because there was a real effort to remove the policymakers and change the policies responsible? What planet are you on?

Okay- now i know Adder has you login.

You're point was that war is bad, and even the good guys do bad things if in fucked situations- i agree.

You think we should try and do better- I agree.

As for the "bargained for" if you mean we shouldn't go to war because bad things will almost certainly happen- I'm sorry that I have to disagree. I will note that this ivory tower attitude is exactly why JFK is not the President now, and won't be in 2008.

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

Okay. So they act in a savage and brutal manner that completely defies the rules of human conduct. That doesn't make it okay for us to do the same. Do you really not get that?

In hindsight, I think we can all agree that if we all had known then what we know now, including how two years of the occupation have unfolded, that the American people would not have supported the war ex ante. In the rush to war, we disregarded those who pointed out that "bad things will almost certainly happen," and we -- and many more Iraqis -- are paying the price.

If your point is that political campaigns are a bad way to discuss this, especially when the candidates are as flawed as Kerry and Bush were, you're right. In many countries, there's also a sort of collective amnesia about a war after the fact. Chris Hedges' book, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, talks about this.

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

Hank: Stop hitting your sister.

Hank's son: Dad, she started it.

Hank: OK, let her have it then.

I most certainly did not. What I suggested was its hard for me to distinguish rape and other forms of torture from the other horribles that occur during war.

The Geneva Conventions are a good thing.
 

2.
when my little boy was 2 he was in the back seat with 5 year old sister. I could see in the mirror she was punching him in the arm when she thought I wasn't looking. he stabbed her in the leg with a crayon- she quit hitting him for awhile.

you posted some rambling thoughts. I asked you what you thought they showed. Since then you keep asking me about my point. I guess my point was you read some airheaded blogs that don't tie to reality.

By the way- they now estimate 300000 bodies found in Sadaam's graves- no word on whehter they were treated humanely before the bullet or stump crusher hit them.

Dyson's point is that the Geneva Conventions were a good thing and saved lives.

Your points seem to be that they weren't perfect, that other things matter to, and that since we can't persuade Al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents to start following the conventions, we shouldn't bother ourselves.

Oh. Okay, thanks. I sound like a bad person- would you take over raising my kids?