• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterMP

  • Rank
    The Dirtbags
  • Birthday 07/11/1972

Profile Information

  • Location
    Something catchy like headexplode or EA's

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. PeterMP

    The Forthcoming Recession

    I'll point out that recession doesn't mean massive economic or stock market decline. Also, obviously after months of growth, eventually, we will see months where the economy doesn't grow. And as you spread it over time, it becomes more likely (somebody said a recession in next 22 months). I think it is likely @tshile is right that the yield curve is not really currently a good predictor of a recession, and we'll enter a recession (in the next 22 months) just due to random chance. But I generally don't see a lot of evidence that we are sitting in 2007 as compared to 2008 or that we'll enter a recession in the next few months (3 or 4).
  2. Economic boycotts have proven to be very successful. Much of the progress of the Civil Rights movement were the result of economic boycotts.
  3. Okay, but that's because society hasn't adapted to that general model. An the adaption to taking away guns that fire lots of bullets is pretty simple as bringing more pre-loaded guns.
  4. If you had started with that post, I probably wouldn't have even commented. But you started with just saying more. @twa is right. Tactics will change, and it is possible eventually some body will come up with a set of tactics that are more lethal. I don't think it will happen right away or commonly, but somebody will. And at that time, we'll have to adjust. (There is a reason why we haven't seen another OK style bombing. And that's because we changed. There is much more work being done today to track fertilizes and other things that could be used as explosives then there were.)
  5. First, I think @twa is right tactics will change. And while none of these people individually are especially creative or effective planners, you do see different wrinkles in things that affect out comes. And they do study what other people do and will adopt what seems to have worked well in the past. You see that with the Stoneman Douglas shooting. You see an adoption of tactics there. He knows what Lanza did won't be very effective because schools have adapted to what Lanza did so he goes at the end of the school day, and he pulls the fire alarm. Those two things eliminate the lock down drill and other things schools have done to prevent school shooting. He doesn't have to worry about being buzzed in because the doors are open. The teachers aren't going to lock kids in classrooms because of the fire alarm. Nobody's trying to replicate Lanza did because most of these people understand that if they do, they aren't going to be effective because society changed. The other thing is I think you can do things to make them harder to attempt (see my post on what to actually do).
  6. Your post suggest (implies) that you wanted more done then what I said because it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook. But you aren't (likely) to get more done so the end result is nothing.
  7. You aren't going to get more pass or approved by the courts currently. @twa might even be right in that I'm not sure you can get that passed or approved by the courts. But I think there's at least a chance of it. (There are 2 bad things the Democrats could do right now: 1. Not do anything because they can't get anything that is "good enough" done. Which is what you are suggesting. 2. Do something that won't do any good so in 5 years the GOP can talk about how dumb the Democrats are on gun laws and they pass laws that don't do any good, but restrict the rights of honest and good citizens. The Democrats need to focus and push on a small set of things that will actually do some good and get passed. Focusing on the Sandy Hook case (right now in the present) in either way is a waste.)
  8. It wasn't a comparable situation. Like 9/11, that was a long term planned attack by somebody that had support. That isn't the comparison. (Like 9/11 and planes. Other people have flown planes into building, but none have killed nearly as many as on 9/11. The Nice attack is an exception of what can be done with car (in that case a truck) when the person actually plans carefully and has support. Luckily, we haven't seen an example of that in the US with guns.) The enemy of good is perfect. The Sandy Hook case is one of the hardest cases to do something about, but just because we can't solve every shooting doesn't mean we should do nothing.
  9. Easiest thing to do would make it illegal to buy a gun under the age of 25, go after people and stores involved in illegal purchases, and require people to get a license approved by local law enforcement. That makes much more sense than going after magazine size or assault weapons. The Va Tech shooter only used a couple of hand guns. Would gun deaths and mass shooting go to 0? No, but we'd see an effect.
  10. Okay, but you get the point. And the guy in Texas only killed one other person so it wasn't very effective. I'm not saying they aren't, but they also aren't going to carry out a 9/11 like attack easily. The guy last 2 shooters aren't (likely) more dangerous without guns because they are going to self-fund and organize a 9/11 like attack if they don't have guns. Everywhere else in the developed western world, they (generally) use something like a knife and manage to attack a few people. There's little reason to believe the US would be any different.
  11. Guns aren't additive the way that drugs are. My confidence comes from the evidence of every other developed western country in the world where these types of attacks are much more rare. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe the US is different than every other developed western country and that if we adopted their gun laws, there is no reason why the result wouldn't be pretty much the same. And there is no evidence of such a difference between Americans and other populations. Generally, when the US does something that the European nations were doing or vice versa at the population level, the essentially effect is the same. There's no reason to believe that guns would be any different.
  12. Knives and blunt objects are not more deadly (in general). Planes was a one time thing that is not equivalent to these attacks and attackers. In general, isolated individual people that want to kill lots of people are not more successful in other countries than in the US. In general, they are less effective. Comparing the guys that carried out the last two shootings to an organized plan by a terrorist organization is a false comparison.
  13. It is very unlikely you would develop a black market guns outside of the drug market. Unlike drugs, guns are not addictive and guns are much harder to do things like ship (generally they are larger for the profit). Every other developed western country has gun laws and drug laws. They have substantial problems with black market drugs and very little problems with black market guns outside of the black market drug community. The illegal gun market in Mexico is heavily tied to the illegal drug market, and the fact that they neighbor us and guns are easily had here doesn't help. To suggest the US would be different than every other western country in the world with no evidence, makes no sense.
  14. What do you thin they would use? I think more is extremely unlikely. People with these issues aren't specific to the US, and through most of the western developed world, you don't see people with these issues getting more deadly weapons in general. Instead, you get things like this: (The only comparable attacks in other countries are with cars and ramming attacks, and they certainly aren't more deadly. MAYBE they are just as effective, but they aren't more.) Just because we can't solve every problem today, doesn't mean we should solve the ones we can. This is an argument to do nothing for any problem because you can never solve every problem completely.
  15. On what planet is Gary Johnson the sensible moderate on any issue? Gary Johnson is in lock step position with Republicans on gun control. (People would be safer it was easier to carry a gun in public.)