Concealed Carry Football Fan Shoots Self by Accident

The Boston Herald reports on a very interesting incident. CCW permit holders are among the most responsible of gun owners. Everyone knows this. In The Bay State, presumably, they're even better screened and therefore safer than, say, in Arizona.

The man, who is licensed to carry, was about to see the Patriots play the New York Giants when he checked the back of his ticket and saw firearms were prohibited at the Foxboro venue, said state police spokesman David Procopio. As the man was taking out the gun back at his car, a round went off, going through his leg near the knee about 3 p.m., Procopio said.

After all the flack I've received over my shared responsibility ideas, I dare you pro-gun guys to blame the gun-free zone rules at the stadium, I double dare you.

The fact is a guy with a license to carry a concealed weapon who doesn't know that the Patriot's football stadium is a gun free-zone is already in the wrong. I thought these guys were supposed to be aware of the rules before they go places?  Isn't that one of the big complaints? The poor endangered men have to take their chances unarmed when they go to the post office and the court house.

His failure to know the gun-free zones was the least of his sins. There's no excuse for a negligent discharge, other than negligence that is.  Negligence is not acceptable.  CCW permit holders must be held to a higher standard.  When you make a mistake with a hammer, you sometimes blacken your thumb.  When you make a mistake with a gun, the damage is likely to be worse than that.

The solution is the one strike you're out rule.  It's simple. It need not violate due process. It could be done properly. The results would be to disarm the most reckless and stupid among the gun owners, the ones responsible for most of the problems.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

 

 

Concealed Carry Football Fan Shoots Self by Accident

The Boston Herald reports on a very interesting incident. CCW permit holders are among the most responsible of gun owners. Everyone knows this. In The Bay State, presumably, they're even better screened and therefore safer than, say, in Arizona.

The man, who is licensed to carry, was about to see the Patriots play the New York Giants when he checked the back of his ticket and saw firearms were prohibited at the Foxboro venue, said state police spokesman David Procopio. As the man was taking out the gun back at his car, a round went off, going through his leg near the knee about 3 p.m., Procopio said.

After all the flack I've received over my shared responsibility ideas, I dare you pro-gun guys to blame the gun-free zone rules at the stadium, I double dare you.

The fact is a guy with a license to carry a concealed weapon who doesn't know that the Patriot's football stadium is a gun free-zone is already in the wrong. I thought these guys were supposed to be aware of the rules before they go places?  Isn't that one of the big complaints? The poor endangered men have to take their chances unarmed when they go to the post office and the court house.

His failure to know the gun-free zones was the least of his sins. There's no excuse for a negligent discharge, other than negligence that is.  Negligence is not acceptable.  CCW permit holders must be held to a higher standard.  When you make a mistake with a hammer, you sometimes blacken your thumb.  When you make a mistake with a gun, the damage is likely to be worse than that.

The solution is the one strike you're out rule.  It's simple. It need not violate due process. It could be done properly. The results would be to disarm the most reckless and stupid among the gun owners, the ones responsible for most of the problems.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

 

 

Mental Ghettos Harm US

So many intelligent Americans believe, say and do stupid things.  When a large fraction of the population is like this, a nation rots from the inside and succumbs to external forces.

I have always searched for the simplest yet best ways to explain what I see as a multi-decade decline of every aspect of the United States, especially its political system and government.  I keep coming back to the inescapable logic that a large fraction of Americans, regardless of their education, economic status and political alignment, must suffer from delusion.  This delusion produces denial about hugely important subjects and issues.

Like a law of physics, this combination makes people seem incredibly stupid to others disagreeing with their positions.  Stupid, because they are unable to accept facts and truths that conflict with their views.

This special kind of stupidity is independent of inherent intelligence.  In this case brain power is overpowered by psychological deficiency, namely self-delusion. 

This delusion is not genetically produced, but is a result of external influences, notably political, government, media and corporate propaganda intentionally designed to produce delusional beliefs and thinking.  Who does this?  All sorts of commercial and political interests.  The result is a series of biases and blocks, such as cognitive dissonance, to objective facts and information that creates denial about very important conditions affecting the planet, the nation and individuals.  People afflicted with this deadly combination appear stupid to those outside their mental ghetto that they gladly inhabit, along with similarly afflicted people.

National unity breaks down with countless mental ghettos that span economic, political and geographic boundaries.

Conservatives see liberals as stupid and vice versa.  Democrats see Tea Party adherents (who only support Republican candidates) as stupid and vice versa.  Those seeing climate change and global warming as serious phenomena posing real threats see deniers as stupid.  People who give a high priority to tax cuts that mainly benefit the rich and superrich seem stupid to those who recognize that the wealthiest Americans have hijacked the US economy, as shown by endless statistics that reveal their preferential financial benefits.  Those who reject religions think the religious stupid.  People who shun social networking sites see those addicted to them as stupid.  Growing numbers of obese people seem stupid to those eating healthy and exercising regularly to maintain healthy weights.

A prime example of a mental ghetto is the collection of radical, terrorist Muslims sharing hate and violence and blocking out teachings from authentic Muslims about peace and love.

You surely can think of classes of people who seem stupid, because of a particular belief or viewpoint rather than across-the-board limited intelligence.  With conversations that have nothing to do with their position (or maybe several), you would likely think of them as reasonably intelligent and smart, not stupid.  In other words, stupidity is often topic or issue specific.

Here are two examples of what I call psychological stupidity with their powerful implications for understanding why the nation is seen on the wrong track by so many Americans who cannot unite behind solutions.

There is no mystery why the top 20 percent of the population in terms of wealth votes for Republicans, but they are not enough to win elections.  What makes far less sense is why many more middle class Americans vote for Republicans.  They seem stupid in voting against their own economic interests because Republicans pursue policies that preferentially reward the richest Americans.  This behavior can only be explained by the success of Republican propaganda (mainly trickle down prosperity), lies and deceptions that instill a set of biases and beliefs that enable Republicans to win elections.  A prime example is obtaining broad support for keeping taxes on really rich people low.

On the other side, are millions of people who vote for Democrats because they have been sold rhetoric about reforming the government system, as if Democrats are not also in the pockets of a number of special interests that will not accept truly needed deep reforms.  Why have we not seen President Obama pursue punishment of many people and companies in the banking, mortgage and financial sectors that caused the economic meltdown?  He had received huge campaign contributions from them and then surrounded himself with cabinet officials and advisors from them.  Otherwise intelligent people vote for Democrats because of their psychological stupidity based on false promises of change and reform that they have succumbed to.

Psychological stupidity has become a kind of cultural epidemic that no one is addressing, so it just gets worse.  It invites manipulation and the continuing corrosion and corruption of government.  The rich and powerful know how to take advantage of this stupidity, obtaining government policies and programs they want, selling products and services that consumers do not really benefit from, and grabbing more of the nation’s wealth.

Those afflicted with psychological stupidity are also likely to exhibit moral superiority, making it even more difficult to have intelligent and productive conversations with them.  Such arrogance strengthens their defenses against facts and information that conflicts with their cherished views.  The answer:  Associate with others having exactly the same views and only get information from like-minded media sources, creating mental ghettos (such as the Tea Party and Fox News) that others can take political or commercial advantage of (Republicans and companies selling gold).

Self-deception is the widespread legal narcotic lubricating the slide of American society into the toilet that other once great nations ended up in.  Maybe this old Arab proverb warrants respect: People who lie to others have merely hidden away the truth, but people who lie to themselves have forgotten where they put it.

Which mental ghettos do you belong to?

 

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

America’s Inadequate Response to the Revolution in Kyrgyzstan

On April 7, 2010 the people of Kyrgyzstan, a far-away country straining under an increasingly oppressive president, liberated themselves. In a revolution recalling those of 1989, protests unexpectedly toppled the authoritarian government. The opposition quickly took control, promising free and fair elections.

The United States government promptly asked if the new administration would allow America to keep its air base in the country. It did not endorse the new government, instead releasing a statement that read:

We remain a committed partner to the development of Kyrgyzstan for the benefit of the Kyrgyz people and intend to continue to support the economic and democratic development of the country.

To be fair, there is some concern over the credibility of the new government. Kyrgyzstan’s president himself came to power after a similar revolution overthrew an authoritarian regime. Power might corrupt the new government as it did with President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

Moreover, this military base is very important to the interests of the United States. It constitutes a vital logistical component of the war in Afghanistan. Outside of Afghanistan itself, the United States does not have another regional military base.

But sometimes standing for a principle is more important than even the most vital military base. These principles include things such as freedom, liberty, and democracy. America, however imperfectly, has always championed these values. When an oppressed people free themselves, it is a fundamental part of America’s creed to stand with them.

President Barack Obama himself – not Hillary Clinton – should take thirty minutes out of his week to call the new government, congratulating them for their efforts standing against tyranny. He should apologize for supporting Mr. Bakiyev (who in any case was no friend of the United States, having previously threatened to close the base).

Actions like these will be remembered by the new Kyrgyz government long after the United States forgets. They might – in fact, they probably will – even convince it to keep America’s precious air base.

--Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

There's more...

Stupid Republican Tricks

Many of us worry that some Republicans in the Senate and the House don't have the public interest at heart - that they put special interests ahead of our common well-being.  We worry that these Republicans are too influenced by greed or fear or hatred.  However, some Republicans are just mind-numbingly stupid.  Here are three such cases from the last 24-hours or so:

  • Louisiana: How amazingly stupid is Hookerlover David Vitter?

    A Louisiana senator is stalling Florida emergency management director Craig Fugate's nomination as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    Fugate had sailed through his nomination hearing and Monday cleared the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee by a unanimous voice vote. Republican Sen. David Vitter said, however, that he'd blocked Fugate because of concerns he has with FEMA.

    "I have a hold on the FEMA nomination because I sent a list of hurricane recovery questions and projects to FEMA, many of which have not been adequately addressed," Vitter said in a statement. "I'm eager to get full responses and meet with the nominee immediately."

    The hold -- which comes a month before the start of hurricane season -- was reported in CQ Today, a Capitol Hill newspaper, which noted that Vitter's home state "bore the brunt of the botched agency response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005."

    At that time, FEMA was led by Michael Brown, who had little emergency management experience. Fugate, however, garnered widespread praise for deft handling of back-to-back hurricanes in Florida and won bipartisan support at his confirmation hearing and was expected to be confirmed swiftly.

    Vitter, who represents Katrina-ravaged Louisiana, is delaying a qualified FEMA director one month before the start of hurricane season.  And he's delaying the widely-acclaimed pick because he is awaiting answers from FEMA.  Well, Hookerlover, maybe you'd get those answers more quickly if FEMA had a director who could respond to you, dolt.

  • North Carolina: Freshman Republican backbencher Richard "Bank Run" Burr really doesn't get it.  Typically a guy who receives little to no press coverage for anything, he received a mountain of terrible press coverage when it spread that he told his wife to rush the ATMs when the fiscal crisis was brewing - behavior that would have crippled the economy had too many Americans done what "Bank Run" Burr did.  And what did "Bank Run" Burr learn from the experience?

    Burr's comments spread across the blogosphere and were slammed as irresponsible. Some suggested he was encouraging a bank run. Now, Burr says he has no regrets and would do the same thing again.

    "Absolutely I'd do it [again]," Burr told WFAE, a public radio station in North Carolina. "The exact situation we were faced with was a freeze bank to bank. And as I stated, my attempt was to make sure my wife had enough cash at home to make it through the next week."

    But Burr added that the bank in question was never in trouble, which raises questions about why he feared it would run out of cash.

    "It was not an attempt to run a bank," Burr said. "Nor was it a bank that was even considered then or now to be in trouble."

    So not only is "Bank Run" Burr too dense to get why people might have been disquieted by his behavior, but he also doesn't even realize his own lack of logic - if the bank wasn't in trouble, why did he need to rush the ATMs?!  Keep on digging, "Bank Run" Burr.

  • Missouri: Yes, Republican Congresscritter Roy Blunt said the following:

    "Just because we're in a situation now where we vote no doesn't mean we are the `party of no' or have no ideas."

    Dumbfounded?  Awestruck?  Contribute to Missouri Secretary of State and like 2010 Democratic Senate nominee Robin Carnahan.

    For daily news and updates on the U.S. Senate races around the country, regularly read Senate Guru.

    There's more...

  • Diaries

    Advertise Blogads