GeorgiaDon

And then what? There is no way he and his "base" would just accept that they lost again. If anything their response will be worse than it was last time.

"Threat", like "risk", includes both the probability of something happening and the consequences, if that something does actually happen. An event that is extremely unlikely, but catastrophic if it does happen, is a threat but maybe not a big one. For example eventually the sun will become a red giant, and the Earth will be incinerated, but the chance of that happening in the next 100 million years is indistinguishable from zero. An event that is likely to occur, or is actually occurring right now (as in the case of climate change), can be more of a threat even if the consequences are less dire than incinerating the planet. The question is, I suppose, how likely do you think it is that a nuclear war will happen?

A woman was visiting El Paso TX and called for an Uber to take her to a casino to meet with her boyfriend. Along the way she saw a road sign for an upcoming exit to Juarez, Mexico. She immediately assumed she was being kidnapped and taken to Mexico, so she pulled out a handgun and shot the driver in the back of the head, killing him. The road they were driving on was, in fact, the correct route between her hotel and the casino, and they were nowhere near the actual border. Oh well, nobody's perfect. Can't have the 2nd amendment without breaking a few eggs after all.

IOW pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Too bad more than 300 years of institutional racism (slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, etc) has left you without bootstraps. Sucks to be you I guess.

I heard an interesting example on NPR yesterday. Imagine two businesses. One has a sign on the door that says "No blacks allowed". The other has a sign that says "Black people welcome". Both signs mention race. Are they both racist? The conservatives on the SC seem to think so.

Lincoln campaigned on a policy that all new states admitted to the union had to be non-slavery states. At the time of Lincoln's election the senate was evenly divided between slave and non-slave states so Congress was unable to pass anti-slavery legislation. However that was certain to change if Lincoln could implement his anti-slavery policy for new states, as several territories were moving towards statehood. For that reason the slave states saw Lincoln's election as a grave threat to the long-term, or even relatively short-term viability of slavery in the US.

Are you aware that the "fetal heartbeat" is not a real heartbeat produced by heart valves opening and closing, such as the sound you hear with a stethoscope? It is an artificial sound generated by the ultrasound machine in response to electrical activity in cells that will only later develop into a functional heart. An actual heartbeat can be heard much later in gestation, around the time limit previously enforced under R v W law. The so-called "fetal heartbeat" is usually detected at around 6 weeks gestation. Many women are not aware they are pregnant at that point. They often notice a missed period, which will be at around 4 weeks, if their periods are regular. If they are irregular they may not be aware their period is overdue until later that that. Under most circumstances women will have a week or two to confirm the pregnancy, make a decision, and if they choose try to arrange an abortion. Many states have laws that require multiple doctor's visits before an appointment can be made. In short, fetal heartbeat bills are a de facto abortion ban. Does having a heartbeat mean life must be preserved at all costs? Is a heartbeat more important than brain activity? If a patient is irreversibly brain dead but still has a heartbeat, must artificial means be used to keep that patient alive indefinitely?

I wonder if his NY properties can be seized if he doesn't pay up?

Yes it is. Where does that get us? How many paranoid people are likely to see medical care for their paranoia? As a ball-park estimate, I would say none. If you are paranoid, are you going to trust a doctor, or anyone, who tells you you have a problem? OK, but maybe family, friends, or coworkers will make the mentally ill person get treatment? In the USA that cannot be done. You can't force anyone to get treatment against their will, unless you are willing to sign an affidavit that the person is an immediate danger to themselves or others. That affidavit requires proof that the subject did or said something that establishes that there is no alternative besides incarceration in a mental hospital to keep them from killing themselves or others. Now they are at the tender mercies of the judicial system, and are certain to suffer lifelong problems with employment, finding housing, etc. because they now have involuntary commitment to a mental facility on their record. Very few people are willing to do that to a family member, close friend, or coworker. I found this out from personal experience when I had an employee who showed all the symptoms of being a paranoid schizophrenic, They were not in any way violent, just the kind of person who took all the batteries out of smoke detectors in their apartment because they were certain they were cameras and microphones. I felt badly for them because their illness was messing up their life, they had no friends or romantic partners because people were scared away as soon as the paranoia came out. But as an employer/friend there was nothing I could do except talk to them, which ruined our relationship. Because paranoia. The mental health issue is real, but a distraction at the same time. No-one is kept from buying guns due to mental illness until they commit a violent crime, by which time you already have victims. The alternative is to force people to undergo diagnosis and treatment against their will. In what way is that to be preferred over background checks, waiting periods, age restrictions (21) before being able to buy military type weapons, or restrictions on magazine capacity? As it is we have the worse of all combinations: anybody (even paranoid, excessively angry, or delusional people) can buy whatever they want in the way of guns, and nobody can force them into treatment until they kill a bunch of people. Yay!!

I think there are a number of ways to be "racist". The most obvious of course is to overtly make and act on negative assumptions about people based on their pigmentation, hair texture, eye folds etc. I'm sure such people still exist, but they are probably diminishing or at least getting better about "passing" as not racist. Another way is to support policies and practices that have an adverse impact on other people in a way that correlates with race. For example, almost all school districts in the US are supported by local school taxes, which depend on local property values. Wealth, including property values, has become a great proxy for race, which I commented on the the parallel thread "What is Anti-Woke". For example redlining confined home ownership for non-whites to neighborhoods with low property values. The practice was outlawed only in 1968, but it continued unofficially for years, and formerly redlined neighborhoods are still to this day marked by disproportionately low property values and high minority ownership. Because school taxes are tied to property values, schools in most areas with high minority (especially black) populations are very limited in their resources, compared to schools in primarily white neighborhoods. Low resources means crappy science labs, larger class sizes, fewer electives, etc. How could this be corrected? Perhaps school taxes could be collected by the state and shared equally across school districts, so each district gets the same amount of money per student? What do you think happens whenever something of the sort is proposed? Richer property owners get up in arms, outraged that their tax dollars would go to kids in other school districts. So, even though they would not say racist things to your face, they strongly support a school system that directs more resources to their own race. Same thing with trying to limit political rights. They don't have to say the racist part out loud, but making it harder for people in large cities to vote compared to rural people gets the job done. At least they don't burn crosses any more.

It is a fact that slavery was legal in much of the country for centuries, and it is a fact that the white population of the former Confederate states reacted to the liberation of the former slaves by enacting draconian Jim Crow laws to limit the freedom, political power, and economic prospects of the non-white (and especially the black) segment of the population. It is a fact that segregation in education, redlining, and similar practices ensured that black families were greatly limited in their ability to accumulate and pass on generational wealth. I was shocked, and revolted, to learn how after the Civil War the former Confederate States replaced slavery with a prisonocracy that was in many ways even worse, because no-one had a financial stake in black people, making them even more disposable to their white masters. It is a fact that black veterans returning from WWII and the Korean War were denied the benefits of the GI Bill, benefits that contributed dramatically to the economic fortunes of white veterans. Redlining was officially abolished by the Fair Housing Act in 1968, but it persisted unofficially for years and the practice still has marked consequences today. Properties in formerly redlined neighborhoods are still worth less than former whites-only neighborhoods, and their populations are still disproportionately non-white. In the US, in 2019, black families on average had only 14.5 percent of the wealth of white households, with an absolute dollar gap of $838,220. If we cannot teach all children about these facts of American history, what are they to make of the current state of black vs white economic success? If we cannot teach them about the historical basis for the situation, what are they to conclude? That black people are, on average, poorer than whites because, well, what exactly? They aren't as smart? They are lazy? Fuck that noise! They are poorer because white people stole their labor for centuries, then stepped on them and denied them almost every possible avenue to success. WWI wasn't ages ago, there are still people alive who fought in WWII. 1968 isn't so long ago, I was alive in 1968 (though too young to be buying a house). Teach students what really happened to make this country what it is. That doesn't mean teaching them to be ashamed of their own personal behavior, but maybe they should be ashamed of their ancestors if they are white. If they are black, or native American, or other non-white ethnicity, they should be allowed to know what their ancestors had to struggle against to gain whatever wealth they were able to build. When young people, who will build the future, are allowed to know what really happened and the consequences of that, perhaps they will better understand what it takes to build a society where people really have equal opportunity.

I think you have misunderstood my comment 180 degrees. Think about anti-Woke and what it means.

Anti-Woke is also the proposition that history, even history recent enough to be within the memory of people still alive, has absolutely no impact, good or bad, on anyone anywhere today. Additionally, anti-Woke is the proposition that any statement that history has an impact on people's lives today is un-American and must be censored at a minimum, and ideally punished.

According to a news article, the shooter's wife was friendly with the women he killed. The shooter had been over to the house at least a few times socially and was friendly. He even helped to take down some trees. So, at least not consistently psycho. Maybe mostly when he had been drinking, as he was on the night of the shooting? Anyway I think that's all part of the problem with the "mental health" argument. Most of these murderers are likely to be perfectly normal most of the time, up until the point where something sets them off. They would be easier to recognize as a threat if they were insane all the time, not just at sporadic intervals.

While I completely agree about the importance of improving access to, and de-stigmatizing mental health care, I am very skeptical that it will make much difference regarding mass shootings and other aspects of "gun violence". Most people who suffer from mental illness are not aware of their illness, or are in denial about it. Only a small fraction seek care of their own volition. I found out from personal experience that it is basically impossible to force treatment on someone who does not want it. I also found out, in another instance, that the wait time to get an appointment is months or longer. The only way to get around these barriers and delays is for the patient to commit a violent crime. Of course then you have victims, and the mentally ill person is now in the hands of the criminal justice system that does not do a good job of treating people as patients that need care. Especially when it comes to the sort of people who are inclined to use firearms to commit violent acts, I think it is very unlikely that they will see themselves as having a problem needing medical care. They are aggrieved, easily angered, paranoid, and fully convinced that they are right and everyone else is out to get them. Basically perfect customers for the firearms sales industry. In a society that strongly values medical privacy, the right to choose or reject medical treatment (excepting reproductive rights for women of course), and the right to own any kind of firearm you might desire, the pairing of extreme anger/paranoia with lethal weaponry is inevitable and unavoidable.

A former friend, who happened to be a police officer, used to think it was funny when his neighbors complained about him target shooting in his back yard after 10 or 11 PM. He had the same attitude as the gunman in Texas, I can do whatever the hell I want on my own property. They neighbors soon learned the value of calling the cops about another cop. Mostly when they showed up they would fire off a few rounds too. BTW he's a former friend because he went full MAGA/Q and filled his facebook page with the most vile anti-immigrant crap and conspiracy theory bullshit. It got personal, in part because I am an immigrant, although apparently that's OK in my case because Canadians are almost like Americans.

Perhaps president of Russia?

So are you saying Trump is bipolar? That might explain some things.

Kind of makes me wonder why there are any Mormon missionaries or Jehovah's Witness types around any more. Or maybe that's why none of them have knocked on my door recently.

Impressive, considering she already has a PhD in Microbiology. She invented the Peach Tree Dish. That's one smart cookie!

Really, though, the combination of so many people being armed together with the culture of fear (crime is out of control!!) pushed by the NRA and their political sycophants ensures that such incidents will be more and more common. Then, stand your ground laws will ensure that these incidents will be chalked up to "shit happens" and no-one will be held to account. If by some mistake the killer is actually convicted then right-wing fanatics will scream and holler until the governor steps in and corrects the error, as long as the victim is black or affiliated with black causes such as BLM.

Apparently the shooter is 80 years old. Makes me wonder if some dementia may be at play. Not that dementia is any reason to take away someone's guns according to republicans and the NRA.

Discovery should be very interesting. Doesn't suing your lawyer mean all those attorney/client communications have to be disclosed? Trump is an idiot.

I'm a little surprised some of those Republican governors haven't responded by raising the threshold for mass shootings to, say 20 dead victims. That'll do a lot to reduce the number of mass shootings. Anyone who disagrees will just be labeled "woke" and run out of the state. QED!

What about putting more weight on the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd, which currently seems to be completely ignored? For example owning military style weapons could automatically enroll a person in the state national guard, with a requirement for one weekend a month in training or service. If an owner was obviously unhinged their superior officers could limit their access to weapons, or authorize military police to examine their social media posts for evidence of planning criminal activity. It would be politically extremely challenging to get this enacted, but maybe not quite as impossible as repealing or drastically modifying the 2nd. After all the language is already there, it would "just" be a matter of interpreting the meaning.