Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings

[guitarfool2002]

Nice try. Try harder.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Nice try. Try harder.

No, seriously. It's valid to call out hypocrisy unless it's your own? Is that what you are suggesting?

[guitarfool2002]

It's valid for anyone to call out hypocrisy when they see it, and to use that hypocrisy displayed by the likes of Bloomberg, Buffett, Al Gore, Romney, etc. to question any moral authority or "bully pulpit" they may try to assume when advocating public policy which has direct consequences on private lives. Or specifically, when they advocate a law or a regulation or a ban which may directly affect your life in some way while continuing to do the very same thing they advocate against in public in order to protect or enrich themselves or their own families.

Perfectly valid. And applicable to Bloomberg and Rosie regarding their anti-gun advocacy, in my opinion.

[guitarfool2002]

And just so the main topic of my post doesn't get lost in a sea of debating the nature of judging hypocrisy, I suppose it's easier to do that than confront the actual points being made, I'll bump it to the top of the page, free of charge.

(Special notice: If you live in New York City, you may want to check on Bloomberg's city tax codes to see if you'll owe anything as the recipient of this gift...) 

Interesting points all around.

I need to mention something which is the core of some thoughts I added to the Depardieu tax thread this week.

Hypocrisy.

I think there is something valid which can be nuanced out of what TRBB posted. Taking it to a level where we can discuss actual people doing actual things rather than a concept named "government", which can be used to represent many things, can we look at a few like Mayor Bloomberg in New York?

I heard someone mention this the other day: If Bloomberg were standing strong on his convictions, why does he not remove the guns from his armed bodyguards? That person's belief was that in theory, Bloomberg saying what he says about guns in private hands while arming his own security details might suggest Bloomberg feels he as a person is more important or more worthy of protection than the average resident of New York whose legal right to own a gun for protection might be questioned.

I personally feel that theory isn't realistic or logical, but it does hit on some very important questions which people have a right to ask. Bloomberg invites a lot of these questions on himself by promoting himself as he has done, as some kind of a moral authority who seeks to "regulate" behaviors, people, or activities which *he* feels would make the lives of the general public in New York City somehow better.

Witness his absurd high per-pack taxes on cigarettes, his banning of large sodas, his regulations on how and where restaurants in NYC need to list menu items, his recent attempts to gather groups of city workers and agents into a "task force" in order to eventually eliminate someone's right to smoke in their own apartment, etc. One of his key issues is in fact gun control, and it's difficult not to think he feels someone who owns a gun legally and is responsible in doing so is morally equivalent to those criminals who own guns illegally and use those guns to commit crimes.

So if someone were to ask him "Mr. Mayor, would you advocate the same gun regulations on your staff and your security as you would advocate for the general public?", it would be a fair question. And in doing so, is he placing his own self-worth and value as a person above that of the average NYC resident, and suggesting using guns for protection or having those around you protect you by the use of firearms...as a deterrent and as a means of reacting to an immediate threat...is a right more deserving of those in government than the public at large?

I can think of one example that got me thinking about these issues years ago, and it came from listening to the Howard Stern show in the 80's and 90's. Rosie O'Donnell was a major gun control advocate and outspoken de facto public spokesperson of the movement at that time. She was involved in the "Million Mom March" which was advocating strict gun laws, and she was also seen a public rallies and protests at various corporate offices and locations for companies like K-Mart, whose store policies on selling ammunition were being called out.

Then on Stern's show one day - and he may have gotten this info elsewhere - they revealed that Rosie is going around making this much noise against guns and advocating more regulations against legal guns while employing the services of an *armed bodyguard* whose daily job involved carrying a firearm as both a deterrent and protection for her family.

The case was made, even beyond the apparent hypocrisy of the situation, did Rosie genuinely feel that she had more of a right to armed protection than a citizen who might be affected in his or her own right to that same protection if the kinds of laws O'Donnell and the groups she was working with and for were advocating?

Same with the dust-up Bob Costas stepped into when making a commentary on guns during an Eagles football game televised nationally in the wake of a murder-suicide carried out with a gun by an NFL player. Some of the reactions from athletes themselves - including Charles Barkley - was "Yeah, but...you know many if not most of us carry or own guns for protection..." or some variation of that sentiment. I don't know if any prominent stars actually came out and said it, but the sentiment to Costas seemed to hint at avoiding a case of hypocrisy when the sports world he inhabits with very high-paid athletes actively uses guns and armed security for personal protection.

It's a tough call, I know where I stand and the notion of calling out hypocrisy is one which I use often in forming opinions on politics and world affairs (that list could be very long, if not impossible...), but I would ask what other opinions may be there in terms of those strong gun control advocates like Bloomberg and O'Donnell saying one thing is in the common good, yet employing versions of that very same thing they suggest isn't good for the common good in the cause of their own personal safety.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It's valid for anyone to call out hypocrisy when they see it, and to use that hypocrisy displayed by the likes of Bloomberg, Buffett, Al Gore, Romney, etc. to question any moral authority or "bully pulpit" they may try to assume when advocating public policy which has direct consequences on private lives. Or specifically, when they advocate a law or a regulation or a ban which may directly affect your life in some way while continuing to do the very same thing they advocate against in public in order to protect or enrich themselves or their own families.

Perfectly valid. And applicable to Bloomberg and Rosie regarding their anti-gun advocacy, in my opinion.

In that case I'm calling you out on your own hypocrisy since you have previously suggested than an "appeal to hypoocrisy" is an invalid argument, quoting from the definition that "a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position." However, at that point, the "position" in question was your own, not one you disagreed with.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14738.msg336873.html#msg336873

[guitarfool2002]

It's valid for anyone to call out hypocrisy when they see it, and to use that hypocrisy displayed by the likes of Bloomberg, Buffett, Al Gore, Romney, etc. to question any moral authority or "bully pulpit" they may try to assume when advocating public policy which has direct consequences on private lives. Or specifically, when they advocate a law or a regulation or a ban which may directly affect your life in some way while continuing to do the very same thing they advocate against in public in order to protect or enrich themselves or their own families.

Perfectly valid. And applicable to Bloomberg and Rosie regarding their anti-gun advocacy, in my opinion.

In that case I'm calling you out on your own hypocrisy since you have previously suggested than an "appeal to hypoocrisy" is an invalid argument, quoting from the definition that "a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position."

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14738.msg336873.html#msg336873

Now you're just grasping at straws, and in the process holding nothing. And still not directly addressing the main points...are they hitting too close to the bone, or touching on issues that may jeopardize some position which is crucial to the overall issue? Interesting.

As far as hypocrisy, Buffett calling on people to pay higher taxes or their "fair share" of taxes while employing teams of lawyers to find creative ways to lower his own taxes is blatant hypocrisy. As a taxpayer I will always shine the flashlight on that brand of political bullshit.

Al Gore - enough said
Romney - ditto.

Bloomberg - You find *nothing at all* hypocritical about a man advocating strict gun laws which potentially could directly affect a citizen's right in New York to legally carry a sidearm for personal protection while the Mayor himself navigates the same city flanked by a team of armed guards?

It's akin to the smoking issue: A smoker saying smoking is unhealthy and suggesting other smokers quit is different than that same smoker being a public or government official who would create a law or regulation designed to punish smokers while he himself continues to smoke. Or how about a hypothetical prosecuting attorney in a county who is known for throwing the book at people busted with marijuana while he actively takes bong hits in his own home?

We're talking about the difference between people who potentially have the power and ability as government officials to enact laws versus private citizens who elect and pay these people. In that case, I admit the examples of Rosie O'Donnell falls short as a result, because ultimately as an entertainer with a bullhorn at Million Mom rallies, she has no real power to affect change as Bloomberg holds as mayor.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It's valid for anyone to call out hypocrisy when they see it, and to use that hypocrisy displayed by the likes of Bloomberg, Buffett, Al Gore, Romney, etc. to question any moral authority or "bully pulpit" they may try to assume when advocating public policy which has direct consequences on private lives. Or specifically, when they advocate a law or a regulation or a ban which may directly affect your life in some way while continuing to do the very same thing they advocate against in public in order to protect or enrich themselves or their own families.

Perfectly valid. And applicable to Bloomberg and Rosie regarding their anti-gun advocacy, in my opinion.

In that case I'm calling you out on your own hypocrisy since you have previously suggested than an "appeal to hypoocrisy" is an invalid argument, quoting from the definition that "a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position."

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14738.msg336873.html#msg336873

Now you're just grasping at straws, and in the process holding nothing. And still not directly addressing the main points...are they hitting too close to the bone, or touching on issues that may jeopardize some position which is crucial to the overall issue? Interesting.

No, I am suggesting that it is impossible to have an honest conversation with someone who clearly attempts to have it both ways. You insist that we must address the issue of hypocrisy if we are going to have a conversation about gun control (to the extent that you entirely re-paste your point) but when you perceive that someone is calling out your own hypocrisy you argue that appeals to hypocrisy are illegitimate, citing "tu quoque" as a logical fallacy and presenting a quotation which stated that "a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position."  

Whether I find "*nothing at all* hypocritical about a man advocating strict gun laws" is hardly the point since the tu quoque fallacy that you previously held dear de-legitimizes arguments that make an appeal to hypocrisy. So when one allegedly "appeals to hypocrisy" when critiquing your argument, it's illegitimate, but when an appeal to hypocrisy bolsters your argument, it is "perfectly valid." Well, that's just having it both ways and it seems to me pretty clear that you will simply say anything to win an argument or to avoid looking like you are losing an argument even if that means insisting that we apply standards to others that you refuse for yourself. And I suppose this is why you are now trying to suggest that I'm "grasping at straws" since I'm calling out a very irrefutable example of your own hypocrisy (unfortunately, at this point, you are unable to drop the ol' tu quoque like you did the last time, given the very nature of the discussion).

[guitarfool2002]

No, the reality of this is that whenever a more involved opinion piece is posted here that goes more in-depth than the usual reactionary flame-throwing two-sentence insult posts, and would serve to effectively present points which could contradict in some people's minds the kind of ideology and philosophy that you seek to convince others to agree or find solidarity with you on those points, you instead counter with personal throw-downs designed to turn the debate into a challenge to the validity of that person disagreeing rather than confront those points offered which counter your own philosophy or opinions on the matter.

I wasn't even going to engage you at all in any discussions, honestly it's Christmas and I didn't want to go negative at all. But your unwillingness to do anything but seek to go after the person posting what challenges your opinions instead of addressing the opinions themselves is why I will no longer engage in direct politically charged debates with or about you unless my name is directly mentioned.

I tried to be civil and nice about it by not engaging, and tried to sit it out, but to be honest, your schtick has grown too old at this point. A debate on the issues is one thing - don't go around re-posting a litany of perceived insults other posters had made, don't go around asking that threads be locked, don't go around offering yourself as a martyr when you turn a debate about gun control laws and my pointing out the hypocrisy of public officials and "entertainers" into a challenge of my own hypocrisy, according to what must be your very high standards for judging such things.

f*** this sh*t, it's Christmas and I'm going to be happy. Taking a cue from the RockAndRoll playbook of political opinion, the interaction ends here, I will continue to actively debate and discuss but will no longer personally respond to your posts. I'm happier that way.

If you want to question someone's character and their ability to call out hypocrisy, at this point I'd suggest buying a full-length mirror and staring at it. You could be using your abilities with the written word to do much more satisfying things than trying to win political arguments by trying to make others who disagree with you look inferior.

Good day, sir.

[Paulos]

Quite surprised that no-one has posted anything about the NRA press conference today, armed police officers in every school, what a great idea! I think I prefer the Gun Owners Of America's idea of having armed teachers a little more though.

My personal preference would to have one of these in each class room in every school in the US.

[SMiLE Brian]

An ED-209 in every school. A way better idea than that "other" robocop option.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The most interesting news that I discovered today was a page of research summaries challenging the idea that an armed populace is an effective deterrent to violent crime. Turns out, many people who claim to have used guns in self defense pull them out in illegal and undesirable situations, and guns in a home are more likely to be used to intimidate family members than to defend against intruders.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

[Bean Bag]

Quite surprised that no-one has posted anything about the NRA press conference today, armed police officers in every school, what a great idea! I think I prefer the Gun Owners Of America's idea of having armed teachers a little more though.

My personal preference would to have one of these in each class room in every school in the US.

I know you're being sarcastic, but yeah.  I mean... that's really where we're at guys.  GuitarFool's Point nails it -- Bloomberg's armed.  Isn't he?  Guys?  Is Bloomberg armed?  Yes.

Is it overkill to arm every school?  Probably... sure, but they're getting more heat than Michael-f**kin-Bloomberg is.  Am I missing something?  Are my pants on backwards?  Perhaps the media should be asking if Bloomberg needs armed guards -- not the schools.  The media should be asking if Obama really needs that stupid suped-up bullet-proof Cadillaic.  F**k no.  No one gives a sh*t about Obama!!  Are you kidding me?!!!  He's useless!!



I wouldn't be laughing at the NRA's obvious conclusion that the schools need to arm.  Sh*t, I want a tank in front of every school.  That's how I roll.  That's the folks I want to protect.  Because the last time I checked, Sand Hook was a school. not a politician.  Give me tanks.  Just because something sounds crazy ...perhaps, maybe it's because the situation is crazy.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Agreed.

We have tons of cops in this country with tons of guns pulling over unarmed black people and Hispanics who've done nothing wrong and pumping hails of bullets into them. Why don't we park some of these assholes in front of schools? I mean, it's not just mad shooters who are a threat to schools. It's drive-by shooters, perverts, flashers, kidnappers, drunken abusive divorced parents coming to kidnap their own kids. So, big deal if a few cops get paid to sit on their fat asses and eat donuts all day in front of a school

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Agreed.

We have tons of cops in this country with tons of guns pulling over unarmed black people and Hispanics who've done nothing wrong and pumping hails of bullets into them. Why don't we park some of these assholes in front of schools? I mean, it's not just mad shooters who are a threat to schools. It's drive-by shooters, perverts, flashers, kidnappers, drunken abusive divorced parents coming to kidnap their own kids. So, big deal if a few cops get paid to sit on their fat asses and eat donuts all day in front of a school

I can understand your point but I feel like when placing schools under constant police surveillance appears like a good idea that that suggests just how deep the problems really run.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

But there are two things that need to be done when disaster strikes. There is calming down the ensuing paranoia/panic by doing....... something..... Whatever this something is tends to get heavily politicized by both sides and some good ideas tend to get either insanely embraced by some and the insanely fought off others.... There should always be a short term response while the bigger picture is worked out.... Too often, like right now, we just fight and fight amongst ourselves. Meanwhile, the gun manufacturers just get richer and our kids are no safer....If parents and gun freaks are happy some cops patrol schools or whatever, I can't see it hurting. It's better than some armed yahoo militia doing it..... My high school was on lock down back in the late 80's in case we got bold and wandered to 7-11 during break or lunch. They had these 7ft tall local college basketball guys n gals who would chase you down and get you in a headlock and drag you to the principle's office (not kidding) .... The world is sadly not free......

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But there are two things that need to be done when disaster strikes. There is calming down the ensuing paranoia/panic by doing....... something..... Whatever this something is tends to get heavily politicized by both sides and some good ideas tend to get either insanely embraced by some and the insanely fought off others.... There should always be a short term response while the bigger picture is worked out.... Too often, like right now, we just fight and fight amongst ourselves. Meanwhile, the gun manufacturers just get richer and our kids are no safer....If parents and gun freaks are happy some cops patrol schools or whatever, I can't see it hurting. It's better than some armed yahoo militia doing it..... My high school was on lock down back in the late 80's in case we got bold and wandered to 7-11 during break or lunch. They had these 7ft tall local college basketball guys n gals who would chase you down and get you in a headlock and drag you to the principle's office (not kidding) .... The world is sadly not free......

I agree that something should be done, even if it is a short term solution. Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about keeping "gun freaks" happy. Even before this tragedy, they had no credible position.

[Dunderhead]

A. Many high schools already have a permanent police presence. It's nothing new.
B. Enforcing sweeping gun reform would require a greater enlargement of police powers than that.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A. Many high schools already have a permanent police presence. It's nothing new.

Whether or not it is new doesn't make the idea any less stupid.

B. Enforcing sweeping gun reform would require a greater enlargement of police powers than that.

Not necessarily. As David Frum recently pointed out, if you're going to arm police at schools, you could likewise justify placing federal agents at rural churches, nail parlors, bus stations, brothels, casinos, parking lots, grocery stores, dental clinics, dog groomers, strip clubs, public swimming pools, gas stations, taxi cabs, zoos, libraries, etc. What gun reform would be doing ultiamtely would be saving lives including those who are outside of schools, without placing constant police presence in every area where shootings have occurred.

[rab2591]

Agreed.

We have tons of cops in this country with tons of guns pulling over unarmed black people and Hispanics who've done nothing wrong and pumping hails of bullets into them. Why don't we park some of these assholes in front of schools? I mean, it's not just mad shooters who are a threat to schools. It's drive-by shooters, perverts, flashers, kidnappers, drunken abusive divorced parents coming to kidnap their own kids. So, big deal if a few cops get paid to sit on their fat asses and eat donuts all day in front of a school

I can understand your point but I feel like when placing schools under constant police surveillance appears like a good idea that that suggests just how deep the problems really run.

Wait, don't most schools have an armed officer already?

I went to a fairly poor, almost backcountry school, and we had a designated resource officer who carried around a piece (he was a real nice guy who would help you if you were lost, break up nasty brawls in the cafeteria, kick smokers out of the bathroom, etc). Seems like all the schools in my area have this. Besides, I really don't see the problem with an officer guarding every school...as our resource officer proved: they don't just sit around and eat donuts all day.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Agreed.

We have tons of cops in this country with tons of guns pulling over unarmed black people and Hispanics who've done nothing wrong and pumping hails of bullets into them. Why don't we park some of these assholes in front of schools? I mean, it's not just mad shooters who are a threat to schools. It's drive-by shooters, perverts, flashers, kidnappers, drunken abusive divorced parents coming to kidnap their own kids. So, big deal if a few cops get paid to sit on their fat asses and eat donuts all day in front of a school

I can understand your point but I feel like when placing schools under constant police surveillance appears like a good idea that that suggests just how deep the problems really run.

Wait, don't most schools have an armed officer already?

I went to a fairly poor, almost backcountry school, and we had a designated resource officer who carried around a piece (he was a real nice guy who would help you if you were lost, break up nasty brawls in the cafeteria, kick smokers out of the bathroom, etc). Seems like all the schools in my area have this. Besides, I really don't see the problem with an officer guarding every school...as our resource officer proved: they don't just sit around and eat donuts all day.

I'm not from the States - I've never heard of such a thing and quite frankly find it tragic that anyone considers it the norm or even considers that it should be the norm.

[Dunderhead]

I find it weird that neither you nor hypehat are from America yet have so much to say about it.

Having armed officers in school is very normal, to call it tragic is a little bit of an overstatement considering they serve very little purpose. They mostly give anti-drug talks and focus most of their attention on the at-risk students who are getting into criminal activities early on.

[Dunderhead]

This is really what I was talking about though. Our schools are slowly but surely turning into prisons or at least pipelines that funnel young people into the prison system. Again, it seems like a better solution would be to loosen our grip on education and deemphasize the current compulsory, universal model.

[rab2591]

Agreed.

We have tons of cops in this country with tons of guns pulling over unarmed black people and Hispanics who've done nothing wrong and pumping hails of bullets into them. Why don't we park some of these assholes in front of schools? I mean, it's not just mad shooters who are a threat to schools. It's drive-by shooters, perverts, flashers, kidnappers, drunken abusive divorced parents coming to kidnap their own kids. So, big deal if a few cops get paid to sit on their fat asses and eat donuts all day in front of a school

I can understand your point but I feel like when placing schools under constant police surveillance appears like a good idea that that suggests just how deep the problems really run.

Wait, don't most schools have an armed officer already?

I went to a fairly poor, almost backcountry school, and we had a designated resource officer who carried around a piece (he was a real nice guy who would help you if you were lost, break up nasty brawls in the cafeteria, kick smokers out of the bathroom, etc). Seems like all the schools in my area have this. Besides, I really don't see the problem with an officer guarding every school...as our resource officer proved: they don't just sit around and eat donuts all day.

I'm not from the States - I've never heard of such a thing and quite frankly find it tragic that anyone considers it the norm or even considers that it should be the norm.

I 100% agree with you there.

I'll also say this: Teachers think of these resource officers as a blessing for basically one reason alone: they are trained and equipped to break up fights (I've witnessed fights in school hallways where blood was in pools across the floor - and our school was one of the least violent in the area ). Teachers are afraid to break up fights lest it turn into a lawsuit (happened to a friend of mine who is a teacher), they're also afraid for their lives (I've seen teachers being picked up and slammed into walls by fellow students during fights). Thus they are more at ease knowing there's a resource officer is standing by to quickly diffuse any fight. It's sad it has to be this way, but it is.

I hate seeing more policing and more government spending, so it is tragic when I feel more policing and more spending is necessary to keep our schools safe.

The root of the problem varies from racism, jealousy (about relationships/flings), to drugs, bullying, lack of direction, poor education, etc. Find the solution to those problems and your level of homicides (and even school brawls) around the world will drop immensely, methinks.

@RockandRoll: What is your stance on gun laws in America? Do you think all guns should be outlawed for regular civilians? Do you support the use of hunting rifles? (apologies if you've answered this before).

[Jason]

I find it weird that neither you nor hypehat are from America yet have so much to say about it.

I guess that's what happens when you criticize socialized medicine.

[Jason]

I'll also say this: Teachers think of these resource officers as a blessing for basically one reason alone: they are trained and equipped to break up fights (I've witnessed fights in school hallways where blood was in pools across the floor - and our school was one of the least violent in the area ). Teachers are afraid to break up fights lest it turn into a lawsuit (happened to a friend of mine who is a teacher), they're also afraid for their lives (I've seen teachers being picked up and slammed into walls by fellow students during fights). Thus they are more at ease knowing there's a resource officer is standing by to quickly diffuse any fight. It's sad it has to be this way, but it is.

I hate seeing more policing and more government spending, so it is tragic when I feel more policing and more spending is necessary to keep our schools safe.

The root of the problem varies from racism, jealousy (about relationships/flings), to drugs, bullying, lack of direction, poor education, etc. Find the solution to those problems and your level of homicides (and even school brawls) around the world will drop immensely, methinks.

Honestly, I'd just let the morons fight and destroy each other. If they agree on it, what's the problem?