So, now we get into "the plan"...or the suggestions that won't make a difference. Let's begin:
1. Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun.
I am unaware of any state that does not require this on all licensed gun dealers. One cannot buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. Some control freaks think they can somehow legislate that Frank can't sell his shotgun to brother Bob or best friend Phil without putting them through a background check. The problems with this have been discussed many times over the years. They include the obvious...that most criminals won't waste their time trying to buy a gun through licensed dealers...as well as the not so obvious. An example would be that while there have been attempts by criminals thwarted by background checks, there have also been law-abiding citizens denied due to similarities in their names or personal info to criminals, much in the way some have ended up unjustly on "no fly" lists, making them subject to having their right to bear infringed. Not good.
But again, I am unaware of any state or municipality in this country that does not have some form of background check in place.
2. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults.
Are all "violent misdemeanors" and "domestic assaults" created equal? A bar fight is a violent misdemeanor. If feo's wife kicks his ass again, should she be denied? (I'm assuming he really does have a wife like he says he does...as doubtful as that sounds) These are vague terms indeed and require specific definition, without which they'd never stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. A fight of any kind...bar fight, smacking a spouse...does not equate to a murderous character, nor even that such a person totally lacks self-control. It's an idiotic suggestion without more detail as to how it would be defined and administered. It is a suggestion that simply seeks to ban firearms.
3. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
stalking another person
This too is problematic from a Constitutional perspective, and also requires distinct defining. It assumes all who are accused of "stalking" has murderous intent, or even any attempt to harm at all. To be accused of stalking does not guarantee that the accuser isn't seeking to cause trouble for the accused. That is, how do we guarantee that the accused is a true threat to the accuser? Better would be to allow the accuser the right to carry a weapon for personal protection as the Constitution is supposed to guarantee.
Most stalking laws consist of two main aspects: threat of harm, emotional distress of the stalked. But when laws that result in orders of protection, or restraining orders as they are often called, are not ignored by the accused, why should the accused be denied the ability to carry a weapon for personal protection? The real problem comes from denying the stalked to arm up.
4. Requiring all gun owners to possess a license for their firearm.
Licensing is simply a registry of people as opposed to their weapons. Only three states require a license to own any kind of firearm, while New York has one for handguns only. This is how a government knows who to fear should it choose to act against its people. Just deal with every licensed gun owner first. In the meantime, how does feo plan to license the criminal element for the weapons they carry? This would have no effect on the criminal use of weapons, and indeed would increase it, as normally law-abiding citizens would be breaking the law if they don't acquire a license to own.
5. Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys
ammunition.
The same foolishness as checks for gun buyers. It's a backdoor to further confound those that are law-abiding as if the criminal element will comply. Stupidity at its finest, but no effect on gun crime.
6. Banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic
firearms.
This would result in the elimination of about 80% or more of the most popular weapons on the market for no rational reason. Fully automatic weapons are next to impossible for the average person to buy regardless of their law-abiding record. But as it happens, this ban was implemented for the same nonsensical reasons that feo types want to banish all other weapons. There was NO legitimate argument for doing so, but as it was only one type of weapon, there was little resistance. But at the time, there was not many instances of automatic weapons being used in crime, despite what the Roaring 20's gangster movies would suggest.
Semi-auto weapons are nowhere near as cool as fully auto, but they are not so much more devastating as single action weapons, particularly in the hands of a practiced shooter. Those who wish to ban semi-automatic weapons are those who don't know squat about them. And if one is under threat by a criminal type, the ease of use of a semi-auto weapon is a life-saver. This is a total infringement on the right to bear and will do little to reduce "gun violence".
7. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider.
Already in place pretty much everywhere, if not absolutely so.
8. Requiring all owners to report lost or stolen firearms.
The problem with this law should be obvious to normal people, but feo isn't one of them. He likely hasn't considered the consequences beyond the superficial benefit he thinks exists, or ignores those consequences in his bid to ban firearms altogether. The following fleshes out those problems:
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/06/02/problem-mandatory-reporting-missing-guns-laws/
It will solve nothing but feo's fear of law-abiding citizens.
9. Banning the sale and ownership of all ammunition magazines with a
capacity greater than 10 bullets.
This was covered in a video I posted in one of my previous posts dispelling feo's suggestions for the crap sandwiches they are. I'll add a link later, but one needn't travel back to far in time to find it. In short, it showed how little difference there was between using a 30 round magazine versus smaller sizes totaling the same amount of rounds. It demonstrated both an expert and a novice firing off various sizes for comparison, dropping empty mags and replacing with loaded mags and the difference was insignificant even for the novice shooter. It also staged a simulated attack by a potential victim who sought to subdue the shooter while changing mags. Also failed to convince. Magazine capacity is meaningless to one who seeks to do damage. This law would have no effect on gun violence, but would make self-defense more difficult.
10. Requiring that all firearms be recorded in a national registry.
Despotic governments LOVE this one. Only a complete idiot would suggest such a plan and feo is just the complete idiot to do so. What a buffoon!
That's all we have time for today, kids. I'll pick up where I left off later, and feo will just have to bite it until I'm finished before he'll have a chance to prove he's unworthy of being allowed to comment here. (He claims he's finished with me, but I doubt it.)
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Friday, December 27, 2019
Sidebar
Before I get into the list of "suggestions", I just have to post this laugher from the troll with my commentary in italics:
"Marshal, I have no respect left for you whatsoever.(This from a guy who's never demonstrated the least bit of respect for other blog visitors since he first darkened the blogosphere by his presence!) Sheer pity is all I have left.(I'll have to seek professional help to get over it, I'm sure!) That you are this committed to bare faced lies reveals the abyss of corruption you have crossed away from whatever substance of christian faith you have ever had into a false and wicked and brutal abuse of your own conscience.(Yada, yada, yada!) I am aware that fear is the deepest fuel of your identity.(I'm all a tremble!) A very trivial example is how you have posted four times on your own site over the last year on my plan for major reduction of gun violence. And yet still cannot honor your word to stop screening comments.(My "word" is of recent expression. That is, two posts ago. Until then, I had no intention of ever allowing a comment from this putz ever again, nor had I suggested I might without him finally producing his "plan". Now, I have yet to get to that point wherein I stated I would allow him. I'll post my condition later.) Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from affecting your ideas and anxious, porous defense of your posts. Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from describing your brutalizing habits and bad dishonest biblical knowledge both here at Dan's or at Craig's.(I'm well aware that you bore others at their blogs with the same crap that winds up in my spam folder.)
You have only deepened your daily practice of diversions, dodges, denials, prevarications, lies, corrupt myths, and bad faith.(Sez you.)
As such, you are poison to the practice of the love of Christ.(Sez the defender of sexual immorality and the murder of innocents.) And I am done with you.(How will I live with this on my conscience?)
I wish for you in 2020 a conversion; that you take up the journey of following the living Christ(Wow! That's exactly the prayer I've prayed for you from our first meeting on these here blogs! Cosmic!)
So here is what I said with regard to allowing comments by feo:
" Once I'm finished, I will then disable Comment Moderation (because it's a pain in the ass), and feo will have the opportunity to engage in civil discourse."
Here's a little hint, sad troll: I ain't finished.
"Marshal, I have no respect left for you whatsoever.(This from a guy who's never demonstrated the least bit of respect for other blog visitors since he first darkened the blogosphere by his presence!) Sheer pity is all I have left.(I'll have to seek professional help to get over it, I'm sure!) That you are this committed to bare faced lies reveals the abyss of corruption you have crossed away from whatever substance of christian faith you have ever had into a false and wicked and brutal abuse of your own conscience.(Yada, yada, yada!) I am aware that fear is the deepest fuel of your identity.(I'm all a tremble!) A very trivial example is how you have posted four times on your own site over the last year on my plan for major reduction of gun violence. And yet still cannot honor your word to stop screening comments.(My "word" is of recent expression. That is, two posts ago. Until then, I had no intention of ever allowing a comment from this putz ever again, nor had I suggested I might without him finally producing his "plan". Now, I have yet to get to that point wherein I stated I would allow him. I'll post my condition later.) Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from affecting your ideas and anxious, porous defense of your posts. Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from describing your brutalizing habits and bad dishonest biblical knowledge both here at Dan's or at Craig's.(I'm well aware that you bore others at their blogs with the same crap that winds up in my spam folder.)
You have only deepened your daily practice of diversions, dodges, denials, prevarications, lies, corrupt myths, and bad faith.(Sez you.)
As such, you are poison to the practice of the love of Christ.(Sez the defender of sexual immorality and the murder of innocents.) And I am done with you.(How will I live with this on my conscience?)
I wish for you in 2020 a conversion; that you take up the journey of following the living Christ(Wow! That's exactly the prayer I've prayed for you from our first meeting on these here blogs! Cosmic!)
So here is what I said with regard to allowing comments by feo:
" Once I'm finished, I will then disable Comment Moderation (because it's a pain in the ass), and feo will have the opportunity to engage in civil discourse."
Here's a little hint, sad troll: I ain't finished.
Sunday, December 08, 2019
Diving In To Find The Pearls
So, after having spent time responding to other nonsense from the king of nonsense, I now turn back to his "plan" to see how far I can get for this installment. I must first deal with a couple of statements that preceded his list of suggestions. The first is this:
"They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans."
Unfortunately, there is no data presented whatsoever. Nothing that ties any of the suggestions with any provable results...nor even implied results. Note the following:
"For our effectiveness survey, we asked experts in gun policy to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities."
Did you catch that? "According to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities." Are the opinions of these alleged "experts" supposed to satisfy an obligation to provide "data"? I suppose, since feo demanded Craig and I seek out the various bits of his plan to assemble it ourselves, we're to research who these "experts" are and then the various and sundry studies that somehow support the implementation of these many "effective" policies. That's not how it works. In my several posts dealing with feo's first listing of suggestions, I provided much more in the way of data, facts and evidence to show how impotent they are than the mere "thoughts" about probabilities of effectiveness. It's very much the way leftists speak of the next version of a failed socialist idea...there's no evidence that suggests it could possibly work. There's only their "opinion" or "thoughts" that it will. Not good enough to warrant infringing upon a clearly stated Constitutional right. Moving on...
"The key is that never have these policies been instituted in any one jurisdiction all at the same time. "
So what? Are we to assume that ineffective policies work better when combined with other ineffective policies? While I suppose that's possible for some policies, what does feo present to suggest it's at all possible with any of these? While I wouldn't say feo's list contains absolutely no policies that should be implemented (assuming those I have in mind aren't already implemented most everywhere), most are clearly absurd for the purpose of preventing or reducing murders or suicides and thus, their addition to any plan won't increase the plan's effectiveness one iota. I'll point out the absurd later on...
"Expectedly, the impact on gun violence of all of these 37 statistically effective policies would be impressive and save hundreds of thousands of live over a decade."
Oh look! There's absurdity right there! "Expectedly"? Based on what? This statement implies that ANY of the suggestions are "statistically effective", but no such stats are provided anywhere in feo's "plan". Again, are we supposed to seek them out ourselves? Is this how they taught students to put together and present a plan at the correspondence school from which feo got his diploma? The above is a wish and nothing more.
"For our measure of popularity, Morning Consult conducted an internet survey of 1,975 voters, who were asked whether they approved of the possible laws."
Absolutely useless for imposing an infringement on a Constitutional right. If the majority of those voters approved of reinstating slavery....
This is what passes for "data"?
"Special thanks to the Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association for distributing the survey to their membership."
I like this part. Those of us who actually read the article can see that the cops generally opposed most of these suggestions, particularly those that impacted the ability of the law abiding to possess and carry weapons. Far more compelling than the imaginings of "current or retired academics".
Next time I will examine the actual suggestions themselves.
"They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans."
Unfortunately, there is no data presented whatsoever. Nothing that ties any of the suggestions with any provable results...nor even implied results. Note the following:
"For our effectiveness survey, we asked experts in gun policy to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities."
Did you catch that? "According to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities." Are the opinions of these alleged "experts" supposed to satisfy an obligation to provide "data"? I suppose, since feo demanded Craig and I seek out the various bits of his plan to assemble it ourselves, we're to research who these "experts" are and then the various and sundry studies that somehow support the implementation of these many "effective" policies. That's not how it works. In my several posts dealing with feo's first listing of suggestions, I provided much more in the way of data, facts and evidence to show how impotent they are than the mere "thoughts" about probabilities of effectiveness. It's very much the way leftists speak of the next version of a failed socialist idea...there's no evidence that suggests it could possibly work. There's only their "opinion" or "thoughts" that it will. Not good enough to warrant infringing upon a clearly stated Constitutional right. Moving on...
"The key is that never have these policies been instituted in any one jurisdiction all at the same time. "
So what? Are we to assume that ineffective policies work better when combined with other ineffective policies? While I suppose that's possible for some policies, what does feo present to suggest it's at all possible with any of these? While I wouldn't say feo's list contains absolutely no policies that should be implemented (assuming those I have in mind aren't already implemented most everywhere), most are clearly absurd for the purpose of preventing or reducing murders or suicides and thus, their addition to any plan won't increase the plan's effectiveness one iota. I'll point out the absurd later on...
"Expectedly, the impact on gun violence of all of these 37 statistically effective policies would be impressive and save hundreds of thousands of live over a decade."
Oh look! There's absurdity right there! "Expectedly"? Based on what? This statement implies that ANY of the suggestions are "statistically effective", but no such stats are provided anywhere in feo's "plan". Again, are we supposed to seek them out ourselves? Is this how they taught students to put together and present a plan at the correspondence school from which feo got his diploma? The above is a wish and nothing more.
"For our measure of popularity, Morning Consult conducted an internet survey of 1,975 voters, who were asked whether they approved of the possible laws."
Absolutely useless for imposing an infringement on a Constitutional right. If the majority of those voters approved of reinstating slavery....
This is what passes for "data"?
"Special thanks to the Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association for distributing the survey to their membership."
I like this part. Those of us who actually read the article can see that the cops generally opposed most of these suggestions, particularly those that impacted the ability of the law abiding to possess and carry weapons. Far more compelling than the imaginings of "current or retired academics".
Next time I will examine the actual suggestions themselves.
Sunday, December 01, 2019
THE BIG DAY IS HERE!!!!
Well folks, the day has arrived. Today is when I post feo's "plan" for reducing gun violence. What will follow is something the troll posted at Dan's sometime, I think, in August and referenced in a more recent post. So I went back and looked for it and lo and behold! There it was! In all it's *gack* "glory".
So here's how it's going to go down: I'm going to post all of the comments that included this "plan", as well as following comments from feo (because he's just so funny) and then I will be making my comments on it. Much of what he proposes has been addressed in two previous posts of mine and I will likely refer to it to deal with specific suggestions...likely with a link or some such, but possibly with additional thoughts.
This may involve multiple posts to address it all and should it turn out that way, I will not be posting any comments until the entire "plan" is presented (with my attendant comments). It may be one post per week until the whole thing is presented, but I think I can get it done in three installments. We'll see. I'm just gonna wing it. Once I'm finished, I will then disable Comment Moderation (because it's a pain in the ass), and feo will have the opportunity to engage in civil discourse.
Did you read that part feo? "CIVIL" discourse! You clearly don't know what this means, so pay attention. Imagine you're ACTUALLY a Christian who lives to treat your worst enemy in the most Christian manner possible...with kindness, humility, graciousness, tolerance and absent any hint of your typical smarm, condescension, pretension and other acts of hatred and evil so common in your every comment. Yes, that means if everyone is acting towards you the way you act towards us as if you're getting paid for it, you will nonetheless do nothing in return but act as if you're an actual Christian...loving your enemies more than you clearly love yourself. Throughout this probationary period, it will be up to me and me alone to determine if you've acted according to these terms and letter of the law will be the law you will follow lest you immediately find your comments deleted and Comment Moderation enabled once again. Then, you will be back to trying to post your idiocy and having it end up in the spam folder to be deleted without being read. You will be the sweetest and most loving commentator or you will not comment at all. Period.
So, let's get on with it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan, here is the plan to markedly reduce deaths from guns that Marshal and Craig have gotten three times in the last year but claim they haven't gotten or didn't get in the right wary and won't share with each other. They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans. Clearly the reason they've lied as cowards.
At any rate, I'd love to hear your response to this proposal: listed in the next comment box are 27 gun control policies recommended by gun policy experts AND law enforcement officials that have been instituted somewhere in the US. Their statistical effect on reducing gun violence is given, followed by what % of Americans polled are on favor of that particular policy.
The key is that never have these policies been instituted in any one jurisdiction all at the same time. Expectedly, the impact on gun violence of all of these 37 statistically effective policies would be impressive and save hundreds of thousands of live over a decade.
To create this survey of effective policies, the NY Times "consulted the academic literature on laws from American states and foreign countries and spoke with advocates for gun rights and gun control. Both surveys were conducted in June of last year. For our measure of popularity, Morning Consult conducted an internet survey of 1,975 voters, who were asked whether they approved of the possible laws. For our effectiveness survey, we asked experts in gun policy to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities. We asked the experts to ignore considerations of political or legal feasibility.
Our expert panel consisted of 32 current or retired academics in criminology, public health and law, who have published extensively in peer-reviewed academic journals on gun policy...
Special thanks to the Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association for distributing the survey to their membership."
August 11, 2019 at 11:01 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
Policy % effectiveness in reducing gun violence % supported by Americans
- Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun. 7.3 86%
- Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults. 7.1 83%
- Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
stalking another person 6.5 85%
- Requiring all gun owners to possess a license for their firearm. 6.4 78%
- Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys
ammunition. 6.4 72%
- Banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic
firearms. 6.1 63%
- Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been reported as
dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider. 6.0 87%
- Requiring all owners to report lost or stolen firearms. 6.0 88%
- Banning the sale and ownership of all ammunition magazines with a
capacity greater than 10 bullets. 5.8 63%
- Requiring that all firearms be recorded in a national registry. 5.7 70%
- Expanding screening and treatment for the mentally ill. 5.6 86%
- Requiring that all gun buyers demonstrate a a ”genuine need” for a gun,
such as a law enforcement job or hunting. 5.6 49%
- Requiring all guns to microstamp each bullet with a mark that uniquely
matches the gun and bullet. 5.5 65%
- Increasing minimum penalties for people found possessing firearms
illegally. 5.4 80%
- Requiring gun dealers to keep, retain and report all gun records and sales
to the Federal government. 5.4 80%
- Banning the sale and ownership of assault rifles or similar firearms. 5.0 67%
- Requiring all gun owners to register their fingerprints. 5.0 72%
- Preventing sales of all firearms and ammunition to anyone considered
to be a “known or suspected terrorist” by the F.B.I. 4 89%
- Requiring a mandatory waiting period of three days after gun is purchased
before it can be taken home. 4.8 77%
- Limiting the number of guns that can be purchased to one per month. 4.8 67%
- Limiting the amount of ammunition you can purchase within a given time
period. 4.4 64%
- Requiring that all gun owners store their guns in a safe storage unit. 4.4 76%
- Banning firearms from all workplace settings nationally. 4.3 60%
- Requiring that gun buyers complete safety training and a test for their
specific firearm. 4.1 79%
- Implementing a national “buy-back” program for all banned firearms and
magazines, where the government pays people to turn in illegal guns. 3.9 74%
- Banning firearms from schools and college campuses nationally. 3.8 68%
- Requiring that all gun owners store their guns with childproof locks. 3.5 82%
August 11, 2019 at 11:03 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html
August 11, 2019 at 11:03 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
Marshal two days ago at Stan's blog: Maybe one day he'll send the plan. I thought with recent events we might see it (not really...he has no plan).
Craig, yesterday: Feo, posted his list of talking points again.
Marshal: He'll never provide his complete "plan"
Marshal: I just looked at Dan's blog... and saw feo's list. I'll have to peruse it for sure.... what he's posted seems smaller than what he's been saying he's provided us
Marshal and Craig just outed themselves as determined liars and corrupt Christians.
August 12, 2019 at 6:59 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
Dan, if you look at Marshal's lates post's comments you'll see two lying, corrupt Christians examining a plan they say isn't a plan and criticizing it without the guts to take on responses from the person who gave it to them while they keep saying he never did.
Their open lying should be clear to them. That it's not makes clear their moral corruption.
August 13, 2019 at 9:51 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
[Sorry, Dan, but I'm counting on you to keep this open reply to an not-open post of Craig's addressed to me but which blocks my participation:]
Fuck you, Craig. You and Marshal have had the plan for months. You wanted it but you two couldn't get it together and so refused to put the plan up on your blogs. You both have such a need to deny how ignorant and fearful you are that you both have dedicated yourselves to lies.
LIe 1. You never got it - but you've gotten it four times.
Lie 2. It's not a plan - it may not be a perfect plan but fuck you, what is a perfect plan?
Lie 3. There are no details - but you're already arguing with the details: See Marshal's blog.
Lie 4. It's up to me do anything - it's up to you and the other shallow fake to post the plan. Then we can hash out issues. Take care of your shit and stop being a deceitful coward.
Where's your plan? Oh, that's right. Your brilliant plan is more guns in more hands.
And what does ALL the research and all the data and all the math in the us and around the world say about more guns?
IN EVERY STUDY: THE MORE GUNS THE MORE DEATHS.
You have a whole hell of a lot of work to do to be a Christian who loves the living.
August 13, 2019 at 2:04 PM
Blogger Feodor said...
[Thnks, Dan, for your ever kind forbearance.]
Open and last comment to Marshal and Craig:
Marshal in the face of strong, reasoned opposition, you've turned into a corrupt Christian many years ago. Craig, you followed him in recent years. You both block data. You block facts. You even block definitions. You utilize fake, untrained, uneducated sources of information providers who really only provide cant.
You brutalize the living.
1. All commendable research has long shown us that most effective way to drastically reduce abortions are the provision of condoms, contraceptives, full and early sex education, full provision of affordable women's healthcare, and female empowerment.
2. All commendable research has long shown that the more guns, the more gun deaths.
3. My gun violence reduction plan presents a slate of policies. Take the top ten and put them all into effect in one multi-state region of the US. People will still own guns. Gun deaths will drop dramatically.
4. You said you blocked me because you did not get a plan (and Craig wanted "details'). Yet, you' have both been writing about my plan for months, and objecting to some details. You may not like it; you may think you have points that oppose some of it. But that wasn't why you blocked me.
You lied.
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2019/08/when-remaining-quiet-is-not-loving.html
This is simply what has happened to half of America's white population. You and people like you are so fragile, that when confronted with the growing consciousness of how America's past and present policies have inherent racist and misogynist and bigoted force, AND that that past and present are deeply shapes by white, western, slave trade economy-based Christianity (of which we should truly repent and repair), you have regressed into an reasoning platform and argument-making process dependent upon an internal system of denial, dodge, prevarication, myth-making and irrational defense.
Having crossed that line for such a long time and with such thorough consistency, your abdication from your 'professed' faith has releases me from the obligation to honor you with respect. Until you repent and repair, and win it back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, there it is. Note that last paragraph. That is not how it works. No Christian is "released" from the obligation to act like a Christian. Now, it is true and accurate to say that feo has never crossed any line of respectful behavior, because he began on the wrong side of it and has never stepped across in earnest. He's NEVER shown respect for others because he's been way too busy expecting respect FROM others. Thus, I don't expect he'll act any different now and thus no one should expect to see any comment of his last for longer than it takes for me to see it, recognize he hasn't what it takes to act like the Christian he laughingly expects people to believe he is, and then delete it.
But let's make some comments about his "plan" and get this started.
"Dan, here is the plan to markedly reduce deaths from guns that Marshal and Craig have gotten three times in the last year but claim they haven't gotten or didn't get in the right wary and won't share with each other."
feo expected Craig and I "to share" bits and pieces he posted at either of our blogs as if he has any authority or status to make such demands, rather than simply man up and post the whole thing in one place and dig in his heels for the more rational opinions that it would provoke. So part of his plan was to keep it from being posted in one place where it could be mocked in its entirety.
"They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans."
I've done much to present my own notions about how to decrease the criminal use of guns ("gun violence" is an idiotic term for what the problem is). I began here and continued here, here, here, here (man, I did a lot!), and then I get into feo' "plan" as it was at the time, incomplete, evidently, and for good reason since it sucked. My original responses were here and here.
What we're going to see in the ensuing posts is that there is absolutely no data indicating any of the suggestions listed above are in any way effective. Indeed, the "experts" surveyed were merely asked "to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities." feo provided absolutely no evidence that they were effective in any way!
So all of the above is merely prelude to the more fun dismantling of feo's "plan", as I had done so effectively as seen in the last two links provided above. I can't wait for the next installment. feo will be much more geeked about it as well.
So here's how it's going to go down: I'm going to post all of the comments that included this "plan", as well as following comments from feo (because he's just so funny) and then I will be making my comments on it. Much of what he proposes has been addressed in two previous posts of mine and I will likely refer to it to deal with specific suggestions...likely with a link or some such, but possibly with additional thoughts.
This may involve multiple posts to address it all and should it turn out that way, I will not be posting any comments until the entire "plan" is presented (with my attendant comments). It may be one post per week until the whole thing is presented, but I think I can get it done in three installments. We'll see. I'm just gonna wing it. Once I'm finished, I will then disable Comment Moderation (because it's a pain in the ass), and feo will have the opportunity to engage in civil discourse.
Did you read that part feo? "CIVIL" discourse! You clearly don't know what this means, so pay attention. Imagine you're ACTUALLY a Christian who lives to treat your worst enemy in the most Christian manner possible...with kindness, humility, graciousness, tolerance and absent any hint of your typical smarm, condescension, pretension and other acts of hatred and evil so common in your every comment. Yes, that means if everyone is acting towards you the way you act towards us as if you're getting paid for it, you will nonetheless do nothing in return but act as if you're an actual Christian...loving your enemies more than you clearly love yourself. Throughout this probationary period, it will be up to me and me alone to determine if you've acted according to these terms and letter of the law will be the law you will follow lest you immediately find your comments deleted and Comment Moderation enabled once again. Then, you will be back to trying to post your idiocy and having it end up in the spam folder to be deleted without being read. You will be the sweetest and most loving commentator or you will not comment at all. Period.
So, let's get on with it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan, here is the plan to markedly reduce deaths from guns that Marshal and Craig have gotten three times in the last year but claim they haven't gotten or didn't get in the right wary and won't share with each other. They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans. Clearly the reason they've lied as cowards.
At any rate, I'd love to hear your response to this proposal: listed in the next comment box are 27 gun control policies recommended by gun policy experts AND law enforcement officials that have been instituted somewhere in the US. Their statistical effect on reducing gun violence is given, followed by what % of Americans polled are on favor of that particular policy.
The key is that never have these policies been instituted in any one jurisdiction all at the same time. Expectedly, the impact on gun violence of all of these 37 statistically effective policies would be impressive and save hundreds of thousands of live over a decade.
To create this survey of effective policies, the NY Times "consulted the academic literature on laws from American states and foreign countries and spoke with advocates for gun rights and gun control. Both surveys were conducted in June of last year. For our measure of popularity, Morning Consult conducted an internet survey of 1,975 voters, who were asked whether they approved of the possible laws. For our effectiveness survey, we asked experts in gun policy to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities. We asked the experts to ignore considerations of political or legal feasibility.
Our expert panel consisted of 32 current or retired academics in criminology, public health and law, who have published extensively in peer-reviewed academic journals on gun policy...
Special thanks to the Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association for distributing the survey to their membership."
August 11, 2019 at 11:01 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
Policy % effectiveness in reducing gun violence % supported by Americans
- Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun. 7.3 86%
- Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults. 7.1 83%
- Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
stalking another person 6.5 85%
- Requiring all gun owners to possess a license for their firearm. 6.4 78%
- Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys
ammunition. 6.4 72%
- Banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic
firearms. 6.1 63%
- Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been reported as
dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider. 6.0 87%
- Requiring all owners to report lost or stolen firearms. 6.0 88%
- Banning the sale and ownership of all ammunition magazines with a
capacity greater than 10 bullets. 5.8 63%
- Requiring that all firearms be recorded in a national registry. 5.7 70%
- Expanding screening and treatment for the mentally ill. 5.6 86%
- Requiring that all gun buyers demonstrate a a ”genuine need” for a gun,
such as a law enforcement job or hunting. 5.6 49%
- Requiring all guns to microstamp each bullet with a mark that uniquely
matches the gun and bullet. 5.5 65%
- Increasing minimum penalties for people found possessing firearms
illegally. 5.4 80%
- Requiring gun dealers to keep, retain and report all gun records and sales
to the Federal government. 5.4 80%
- Banning the sale and ownership of assault rifles or similar firearms. 5.0 67%
- Requiring all gun owners to register their fingerprints. 5.0 72%
- Preventing sales of all firearms and ammunition to anyone considered
to be a “known or suspected terrorist” by the F.B.I. 4 89%
- Requiring a mandatory waiting period of three days after gun is purchased
before it can be taken home. 4.8 77%
- Limiting the number of guns that can be purchased to one per month. 4.8 67%
- Limiting the amount of ammunition you can purchase within a given time
period. 4.4 64%
- Requiring that all gun owners store their guns in a safe storage unit. 4.4 76%
- Banning firearms from all workplace settings nationally. 4.3 60%
- Requiring that gun buyers complete safety training and a test for their
specific firearm. 4.1 79%
- Implementing a national “buy-back” program for all banned firearms and
magazines, where the government pays people to turn in illegal guns. 3.9 74%
- Banning firearms from schools and college campuses nationally. 3.8 68%
- Requiring that all gun owners store their guns with childproof locks. 3.5 82%
August 11, 2019 at 11:03 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html
August 11, 2019 at 11:03 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
Marshal two days ago at Stan's blog: Maybe one day he'll send the plan. I thought with recent events we might see it (not really...he has no plan).
Craig, yesterday: Feo, posted his list of talking points again.
Marshal: He'll never provide his complete "plan"
Marshal: I just looked at Dan's blog... and saw feo's list. I'll have to peruse it for sure.... what he's posted seems smaller than what he's been saying he's provided us
Marshal and Craig just outed themselves as determined liars and corrupt Christians.
August 12, 2019 at 6:59 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
Dan, if you look at Marshal's lates post's comments you'll see two lying, corrupt Christians examining a plan they say isn't a plan and criticizing it without the guts to take on responses from the person who gave it to them while they keep saying he never did.
Their open lying should be clear to them. That it's not makes clear their moral corruption.
August 13, 2019 at 9:51 AM
Blogger Feodor said...
[Sorry, Dan, but I'm counting on you to keep this open reply to an not-open post of Craig's addressed to me but which blocks my participation:]
Fuck you, Craig. You and Marshal have had the plan for months. You wanted it but you two couldn't get it together and so refused to put the plan up on your blogs. You both have such a need to deny how ignorant and fearful you are that you both have dedicated yourselves to lies.
LIe 1. You never got it - but you've gotten it four times.
Lie 2. It's not a plan - it may not be a perfect plan but fuck you, what is a perfect plan?
Lie 3. There are no details - but you're already arguing with the details: See Marshal's blog.
Lie 4. It's up to me do anything - it's up to you and the other shallow fake to post the plan. Then we can hash out issues. Take care of your shit and stop being a deceitful coward.
Where's your plan? Oh, that's right. Your brilliant plan is more guns in more hands.
And what does ALL the research and all the data and all the math in the us and around the world say about more guns?
IN EVERY STUDY: THE MORE GUNS THE MORE DEATHS.
You have a whole hell of a lot of work to do to be a Christian who loves the living.
August 13, 2019 at 2:04 PM
Blogger Feodor said...
[Thnks, Dan, for your ever kind forbearance.]
Open and last comment to Marshal and Craig:
Marshal in the face of strong, reasoned opposition, you've turned into a corrupt Christian many years ago. Craig, you followed him in recent years. You both block data. You block facts. You even block definitions. You utilize fake, untrained, uneducated sources of information providers who really only provide cant.
You brutalize the living.
1. All commendable research has long shown us that most effective way to drastically reduce abortions are the provision of condoms, contraceptives, full and early sex education, full provision of affordable women's healthcare, and female empowerment.
2. All commendable research has long shown that the more guns, the more gun deaths.
3. My gun violence reduction plan presents a slate of policies. Take the top ten and put them all into effect in one multi-state region of the US. People will still own guns. Gun deaths will drop dramatically.
4. You said you blocked me because you did not get a plan (and Craig wanted "details'). Yet, you' have both been writing about my plan for months, and objecting to some details. You may not like it; you may think you have points that oppose some of it. But that wasn't why you blocked me.
You lied.
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2019/08/when-remaining-quiet-is-not-loving.html
This is simply what has happened to half of America's white population. You and people like you are so fragile, that when confronted with the growing consciousness of how America's past and present policies have inherent racist and misogynist and bigoted force, AND that that past and present are deeply shapes by white, western, slave trade economy-based Christianity (of which we should truly repent and repair), you have regressed into an reasoning platform and argument-making process dependent upon an internal system of denial, dodge, prevarication, myth-making and irrational defense.
Having crossed that line for such a long time and with such thorough consistency, your abdication from your 'professed' faith has releases me from the obligation to honor you with respect. Until you repent and repair, and win it back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, there it is. Note that last paragraph. That is not how it works. No Christian is "released" from the obligation to act like a Christian. Now, it is true and accurate to say that feo has never crossed any line of respectful behavior, because he began on the wrong side of it and has never stepped across in earnest. He's NEVER shown respect for others because he's been way too busy expecting respect FROM others. Thus, I don't expect he'll act any different now and thus no one should expect to see any comment of his last for longer than it takes for me to see it, recognize he hasn't what it takes to act like the Christian he laughingly expects people to believe he is, and then delete it.
But let's make some comments about his "plan" and get this started.
"Dan, here is the plan to markedly reduce deaths from guns that Marshal and Craig have gotten three times in the last year but claim they haven't gotten or didn't get in the right wary and won't share with each other."
feo expected Craig and I "to share" bits and pieces he posted at either of our blogs as if he has any authority or status to make such demands, rather than simply man up and post the whole thing in one place and dig in his heels for the more rational opinions that it would provoke. So part of his plan was to keep it from being posted in one place where it could be mocked in its entirety.
"They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans."
I've done much to present my own notions about how to decrease the criminal use of guns ("gun violence" is an idiotic term for what the problem is). I began here and continued here, here, here, here (man, I did a lot!), and then I get into feo' "plan" as it was at the time, incomplete, evidently, and for good reason since it sucked. My original responses were here and here.
What we're going to see in the ensuing posts is that there is absolutely no data indicating any of the suggestions listed above are in any way effective. Indeed, the "experts" surveyed were merely asked "to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities." feo provided absolutely no evidence that they were effective in any way!
So all of the above is merely prelude to the more fun dismantling of feo's "plan", as I had done so effectively as seen in the last two links provided above. I can't wait for the next installment. feo will be much more geeked about it as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)