3 ms·

I'm not trying to equivocate. GGP commment made an unqualified statement "action in government is slow" adding that the idea of "drastic action" was a "fantasy

by fr0sty 14y ago

I'm not trying to equivocate. GGP commment made an unqualified statement "action in government is slow" adding that the idea of "drastic action" was a "fantasy". I countered by noting that in the present day the government is moving very fast on at least one particular issue. We will know tomorrow whether the action is drastic. Full stop.

numbsafari 14y ago
Full stop? How many mass murders has it taken to get to this point? How is that "drastic" or "very fast"? Oh, wait, there's a commission that might "recommend" we re-enact legislation that expired a few years ago? How is that "drastic"? How is that "very fast"? As the GGP said, what's gonna happen first is an investigation and a review. Why the need to jump to "vigilante justice"? The end result of "vigilante justice" is going to be more young people squandering their careers and futures, creating further justification for harsh sentencing and prosecution of "hacktivists", and probably just more work and demand for the very people they are trying to unseat. Blowing this situation out of proportion and encouraging rash behavior is not going to solve the underlying problems.
- achompas 14y ago
  How many mass murders has it taken to get to this point? How is that "drastic" or "very fast"? The same issue was addressed by the Brady Bill 18 years ago, so it's not like the issue hasn't been addressed before. That response's effectiveness is another story, of course (hint: it wasn't).
- jerf 14y ago
  Mass murders may be flashy, but they are not a large problem. They only feel large. Immediate fast response here is a political tool to push policies that have little to do with stopping school shootings, not a governance tool. (Evidence: almost no proposed policies show any evidence that they could have prevented this shooting, even if they were magically 100% effective; for instance, "more background checks" doesn't prevent someone from stealing a gun obtained by somebody else, as in this case, and so on.) Prosecutor overreach is a much more widespread problem, though absolute quantification is difficult. It isn't hard to rate it as a much bigger problem than mass murders, because mass murders are a very, very small problem right now. It may not rate next to our other problems we face right now, though. (If saying mass murders aren't a big problem right now bothers you, let me also make this observation, which is that non-mass murders are also a much bigger problem than mass murders. Just the murders that can be directly traced to our War on Drugs, many of which also hit school-aged children, is a much larger problem than mass murder right now. Murders in Chicago alone is a significantly larger problem than mass murders.)
  - btilly 14y ago
    Absolutely. Regulations mandating safer showers and bathtubs would save more lives, and far more hospital visits, than getting rid of all of the assault weapons in the USA. As for prosecutorial overreach, I believe that it is part of the reason why the USA has a higher portion of its population in prison than ANY other country in the world. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat... if you don't believe me. And our "justice" system is not race neutral. South Africa under apartheid did not imprison as high a portion of its black population as the US does now. In major cities about 80% of black males have a criminal record. This contributes to their difficulty in getting jobs. Which in turn contributes to the economic circumstances that perpetuate these shocking statistics.
gavinlynch 14y ago
@ fr0sty: I believe the point is that government action is almost always slow, perhaps with the Sandy Hook tragedy being one of the rare exceptions. Something has to captivate and horrify the nation as a whole to reach that level of outrage. But beyond that, in these circumstances there is generally a known policy platform that proscribes a solution in terms of legislation and execution action. Think about it. How long did it take the 9/11 Commission to come out? How long did it take us to learn the lessons of that tragedy and to attempt to implement measures to counter-act the causes and fine-tune or response. If ever there was a case for immediate action based on outrage, that was it. In the case of Sandy Hook, the gun control measures by and large have been waiting in the wings. There have been packages applied on the state level all across the nation from which to draw a federal-level response. It was basically a case of "Okay, after this tragedy a large number of people have solidified which side of this debate they come down on. Let's ratify the gun control measures we have all discussed for decades now." Is there such a wide-spread existing platform that would solve the alleged problems in the Aaron Shwartz case? Is there even a generally identified "problem" that a majority of people agree on? Do a majority of people agree that Aaron suicide was directly caused by the prosecution? I think many here have already made up their mind. However I'm not so sure the beyond the tech communities there is a broad consensus or a clear case of causation. And if causation is not clear, how can we "fix" the problem, even if we had the nations rapt attention? Finally, what is the package of changes waiting in the wings for us to ratify? Is there a commonly-held solution to the perceived proprietorial overreach? Is there something we all agree on that, assuming there is enough momentum to enact immediately, can be put into place? I'm no lawyer, but I imagine tinkering with the judicial system is not something that happens quickly. Firing this prosecutor will just bring another who works within the same parameters of this system. Beyond the psychological satisfaction of "feel our rage" for angry people, what will it accomplish?

by fr0sty 14y ago

numbsafari 14y ago

Full stop? How many mass murders has it taken to get to this point? How is that "drastic" or "very fast"? Oh, wait, there's a commission that might "recommend" we re-enact legislation that expired a few years ago? How is that "drastic"? How is that "very fast"? As the GGP said, what's gonna happen first is an investigation and a review. Why the need to jump to "vigilante justice"? The end result of "vigilante justice" is going to be more young people squandering their careers and futures, creating further justification for harsh sentencing and prosecution of "hacktivists", and probably just more work and demand for the very people they are trying to unseat. Blowing this situation out of proportion and encouraging rash behavior is not going to solve the underlying problems.

achompas 14y ago
How many mass murders has it taken to get to this point? How is that "drastic" or "very fast"? The same issue was addressed by the Brady Bill 18 years ago, so it's not like the issue hasn't been addressed before. That response's effectiveness is another story, of course (hint: it wasn't).
jerf 14y ago
Mass murders may be flashy, but they are not a large problem. They only feel large. Immediate fast response here is a political tool to push policies that have little to do with stopping school shootings, not a governance tool. (Evidence: almost no proposed policies show any evidence that they could have prevented this shooting, even if they were magically 100% effective; for instance, "more background checks" doesn't prevent someone from stealing a gun obtained by somebody else, as in this case, and so on.) Prosecutor overreach is a much more widespread problem, though absolute quantification is difficult. It isn't hard to rate it as a much bigger problem than mass murders, because mass murders are a very, very small problem right now. It may not rate next to our other problems we face right now, though. (If saying mass murders aren't a big problem right now bothers you, let me also make this observation, which is that non-mass murders are also a much bigger problem than mass murders. Just the murders that can be directly traced to our War on Drugs, many of which also hit school-aged children, is a much larger problem than mass murder right now. Murders in Chicago alone is a significantly larger problem than mass murders.)
- btilly 14y ago
  Absolutely. Regulations mandating safer showers and bathtubs would save more lives, and far more hospital visits, than getting rid of all of the assault weapons in the USA. As for prosecutorial overreach, I believe that it is part of the reason why the USA has a higher portion of its population in prison than ANY other country in the world. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat... if you don't believe me. And our "justice" system is not race neutral. South Africa under apartheid did not imprison as high a portion of its black population as the US does now. In major cities about 80% of black males have a criminal record. This contributes to their difficulty in getting jobs. Which in turn contributes to the economic circumstances that perpetuate these shocking statistics.

gavinlynch 14y ago

@ fr0sty: I believe the point is that government action is almost always slow, perhaps with the Sandy Hook tragedy being one of the rare exceptions. Something has to captivate and horrify the nation as a whole to reach that level of outrage. But beyond that, in these circumstances there is generally a known policy platform that proscribes a solution in terms of legislation and execution action. Think about it. How long did it take the 9/11 Commission to come out? How long did it take us to learn the lessons of that tragedy and to attempt to implement measures to counter-act the causes and fine-tune or response. If ever there was a case for immediate action based on outrage, that was it. In the case of Sandy Hook, the gun control measures by and large have been waiting in the wings. There have been packages applied on the state level all across the nation from which to draw a federal-level response. It was basically a case of "Okay, after this tragedy a large number of people have solidified which side of this debate they come down on. Let's ratify the gun control measures we have all discussed for decades now." Is there such a wide-spread existing platform that would solve the alleged problems in the Aaron Shwartz case? Is there even a generally identified "problem" that a majority of people agree on? Do a majority of people agree that Aaron suicide was directly caused by the prosecution? I think many here have already made up their mind. However I'm not so sure the beyond the tech communities there is a broad consensus or a clear case of causation. And if causation is not clear, how can we "fix" the problem, even if we had the nations rapt attention? Finally, what is the package of changes waiting in the wings for us to ratify? Is there a commonly-held solution to the perceived proprietorial overreach? Is there something we all agree on that, assuming there is enough momentum to enact immediately, can be put into place? I'm no lawyer, but I imagine tinkering with the judicial system is not something that happens quickly. Firing this prosecutor will just bring another who works within the same parameters of this system. Beyond the psychological satisfaction of "feel our rage" for angry people, what will it accomplish?