Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Your posts make me want to puke.

RobertX8Y

This reply and some of your earlier ones seem typical of Republicans and Conservatives, not just in the topics chosen and the ideas about them, but in the manner of presentation, which tends to be cocksure and absolutist, which is irritating, particularly as the amount of cocksure-ness and absolutism so often doesn't correlate very well with what's true.

You (or Republicans and Conservatives) have probably noticed, with similar irritation, that Democrats and Liberals often speak in shades of meaning, even using hedge words (like think, guess, estimate, probably, ...) often with respect which you may think is phony. The reason so many people do talk & write that way is that reality really is nuanced and often complex, or, there really is (often) more than one valid perspective or more than one valid fact about a topic.

This is pretty long and complex already. But I hope not to bore you with a yet longer reply, nor with repetition, nor with details to which attention won't be paid anyway.

That's not a promise though; next time I might bore you with all the above, if the spirit so moves.

American Vet

A very wordy rant with nothing but your opinion.

So I ask: Do you think allowing 2 million i*****l a***ns cross our southern border illegally is a problem or not?

RobertX8Y

You just did.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Looks like I got some on you.😎

RobertX8Y

It's a problem, or at least I think it might be a problem, but maybe not a serious one, and maybe not a problem in the way you think it is (it might be a problem about something else in the system instead, such as, for example: bad laws; or a failure of U.S. officials to follow existing law, e.g., asylum law; or U.S. meddling in their countries of origin). I*****l i*********n is not as bad as some other problems that our nation needs to pay more attention to, like, say, pollution, just as one example.

_Generally_ it bugs me that people break laws. For one thing, I feel that there's something disorderly about it. For another thing, it shows something is wrong, sometimes because of some hypocrisy. Some laws are unrealistic. I think the speed limits ought to be either changed or evenly enforced. Some existing Law is too complex and not based on good principles (e.g., tax law). In the case of i*****l i*******ts crossing northward on our southern border, I think they're less of a problem than are the people fighting against them.

You didn't answer my earlier question. Several posts back, you had commented about (me, not you) picking and choosing which laws to obey or not obey, as though all laws were equivalent, and as though to break any law were equivalent to breaking any other law. That is why I made the comparison between a severe situation (e.g., murder) and a much less severe situation (e.g., exceeding a speed limit on a road, perhaps by a small amount). I admitted to breaking the latter law and then asked you where on that continuum you fit. (That's the question you haven't answered yet, and I'm still waiting.) My point is that it is better to recognize that there are more serious and less serious ways of "breaking a law", and that it is a poor argument to merely object _categorically_ to i*****l i*********n, to claim it is a really _big_ problem, just _because_ it involves "breaking a law". Even if two million people do it, that's still fewer than how many break some other law in the U.S. even in just one typical day.

More recently you got closer to a better argument (in my opinion). You said something about i*****l i*******ts using up some of our "resources". If you'd be more specific, that argument might be worth pursuing (though I still expect it would fail in the end because it would turn out that they're not significantly using up our resources, in net effect).

I think i*****l i*******ts, _themselves_, have a net positive influence on our country, as compared with them not being here at all. This is not _because_ of their "i*****l i*******t" status, but rather because of other things, like being working people with experiences and desires, similar to how most people are. The fact that they're _from_ other places and _have_ other experiences doesn't hurt, and probably makes them more valuable to our country.

You responded to one of my points by claiming that i*****l i*******ts did more harm than good, but you weren't convincing -- you merely made a simple assertion, without specifics and without argument. For all I know, you could have been just repeating something you had heard other people asserting.

People hear assertions, people jump to conclusions, people form distortions and stereotypes, and people repeat other people's assertions until what had started as a careless wrong assertion is later generally accepted as t***h, but wrongly.

I've been acquainted with people who appeared to be poor and from Mexico and were living in the U.S. I don't know what their legal status was. I don't know what your legal status is either. I did notice that they worked hard. And I've known some other people who were born and raised in the U.S. and so were their parents and grandparents, and a few of these people I knew (who looked white like me and shared a lot of the same culture as mine) acted like scum. (And I've seen others in the news who look and act scummy in the same ways as those did, and now I see how that plays out on the national stage.) I went on to meet a large variety of people, and work with some, and be friends with some, and I've never had to care about anyone's legal or i*****l i*********n status although by now I've been around dozens of people from various countries, some who didn't speak English, and at least one who spoke better English than I did (not her native language) plus about three other languages. I don't make the same assumptions about human beings that the people who talk so negatively about i*****l i*******ts seem to be making.

American Vet

Having our borders encroached by unknown parties is a major problem. If you do not understand that, it is probably because you have a bias that does not permit you to believe that.

RobertX8Y

The U.S. government doesn't even know which U.S. citizens have guns. Maybe it's supposed to know, but it hasn't managed to do so very well. U.S. citizens commit lots of crimes, including many involving gun violence, more than the average Western European country does. Right here in the U.S., we already recently had J****** 6, which might have ended with an o*******w of the government. The U.S. is _full_ of _essentially_ "unknowns", in that it, and we, don't know what force of arms the citizens have or where they're all located or what dumb criminal thing they'll do next, or when. Those are the U.S. citizens. The "two million i*****l i*******ts" you talk about are no worse than the citizens we've already got. If you had been talking about the gang MS13, I might have thought you were making sense, but you were talking about two million i*****l i*******ts.

What does anybody need to know about people? I think you are unhappy because we don't know all the names and records of the i*****l i*******ts; but a worse problem is the unknown factors lurking among the U.S.A. citizenry. Regarding the U.S.A. citizenry, we essentially _do_ know their names and records, but what good is that, when it can't prevent gun violence, including mass shootings, and mob violence at state capitols and the national capitol itself?

We've got problems, and I don't think I can even get you to take the major ones seriously. You suggest that maybe I'm biased, but I think it's at least as likely that you are.

As for the i*****l i*******ts, if they are not to be ignored or let alone, then I'd like to see them made into citizens forthwith, or fairly soon. It shouldn't be that difficult to make 2 million more that are as good as (if not better than) tens of millions of the citizens that we've already got.

As usual you have made a brief post with a strong assertion in it but no reasoning to back it up and no evidence to back it up. I think you can do better. I think you can explain _why_ "Having our borders encroached by unknown parties is a major problem" much better than merely saying "If you do not understand that, it is probably because you have a bias that does not permit you to believe that."

And, up to this point, you still haven't answered my question. Some discusser you are. :-)

American Vet

>>> The U.S. government doesn't even know which U.S. citizens have guns. Maybe it's supposed to know
No, it isn't supposed to know. Why should it?


>>>U.S. citizens commit lots of crimes, including many involving gun violence, more than the average Western European country does.

So?


>>>Right here in the U.S., we already recently had J****** 6, which might have ended with an o*******w of the government.

LOL Hardly. Excepted in ELWNJ demented minds. There have been numerous far worse incursion to the White House; as well, as countless demonstrations/r**ts.


>>>The U.S. is _full_ of _essentially_ "unknowns", in that it, and we, don't know what force of arms the citizens have or where they're all located or what dumb criminal thing they'll do next, or when.

And?


>>>The "two million i*****l i*******ts" you talk about are no worse than the citizens we've already got. If you had been talking about the gang MS13, I might have thought you were making sense, but you were talking about two million i*****l i*******ts.

My apologies if I used the term "i*****l i*******ts" - they are i*****l a***ns. But I was talking about 2 million people, unvetted, who illegally entered the country. Some are better - some are worse, no doubt. So that is why we have a process in place to vet them. Sad that doesn't make sense to you; however, I believe most reasonable people would agree.


>>> What does anybody need to know about people? I think you are unhappy because we don't know all the names and records of the i*****l i*******ts; but a worse problem is the unknown factors lurking among the U.S.A. citizenry

You are correct: I am unhappy: The i*****l a***ns come across the border at will, unvetted. We (America) do need to know who they are and their 'records'.


>> but a worse problem is the unknown factors lurking among the U.S.A. citizenry

And do you have an example of these 'unknown factors'?


>>>Regarding the U.S.A. citizenry, we essentially _do_ know their names and records, but what good is that, when it can't prevent gun violence, including mass shootings, and mob violence at state capitols and the national capitol itself?

So what's the answer? Confiscate all weapons (UK has already banned knives - based on "intent")? Should a person not be allowed to carry a walking stick (a very good close quarters weapon)? There is no such thing as 'gun violence': There are violent acts done by people who use guns (as well as knives, bats, etc.). There are more people k**led with knives than there are with rifles and shotguns.


>>> We've got problems, and I don't think I can even get you to take the major ones seriously. You suggest that maybe I'm biased, but I think it's at least as likely that you are.

We simply disagree on what the major ones are. Of course I am biased - everyone is. But I make an effort to see both sides of an issue; and use common sense to address problems.



>>>As for the i*****l i*******ts, if they are not to be ignored or let alone, then I'd like to see them made into citizens forthwith, or fairly soon. It shouldn't be that difficult to make 2 million more that are as good as (if not better than) tens of millions of the citizens that we've already got.

I vehemently disagree. That is a slap in the face to people who obtain citizenship the right way. Rewarding 'bad behavior' is not a good thing. And your 'as good as' comment is an unsubstantiated opinion. By that logic, we have no need of borders - just let anybody come here whenever they choose.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

"The government doesn't even know who has guns"???

Changing your stage name didn't make you smarter, that's for damn sure.

RobertX8Y

I already told examples, then you _quoted_ them (see above), and now you're _asking_ for them, as if you hadn't seen them! Here they are again:

UNKNOWN FACTORS:

1. "which U.S. citizens have guns"

2. events and potential events, such as: "J****** 6, which might have ended with an o*******w of the government". "LOL" all you want, your foolish laughter doesn't change anything.

3. the where and when, in: "don't know what force of arms the citizens have or where they're all located or what dumb criminal thing they'll do next, or when"

I could have made it more clear if I had ordered my post differently, and REALLY SPELLED IT ALL OUT FOR YOU IN A MORE LOGICAL ORDER (which I think would have been boring for both you and me). So, in case an apology might be worth anything, I apologize for not being clear enough the first time through.

I'm losing patience with you, even though I think you're one of the better discussers on OPP.

Just as my erstwhile Conservative Republican acquaintance did, when there is a telling _question_ to be answered (see previous posts), you ignore it and change the subject.

Maybe you're not really paying attention. I _have_ been paying attention and have put some effort into this. It's a lot easier to write "LOL" or merely claim that the other person isn't seeing something obvious.



The answer (in my opinion) is (a) to _prosecute_ when a violent act can be proven and (b) to _adapt_ to make harmful acts (such as "violent acts done by people who use guns (as well as knives, bats, etc.)") _less_likely_ to occur in the future. Maybe _you_ have ideas on how to reduce future incidence of harmful acts, but until you can implement them effectively, gun control is definitely on the table. (I read what you said about knives etc. but I still think guns have a special significance; "mass knifings" seem to be much rarer than "mass shootings"; i**********ns at capitol buildings are likely to turn one way or the other according to guns more than knives.)

In further answer to your literal questions: No I would not outlaw walking sticks. I would agree that in the hands of a trained person a walking stick can be quite an effective weapon, but so are hands and I would not outlaw hands either. I notice that a walking stick is quite useful for purposes _other_ than to k**l, maim, or threaten people. (When you read that, I want you to think: Can the same be said of most of the guns people currently own? Are handguns and assault rifles really owned for the purpose of hunting game?) Regarding "intent": I haven't studied the matter much, but in my opinion: (1) Intent may have a useful role in some criminal prosecutions. (2) Generally it's better to focus more on acts that have already happened, rather than trying to second-guess what a person might do in the future (unless there's something really obvious like an evident plan). (Or a van full of walking sticks. Heh-heh.)



Since you don't seem engaged with my questions (two of them by now, including one strongly implied question), I'll answer them myself:

A. If you're like most people, you disobey the law occasionally in relatively small ways, such as driving faster than a speed limit, AND (if you're like most people) you don't take that kind of law-breaking seriously. So when you make some statement about what's "illegal" (as in "i*****l a***ns"), the implication that something being "illegal" must be a seriously bad thing, just because it's "illegal", is an inadequate argument, unless you're just condemning yourself also (assuming you ever broke any law) and then, without any scale from less significant to more significant, you'd be as bad as anyone else who ever broke a law. Moral: There should be a scale from less significant to more significant. (There _is_ such a scale but you don't acknowledge it.)

B. Regarding borders, and WHY some unauthorized crossings are significant: This is to answer my implied question when I used the word "WHY" in an earlier post:

B.1. When there is an invading army as part of land theft, that's highly significant, and I would expect it would have to be repelled. _That_ kind of invasion is significant _because_ we might lose a lot of something we need (a big section of land).

B.2. When lots of individuals come because they want to be citizens like us, that's not like an invading army, and not like land theft, and much less a significant hazard for us (as compared with B.1., above). _This_ kind of unauthorized border crossings is debatably insignificant, _because_ it's unlikely to result in the loss of much that we need, and particularly when the best argument you can come up with against it is merely to say it's technically "illegal" (also see explanation in "A.", above). You also said something about the i*****l a***ns using up some of our resources, but that argument doesn't pan out well either because _all_ immigrants and _all_ people use up resources but they (including i*****l a***ns) also make positive contributions. "Illegal" status doesn't much change that, similarly as exceeding the speed limit doesn't make you a negative entity just because you did an "illegal" thing.

(Some excessive speeders on the roads do take undue risks with other people's lives, and that's a bad thing (but not _because_ it's "illegal"), but most people who exceed the speed limit aren't having such a negative impact.)

American Vet

You failed to add anything to refute my comments.

My mistake for thinking you were a rational poster.

American Vet

Shall we address these complex issues one at a time?

Your first comment was about the government doesn't know "which U.S. citizens have guns".

I would be interested to know why you believe the government has a need to know which citizens have guns?

RobertX8Y

I did not say the government has a need to know which citizens have guns. Maybe it should, but I didn't actually say that. (It's a separate issue, though maybe related.) My point was that which citizens have guns is an unknown factor (or at least partially unknown) which is at least as significant as the unknown factor of the records of i*****l a***ns (better called undocumented immigrants or just "not documented as citizens").

Consider it like this: You go out somewhere with your family. What's more likely to threaten their safety: (a) an undocumented immigrant or (b) someone with a gun? Which factor is the more hazardous to your family's safety: (a) the lack of documentation, or (b) the possession of a gun?

Further, let's suppose that the undocumented person your family encounters is about average for one of those two million you mentioned; and let's suppose that when your family encounters a person with a gun, the gun is the kind of assault weapon that shoots a lot of bullets fast (automatic, semi-automatic, or maybe a "machine gun"). Now compare the two situations: (a) encountering the stranger who's the undocumented immigrant, or (b) encountering the stranger who's carrying the assault weapon?

My point is that the weapon is the more important factor in your family's safety than is the lack of a record as a citizen.

There's more:

A lot of people in the U.S. have shown themselves to be irresponsible and untrustworthy, such that we'd be better off if they did not have access to weapons. The J*** 6 invasion of the U.S. capitol is an example; I look at that event, and I find that I would not want to trust such people, by which I mean (among other things) I would not want them to have guns.

Also: It appears that the vast majority of wrongful assaults _using_ guns within the U.S. are committed by citizens!

All this which I'm saying is not necessarily a definitive argument (if I were ready with a lot of citations to studies and statistics, it might be a definitive argument); I'm just saying that your big focus on i*****l a***ns is unconvincing as an important issue when we have other things (example: irresponsible citizens having guns) which appear to be more harmful than i*****l a***ns are.

As big issues I would usually select pollution (and c*****e c****e), disease (particularly the C***d p******c), and some of the things that happen in the U.S. government. You seem more focused on two million i*****l a***ns. I think your energy would be more useful on some other issue rather than the i*****l a***ns.

It happens, also, that I'm offended at some of the talk about i*****l a***ns. Too often people focus on some group of people to vilify, even though they don't really know much about those people. I think it's unfair _and_ unnecessary. Something like "immigration reform" or even "border control" might be a sensible issue, but when it's mixed up with vilifying or stereotyping a group of people, especially if it's people the vilifiers don't know much about, that's what offends me.

American Vet

You are correct: You did not directly say the government has a need to know who owns guns - but, yo me, you implied that. To me it is an 'either/or' issue.

So: Do you think the government needs to know who owns guns? That would mean a national data base of gun owners.


>>>My point was that which citizens have guns is an unknown factor (or at least partially unknown) which is at least as significant as the unknown factor of the records of i*****l a***ns (better called undocumented immigrants or just "not documented as citizens"

You are correct: Which citizens own guns is an unknown factor. However, your comment that it is "at least as significant as the unknown factor of the records of i*****l a***ns" is strictly your opinion.



>>>i*****l a***ns (better called undocumented immigrants or just "not documented as citizens")

They are i*****l a***ns - per the US government (U.S. Code Title 8 CHAPTER 12 SUBCHAPTER II Part VIII § 1325). Trying to rename them is to make it seem 'kinder' (or wh**ever).


>>>You go out somewhere with your family. What's more likely to threaten their safety: (a) an undocumented immigrant or (b) someone with a gun?

I am safer around 'someone with a gun'. I live in an 'open carry' state and often see people carrying a gun. That doesn't include the number of people who are CCW which is (my opinion) better than open carry.

In my area, there are few i*****l a***ns. However, talk to the folks along the Texas border and ask them about threats to their safety.

A recent Texas safety report outlines more than 573,000 criminal offenses committed by i*****l a***ns "over the course of their entire Texas criminal careers."
There are 1,245 Texans who would likely still be alive today if we were securing our border and vigorously enforcing our i*********n l*ws.
And that’s the tip of the iceberg, as the report only covers state offenses, not federal crimes, not crimes committed in other states, and not crimes committed by aliens in the country legally.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/bidens-border-crisis-crime-problem-texas-bad-omen-rest-us

I might also add: Suspected terrorists crossing border 'at a level we have never seen before,' outgoing Border Patrol chief says

>>>My point is that the weapon is the more important factor in your family's safety than is the lack of a record as a citizen.

That's a 2 way street (about the weapon).
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.
https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/

Your comment about the 'lack of record as a citizen' may be the more important factor in the long run.


>>>stereotyping a group of people

It isn't stereotyping: They are, by definition, i*****l a***ns. It is the proper term to use.



From your comments, you seem to be in favor of an 'open border'?