This morning (12/04/24) I read that United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson had been shot and killed while standing outside the New York Hilton Midtown hotel.
I was thinking something similar. Groups that want to criminalize words because the impact may be negative for the listener seems to be the ones championing the assassination of a man. Also missing, but not surprising, is no discussion of the dismal outcomes of socialized medicine in many countries including Canada and its pushing of euthanasia - also called assisted suicide.
This. "Its sole function is to make it difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to own guns."
Well-stated and historically supported. Strikes me as almost tautological. Reminds me of a favorite quote of mine...
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants."
~ Cesare Beccaria, Legal Theorist (1738 - 1794)
I find it fascinating, if unsurprising, that the Sullivan Act has roots in mob culture. Many similar observations can be made about the history of gun control in general. I have argued elsewhere that the roots of Southern gun control lie in the desire of racists to make sure black folks could not defend themselves. Regardless, treating gun control as if it provided a solution is the same type of symptom-focus prevalent in our society in other realms, such as healthcare. The gun is a "how", but the problem is the "why." Treat that, and the availability and/or prevalence of firearms becomes irrelevant. At least that's my current view.
In the face of the repeated failure of gun control laws to significantly reduce gun crime, the continued creation of new or more stringent gun control legislation demonstrates that the true goal is controlling guns not reducing crime.
I advocate for laws- relative to guns or otherwise- that make sense. Making it difficult or impossible for non-criminals to own guns is nothing more than a gift to criminals. If you look at the statistics on gun crime, you find that it's largely a function of culture, not gun laws. Why is it that areas where guns are prohibited have the highest incidence of mass shootings. The people who open fire in schools may be mentally unbalanced, but they're not stupid. And people who are intent on obtaining a firearm for criminal purposes are not deterred by gun control laws.
home of Ellis Island where most immigrants were processed, known as "the melting pot" and ethnic diversity was unheard of? the concept certainly was known, respected & admired.
Irish racketeering/illegal activities vs
italian mafia. lololololol. same thing.
organized crime IS organized crime.
culture just identifies the cut of the "suit".
organized crime built this country & still rules it dictating, smearing, typecasting crime, criminals, orgs by the suit they wear.
organized crime is criminal activity organized and just because it is accepted & crimes classed legitimate when done by some suits vs those suits...it is still crime & criminal.
"clear your mind & the rest will follow".
societal, yes. cultural, no.
crime is crime. gun laws make criminals...of those not wearing the acceptable suit.
That was a very interesting take. Are cities that had high rates of mob run crime a 100 years ago most likely to have higher murder rates. If so, is it culture? Did the mobsters go into politics at a higher rate? Stealing from one's citizens using a gun and later using the tax and fees system seem to echo one another.
Whether the breeding ground for crime is societal or cultural is a matter of semantics. Invariably, society accepts a culture once it becomes widespread. And just as invariably, each specific culture becomes more refined as time goes on. In the case of criminal activity, I'm sure some current politicians view elected office as a safer way to steal. Others became corrupt as a consequence of the power they achieved. Concurrently, many "mobsters" have learned easier ways to make money and have abandoned some criminal activities to a new crop of criminals of different ethnicities.
Our current situation is one in which society has accepted and in some cases welcomed corrupt and incompetent candidates seeking public office. That being the case, it isn't surprising that many politicians have been re-elected after having been convicted of crimes. This statement has nothing to do with Donald Trump whose indictment and conviction was politically motivated and stands as testimony to the current state of affairs in which the prosecutors are arguably more criminal that those they prosecute.
Further evidence- now that Trump has been re-elected, some Democrats are calling for an end to weaponizing the legal system.
Wasn't that the premise of the Sopranos? And rumors circulated about the Kennedy family and the patriarch's bootlegging, but I have no clue if true nor care. The problem with the legal system is that critical legal theory has crept in. When my kid started parroting CRT in high school - learned from his debate courses that taught kids critical thinking using Marcuse and others. I was shocked when he spoke about white privilege (he's mixed race) as I always made it clear that his great-great grandparents came from dire situations and his great grandmothers ensured the families clawed their way up. It is as if they have collective amnesia that Marx was writing about the desolate circumstances of the poor English. With all this said, I don't know how we get back to a functional legal system.
From everything I've read, Joseph Kennedy was engaged in a number of criminal activities. He became rather wealthy and used some of his money to buy respectability. He's not the only person to do that.
The core problem with the legal system is that monied defendants usually win because they can hire the best legal defense teams. Those teams then go up against government-appointed attorneys who are typically not the best and the brightest (there are definitely exceptions). However, history has shown that many prosecutors bumble their way or don't have the resources to mount a first class prosecution.
The way we get back to a functional legal system is to have unbiased judges appointed and to get the biased and dishonest ones removed. Of course there's a slim chance that will ever happen because of the process by which judges are appointed or elected. And the fact that there is little recourse against judges who are incompetent or are more focused on making political statements as opposed to properly interpreting the law.
With the murder of Brian Thompson did anyone hear a clamor for more or stronger gun control? Almost as if the act was justified?!
I was thinking something similar. Groups that want to criminalize words because the impact may be negative for the listener seems to be the ones championing the assassination of a man. Also missing, but not surprising, is no discussion of the dismal outcomes of socialized medicine in many countries including Canada and its pushing of euthanasia - also called assisted suicide.
Apologies for being late to the party.
This. "Its sole function is to make it difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to own guns."
Well-stated and historically supported. Strikes me as almost tautological. Reminds me of a favorite quote of mine...
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants."
~ Cesare Beccaria, Legal Theorist (1738 - 1794)
I find it fascinating, if unsurprising, that the Sullivan Act has roots in mob culture. Many similar observations can be made about the history of gun control in general. I have argued elsewhere that the roots of Southern gun control lie in the desire of racists to make sure black folks could not defend themselves. Regardless, treating gun control as if it provided a solution is the same type of symptom-focus prevalent in our society in other realms, such as healthcare. The gun is a "how", but the problem is the "why." Treat that, and the availability and/or prevalence of firearms becomes irrelevant. At least that's my current view.
In the face of the repeated failure of gun control laws to significantly reduce gun crime, the continued creation of new or more stringent gun control legislation demonstrates that the true goal is controlling guns not reducing crime.
Absolutely.
If you're interested in a bit more history of the Sullivan Act- https://open.substack.com/pub/daveemanuel/p/guns-for-me-but-not-for-thee?https://daveemanuel.substack.com/p/guns-for-me-but-not-for-thee
So do you advocate that the be no gun laws?
I advocate for laws- relative to guns or otherwise- that make sense. Making it difficult or impossible for non-criminals to own guns is nothing more than a gift to criminals. If you look at the statistics on gun crime, you find that it's largely a function of culture, not gun laws. Why is it that areas where guns are prohibited have the highest incidence of mass shootings. The people who open fire in schools may be mentally unbalanced, but they're not stupid. And people who are intent on obtaining a firearm for criminal purposes are not deterred by gun control laws.
home of Ellis Island where most immigrants were processed, known as "the melting pot" and ethnic diversity was unheard of? the concept certainly was known, respected & admired.
Irish racketeering/illegal activities vs
italian mafia. lololololol. same thing.
organized crime IS organized crime.
culture just identifies the cut of the "suit".
organized crime built this country & still rules it dictating, smearing, typecasting crime, criminals, orgs by the suit they wear.
organized crime is criminal activity organized and just because it is accepted & crimes classed legitimate when done by some suits vs those suits...it is still crime & criminal.
"clear your mind & the rest will follow".
societal, yes. cultural, no.
crime is crime. gun laws make criminals...of those not wearing the acceptable suit.
That was a very interesting take. Are cities that had high rates of mob run crime a 100 years ago most likely to have higher murder rates. If so, is it culture? Did the mobsters go into politics at a higher rate? Stealing from one's citizens using a gun and later using the tax and fees system seem to echo one another.
Whether the breeding ground for crime is societal or cultural is a matter of semantics. Invariably, society accepts a culture once it becomes widespread. And just as invariably, each specific culture becomes more refined as time goes on. In the case of criminal activity, I'm sure some current politicians view elected office as a safer way to steal. Others became corrupt as a consequence of the power they achieved. Concurrently, many "mobsters" have learned easier ways to make money and have abandoned some criminal activities to a new crop of criminals of different ethnicities.
Our current situation is one in which society has accepted and in some cases welcomed corrupt and incompetent candidates seeking public office. That being the case, it isn't surprising that many politicians have been re-elected after having been convicted of crimes. This statement has nothing to do with Donald Trump whose indictment and conviction was politically motivated and stands as testimony to the current state of affairs in which the prosecutors are arguably more criminal that those they prosecute.
Further evidence- now that Trump has been re-elected, some Democrats are calling for an end to weaponizing the legal system.
Wasn't that the premise of the Sopranos? And rumors circulated about the Kennedy family and the patriarch's bootlegging, but I have no clue if true nor care. The problem with the legal system is that critical legal theory has crept in. When my kid started parroting CRT in high school - learned from his debate courses that taught kids critical thinking using Marcuse and others. I was shocked when he spoke about white privilege (he's mixed race) as I always made it clear that his great-great grandparents came from dire situations and his great grandmothers ensured the families clawed their way up. It is as if they have collective amnesia that Marx was writing about the desolate circumstances of the poor English. With all this said, I don't know how we get back to a functional legal system.
From everything I've read, Joseph Kennedy was engaged in a number of criminal activities. He became rather wealthy and used some of his money to buy respectability. He's not the only person to do that.
The core problem with the legal system is that monied defendants usually win because they can hire the best legal defense teams. Those teams then go up against government-appointed attorneys who are typically not the best and the brightest (there are definitely exceptions). However, history has shown that many prosecutors bumble their way or don't have the resources to mount a first class prosecution.
The way we get back to a functional legal system is to have unbiased judges appointed and to get the biased and dishonest ones removed. Of course there's a slim chance that will ever happen because of the process by which judges are appointed or elected. And the fact that there is little recourse against judges who are incompetent or are more focused on making political statements as opposed to properly interpreting the law.