The News Thread

Nice article but a couple glaring things. Without going into the paper itself (too tired right now), I don't really understand the point made regarding automation being more commonplace outside of the USA. Whether it's Korean robots or American robots undercutting Americans, that's still automation doing work cheaper than American workers can do it, even if it's globalist automation. The article doesn't mention how manufacturing employment in Korea has been holding up as a result of being apparent leaders in automation. A quick Wiki search says they're at 23%, which is closer to America's 20% than industrialized Central Europe's ~30%.

Also, calling manufacturing employment "stable" between 1960 and 2000 is absurd and an elementary error. Number of employees were stable but our population grew by almost 60% over that same time period. Manufacturing began a steady and significant decline in the 1960s, even if 9/11 and the recession helped to accelerate things. I imagine that was a simplification to make a point by the MSN guys and not the authors of the paper though.

EDIT: Reading the report anyways, it's definitely better than the article, answering my criticism of the second point at least and providing some other interesting info (like a breakdown of various manufacturing fields and how there was a pretty clear cause-and-effect between how skilled it was and how long it was able to resist China's competition).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
Not exactly "new" news but an interesting factoid:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/american-dams-19th-century.html

To appreciate how essential dams were in the nineteenth century, simply look at the 1840 U.S. Census: It found that almost every river had a dam, and many rivers had dozens. In total, the twenty-six states that made up the United States at the time had around 65,000 dams. With a population of only 17 million at that time, the United States had one dam for every 261 people.
 
It's still more than applicable to this topic, but in any case irrelevant because nothing is going to change. In a couple of weeks, we'll post about another and Ozzyboi will add his gun lobby talking points and throw in some overplayed joke with an "amirite??!!1" tail attached to the end.
 
It's telling that the Santa Fe shooting is another incident in which explosives were present too (but not used), and little talk of that. As both trends go, that's more troubling to me. If people think shootings are scary, wait until places start blowing up. We have a cultural problem, and screaming "ban all the things" doesn't begin to address it.
 
We don't have any kind of problem. School shootings are a meme and about as inconsequential as violence can get.
 
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/bach-at-the-burger-king/#!

Today, deterrence through classical music is de rigueur for American transit systems. Transportation hubs from coast to coast play classical music for protective purposes. Brahms bounces through bus stops and baggage claims. Travelers buy Amtrak tickets to Baroque Muzak at Penn Station; Schubert scherzos grace the Greyhound waiting area in New York’s Port Authority Bus Terminal; Handel’s Water Music willows over the platforms of Atlanta’s MARTA subway system. Beyond big cities, the tactic extends to small towns and suburbs across the continent. In Duncan, British Columbia, Pavarotti’s tenor tones patrol the public park dispersing late-night hooligans, while the Lynchburg Library in Virginia clears its parking lot with a playlist highlighted by such scintillating soundtracks as Mozart for Monday Mornings and A Baroque Diet. In the most dramatic account of concerto crime-fighting, the Columbus, Ohio, YMCA reportedly dissolved a sidewalk brawl between two drug dealers simply by flipping on Vivaldi’s Four Seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Einherjar86
https://www.spring.org.uk/2018/05/high-iq-brains.php

It turns out that on top of having larger brains, more intelligent people have fewer connections between neurons in the cerebral cortex, research finds. The reason is that the brains of intelligent people are more efficient — this is known to psychologists as the ‘neural efficiency hypothesis of intelligence’. The conclusion comes from a neuroimaging study that looked at the brain’s microstructure.

Analysis of the brains of 259 people measured the number of dendrites in their brains. Dendrites are extensions of brain cells that reach out towards other brain cells, enabling them to communicate with each other. IQ tests showed that people with fewer dendrites were more intelligent.
It is more than just size that matters, it is how efficiently your brain cells communicate. With fewer dendritic connections there is less ‘noise’ in the brain and the signal is purer. Fewer dendrites also consume less energy — hence, a more efficient brain.
...............
However, other studies had shown that — despite their comparatively high number of neurons — the brains of intelligent people demonstrated less neuronal activity during an IQ test than the brains of less intelligent individuals.
 
It's still more than applicable to this topic, but in any case irrelevant because nothing is going to change. In a couple of weeks, we'll post about another and Ozzyboi will add his gun lobby talking points and throw in some overplayed joke with an "amirite??!!1" tail attached to the end.

What is your solution to the problem if you could implement one? The problem could be school shootings or gun violence generally.
 
What is your solution to the problem if you could implement one? The problem could be school shootings or gun violence generally.

The assault weapons ban of 1994 worked. Mass shootings immediately plummeted after implementation, and naturally they immediately resurged as the law expired in 2004. That's one thing, and the fact that a shotgun and revolver were in this case used is not a counter-argument to this like gun nuts always like to pretend. On gun violence more generally, easy: restrict access, require comprehensive gun safety training programs, and implement a steep sales tax on gun purchases. Making it harder to get guns doesn't stop all gun violence, but it does radically reduce it.
 
The assault weapons ban of 1994 worked. Mass shootings immediately plummeted after implementation, and naturally they immediately resurged as the law expired in 2004.

'Assault weapons'

What defines an assault weapon exactly these days? This ban indicates certain semi-automatic rifles but any weapon can be considered an assault weapon based on the textbook definition of 'assault'.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault

upload_2018-5-21_7-49-15.png

If we are talking about rifles like an AK-47, SCAR or anything that someone can build from scratch, good luck getting those banned.

If you are talking about automatic weapons, those are already banned unless the gun was manufactured before 1986 (can't remember the exact date but it's part of Firearm Owner's Protection Act)

restrict access

How?

require comprehensive gun safety training programs

What would this entail? This is already required if you choose to obtain a concealed carry license. It isn't necessarily 'comprehensive' as that's an ambiguous term, but it's there and required by each state in which you can get a license.

I mean, there are only so many ways you can say 'Keep your finger off the trigger unless you are ready to fire' or 'Do not store a loaded gun in an unlocked container' or 'Do not clean your gun when it is loaded'. It's up to the user of the firearm to be responsible about it. If they have a negligent discharge, that is not on the state who granted the license, the instructor who taught the class or the manufacturer. It is the responsibility of the person who caused the ND. If we require people to take an intelligence test to own a firearm as part of the comprehensive safety plan, I propose we also do it before people decide to conceive a child.

When anyone gets their driver's license, they do safety courses that involve the ramification of not wearing your seatbelt. People will still get behind the wheel and drive their vehicle without wearing a seatbelt. Yes, we fine people for that but it doesn't prevent people from doing it. We fine people for negligent discharges, but it doesn't prevent it from happening and neither do safety classes. Less than 1000 negligent discharges happen per year. How many gun owners are there in the US? In the tens of millions I imagine. I should probably know this.

implement a steep sales tax on gun purchases

This is already happening in a way. Not a sales tax, but a proposed increase in the tax on the manufacture of firearms and ammunition is proposed in Congress. The increase in tax on ammo would essentially legislate away the right to carry a firearm because it would be too cost prohibitive to even own one or practice with one. Would you agree with this legislation or would you agree that it hurts people who want to own firearms for any reason:

First link that popped up on Google:

https://www.atr.org/gun-tax-bill-doubles-federal-gun-tax-quintuples-ammo-tax

Actual text of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text

Section in question:

``SEC. 4181. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

``There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer,
producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the
specified percent of the price for which so sold:
``(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:
``(A) Pistols.
``(B) Revolvers.
``(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
``(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm,
whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun
that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper
receivers.

``(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and
cartridges.''.

(b) Exemption for United States.--Subsection (b) of section 4182 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Sales to United States.--No firearms, pistols, revolvers,
lower frame or receiver for a firearm, shells, and cartridges purchased
with funds appropriated for any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States shall be subject to any tax imposed on the sale or
transfer of such articles.''.


I believe the current tax on manufacture of firearms is 10% so that increase isn't too substantial (edit: from the ATF website:
First imposed on February 25, 1919, Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on imported firearms and ammunition when the importer sells or uses the firearms or ammunition (FAET). A tax if 10 percent of the sales price is imposed on pistols and revolvers, and a tax of 11 percent of the sales price is imposed on other portable weapons (e.g., rifles and shotguns) and ammunition. The excise tax is not imposed again unless the firearms and ammunition are further manufactured. At one time, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was responsible for collecting FAET. However, since January 2003, this responsibility rests with the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), U.S. Dept. of Treasury.
.

However, the tax on ammunition will pretty much kill the firearms industry. A box of 50 round 9mm target ammunition (ie: range ammo) averages 12-14 dollars depending on the company selling it, the grain of the ammunition and other things. I can find boxes on sale for under 10 dollars recently. This would essentially almost double the price of a box to 20 dollars as it'll be passed to the consumer to offset that price. It doubles the amount of money I have to spend to become proficient with a firearm and be able to practice safely handling it with ammunition in the firearm. I am unaware what the actual cost is to manufacture a single round of 9mm ball ammo, but increase it by 39% to offset the tax.

This doesn't take into account the fact that personal protection ammunition is already more expensive than the price of regular 'ball' ammo (ie: what you use at the range). Personal protection ammo is also known as hollow point ammunition for those who are not aware. If the price increases, people will be more likely to use ball ammo (which has a tendency to go through a person and into walls or other potential innocents) for protection rather than a bullet that will expand on impact and not go through the person and limit casualties. A box of 9mm hollow point ammuniton varies, but I can find 50 round boxes of ammunition online for 25 dollars which is a really good price. If you go to a big box store, you can only find the ammo in 25 round quantities and it's roughly 18-24 dollars for that at a big box store.

The first headline isn't entirely accurate since there's already a tax on it so obviously fake news.
 
Last edited:
I know you're not in the US, but "semiautomatic" became a buzzword for a bit.
I’m well aware. I meant what a relief for the gun lobby. Imagine if it'd been another AR-15! Very bad press.

It's telling that the Santa Fe shooting is another incident in which explosives were present too (but not used), and little talk of that. As both trends go, that's more troubling to me. If people think shootings are scary, wait until places start blowing up.
Has that actually been more of a thing recently? Explosives were used at Columbine, weren't they?

We have a cultural problem, and screaming "ban all the things" doesn't begin to address it.
Agreed it's a cultural problem. I don't see any way out of it at this point. It's way too ingrained.