Mass shootings in America

[Cornish Steve]

So many things make my blood boil about the mass shooting today in Texas.

"The 21-year-old is the only suspect in custody over the attack, and police say no officers fired their weapons while arresting him." Can you guess the colour of the gunman? If he were not white, can anyone seriously believe he would have been taken alive?

"Our thoughts and prayers..." Frankly, it's little more than an excuse to do nothing. Yes, people tell me to be more respectful, but it's the same every time. Prayer is not kind, anonymous words after yet another unnecessary killing.

"The police and FBI are investigating whether an anonymous white nationalist "manifesto", shared on an online forum, was written by the gunman. The document says the attack was targeted at the local Hispanic community." Words have consequences, Mr. President. Call immigrants animals, attack them over and over, feed the extremists on talk radio, and an impressionable young man will try to be, in his own eyes, a freedom fighter.

And still nothing will be done. And still the NRA will try to ridicule gun control advocates. And still there will be philosophical discussions about whether the US Constitution is as holy and unchangeable as holy scripture. And still someone will say it's heartless not to wait before expressing outrage.

And still family and friends, in the quietness of their homes and churches, will shed tears tonight and mourn their dead loved ones.

[Matt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49224816

and less than 24 hours later. Hears hoping people still have thoughts and prayers left...

[StevO]

Brilliant post Steve, it’s all too tragic.

Hopes and prayers haven’t worked yet. I don’t see any sign of things changing. We’re these two the 247 & 248 time this year? It’s not ok that these things keep happening. 

[Matt]

https://images.app.goo.gl/6nQJ46GXCiW8CSUv7

[markjazzbassist]

yep but NRA and repubs think it's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue.  oh wait they wont' help pass mental health issue bills either they are against them, freedom and all that.  this country is well and truly fucked and greedy capitalism and money are the only things to blame.  doing right has been pushed down to 10th most important thing sadly, no one cares anymore.

[Ghoat]

A gun is an inanimate object, that will just sit there forever, and never "do" anything. It takes an individual to make a series of decisions and actions to make the gun "do" anything. To simply blame the guns is so simplistic and short-sighted, it's absurd - but the left side will immediately call out the gun.

That being said, the right will defend the right of guns, no matter how lax the laws are, or how excessive the firepower is, to a fault.

Even tho I am in a big time gun-toting redder-than-hell state where hunting is a rite of passage for many, I don't own a gun. I don't want a gun, and I don't feel like I need a gun. I'm not, and have never been a member of the NRA . I've never been hunting, shot a deer or bird, and have no interest in doing so. I do lean to the right as most of you know. I am a bit leery of the federal government passing laws that restrict rights or expand entitlements, but in my case, it comes more  from a limited government philosophy than a love of guns or ownership. But, I do not see ANY reason whatsoever why a private citizen should be allowed to buy, sell or own military firepower. I am not anti-gun laws.

Gun control laws have mixed success. Some places have strong gun laws, and high gun crime. Some have strong gun laws and low gun crime. I don't think knee-jerk legislation is the answer - to anything really. One serious problem is different states have very different laws. New York has super strict laws, so their guns come from states with weaker laws, ditto California - path of least resistance and such. So basically, it will have to be a federal law so the same restrictions or protections apply to Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, New Mexico and New Jersey. But we have 635 children in Washington that are so petty and parochial, that I have serious concerns of their ability to actually put their politics aside and actually do something meaningful. 

We have passed laws that say you can't murder people. That hasn't stopped it. We have passed laws that make cocaine and heroin illegal, but yet, it still exists. Simply passing laws and criminalizing something make the public feel safer and gives politicians something to crow about, but attacking the symptom does shit all to address the cause. Signing a piece of paper isn't a silver bullet that solves everything.

 

Again, pass some common sense laws, I am truly ALL for that - easier said than done, but still. But.....

Why the hell is this happening more and more? Why after 250 years of gun rights in this country is this suddenly becoming an epidemic? What in the fuck in going on in our society, in our homes, in our schools...is it mental health, is it a general disregard for others, is it the vitriol that now dominates national politics, the angst social media fosters...where the hell are these kids parents?  What the hell is causing or allowing these young men to believe that taking the life of random innocent strangers is ok? This is even MORE important to address to me. Laws will have some (but limited IMO) impact, but we have to try to identify and address the behavior of what breeds this crap. It's a complex problem, and it's heartbreaking. 

 

Cornish Steve, I only take exception to one thing in your original post. To take the racism of the shooter, and put it on law enforcement? You really think that that in all that chaos and adrenaline the cops went "Woah - easy fellas, he's a white, guy don't shot him!!"  Can you guess the color of the guy in Dayton the cops put down? Or do you think maybe it was just a black or Hispanic cop that shot him?  Red herring to me.

 

 

[Sibdane]

33 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Even tho I am in a big time gun-toting redder-than-hell state where hunting is a rite of passage for many, I don't own a gun. I don't want a gun, and I don't feel like I need a gun. I'm not, and have never been a member of the NRA . I've never been hunting, shot a deer or bird, and have no interest in doing so. I do lean to the right as most of you know. I am a bit leery of the federal government passing laws that restrict rights or expand entitlements, but in my case, it comes more  from a limited government philosophy than a love of guns or ownership. But, I do not see ANY reason whatsoever why a private citizen should be n allowed to buy, sell or own military firepower. I am not anti-gun laws.

This right here.

[markjazzbassist]

1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

A gun is an inanimate object, that will just sit there forever, and never "do" anything. It takes an individual to make a series of decisions and actions to make the gun "do" anything. To simply blame the guns is so simplistic and short-sighted, it's absurd -

 

except that elsewhere in the world where they have been banned these events happen once a decade not once a week.  you can call it whatever you'd like but effective is what i call it.

 

also mustard gas is an inantimate object, didn't stop the nations (including US) from banning it due to deaths and side effects.  see also various other poisons and biological weapons, drugs (heroin, fentanyl), etc.  plenty of inantimate objects are banned due to what happens when someone uses them.  your argument is moot

[MikeO]

Not quite sure how Trump squares this one up; "Mental illness pulls the trigger, not guns" and then proposes laws that ensure those who commit these crimes. "...face the death penalty....quickly..".

It could be argued fairly strongly I think that anyone who goes on the rampage and kills a lot of people is not quite right mental health wise couldn't it? Follows for me that he's proposing killing ill people.

Amazed to find having googled "Insanity defence" that in four states (Idaho, Montana, Utah and Kansas) such a thing doesn't even exist. That's barbaric.

[London Blue]

3 hours ago, MikeO said:

Not quite sure how Trump squares this one up; "Mental illness pulls the trigger, not guns" and then proposes laws that ensure those who commit these crimes. "...face the death penalty....quickly..".

It could be argued fairly strongly I think that anyone who goes on the rampage and kills a lot of people is not quite right mental health wise couldn't it? Follows for me that he's proposing killing ill people.

Amazed to find having googled "Insanity defence" that in four states (Idaho, Montana, Utah and Kansas) such a thing doesn't even exist. That's barbaric.

You could argue that he is saying (at least with the Texas shooting which is being called a domestic terrorist incident by white supremacists) that supporting white supremacist views is suffering from mental health issues, which I would agree with. Although this would also, given his previous statements include Trump himself.

[London Blue]

5 hours ago, Ghoat said:

A gun is an inanimate object, that will just sit there forever, and never "do" anything. It takes an individual to make a series of decisions and actions to make the gun "do" anything. To simply blame the guns is so simplistic and short-sighted, it's absurd - but the left side will immediately call out the gun.

 

Your right, guns don,t kill people, people kill people.

Guns make it allot easier though.

How many people can a person who has had firearms training from being a member of a club, or having lessons, shoot using a fully automatic rife with  30 round mag's kill in 5 minutes?

The answer is too many. 

Why 5 minutes, that's a reasonable response time. 

Simple things like mandatory background checks for all firearm purchases, red flagging people with extreme views, a history of violence / gun enabled crime or certain mental health conditions, and banning full auto conversion kits,  extended mags and the carrying of concealed weapons would help.

In the longer term banning military grade weapons like assault rifles, unless they are stored at registered gun clubs or made single fire with 10 round clips, reducing the caliber of weapons that can be sold would all make a massive difference. 

You can never stop gun crime, especially in a country with a history and tradition of gun ownership, what you can do is look to limit the impact a shooter can have.

[Ghoat]

I would support all of those things. I think the red flagging of people with extreme views is a slippery slope however - because it's subjective. Theoretically I actually completely agree with it, but in practice it's a subjective decision made by someone, it starts to enter in the area of thought police and is a very slippy slope.

Regardless, an overhaul of gun policy to set laws that are consistent nationwide I feel is reasonable and needed.

[London Blue]

Just now, Ghoat said:

I would support all of those things. I think the red flagging of people with extreme views is a slippery slope however - because it's subjective. Theoretically I actually completely agree with it, but in practice it's a subjective decision made by someone, it starts to enter in the area of thought police and is a very slippy slope.

Regardless, an overhaul of gun policy to set laws that are consistent nationwide I feel is reasonable and needed.

Your right it is subjective, but allot of laws are, threats to kill, harassment, and laws that require Police to prove criminal intent for example.

I would imagine that Red flagging would have to have the right of appeal (the weapons should remain with authorities while the appeal is heard).

It would also have to be re-applied for by authorities after a set period of time, so it may not be permanent, and may only be limited to certain types of weapons. 

Every system needs checks and balances, but ultimately it is balancing the rights of the individual to hold weapons against societies right to say what is an acceptable level of risk. Never going to be perfect but has to be tried.

 

[SpartyBlue]

This idea that guns are inanimate objects and as such they are not a relevant factor in shootings is just so inherently flawed. By this childish logic biological weapons also don't kill people and so should be accessible to the public. 

The U.S. constitution is an insightful document but men who lived 250 years ago can only be expected to see so far. Those who fanatically cling to it's words without considering a modern context are missing one of the main principles of the document. You're supposed to be able to amend it as we have done many, many times. Were this not the case, 75% of adults wouldn't be able to vote, as one example. The second amendment was intended to ensure a well regulated militia so that the population could overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary. Does anyone think this is remotely plausible today? The founding fathers could not conceive of a world with planes much less tanks and nuclear weapons. While the intent of the amendment made a lot of sense at the time it's been outdated for more than 100 years and it's modern interpretation has directly led to the mess we have today. I'm not naive enough to think we are going to get rid of guns in America but common sense restrictions and regulations (which are supported by a significant portion of the voting population) is the bare minimum we should be doing. The position of those who are against gun restrictions would be more coherent if they were also for allowing citizens to own bazookas and nuclear submarines. At least then it would be consistent with the intentions of the founders and not so intellectually dishonest.

 

[Ghoat]

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/j5yekp/exclusive-dayton-shooter-was-in-a-pornogrind-band-that-released-songs-about-raping-and-killing-women

Holy God, I literally can't even begin to wrap my head around this or even form a coherent opinion besides WTF????

[Sibdane]

"Pornogrind."

Well that's new to me.

[Chach]

12 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

The second amendment was intended to ensure a well regulated militia so that the population could overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary. 

Quite an odd concept in a democratic republic of 50 states, makes me think the collective rather than individual theory was the way it was intended.

[SpartyBlue]

27 minutes ago, Chach said:

Quite an odd concept in a democratic republic of 50 states, makes me think the collective rather than individual theory was the way it was intended.

Well, remember that we had just broken away from what we perceived to be a tyrannical government. The greatest strength of the constitution, in my opinion, is that it attempts to set up a government that protects people from government. It recognizes that power often corrupts and so puts in safeguards to try and ensure that no branch wields too much power. The most obvious of these safeguards is our system of checks and balances but I would argue that the second amendment is another. It was intended to be a protection against too much power residing with the military. Unfortunately technological advancement has made this balance untenable and the amendment has been interpreted so broadly that the original intent is mostly ignored. The only people who adhere to the original intent are those you find holed up in cabins somewhere writing anarchist manifestos. 

[Cornish Steve]

On 05/08/2019 at 09:33, markjazzbassist said:

yep but NRA and repubs think it's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue.  oh wait they wont' help pass mental health issue bills either they are against them, freedom and all that.  this country is well and truly fucked and greedy capitalism and money are the only things to blame.  doing right has been pushed down to 10th most important thing sadly, no one cares anymore.

Mental health is the problem? Then why this?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/28/trump-sign-bill-blocking-obama-gun-rule/98484106/

[markjazzbassist]

35 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Mental health is the problem? Then why this?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/28/trump-sign-bill-blocking-obama-gun-rule/98484106/

Steve you must have missed the dripping sarcasm in my post.  The republicans will fight at all costs to keep guns because they are backed so heavily financially by the NRA.  It’s their sugar daddy.  They use the guise of mental health to try and skirt the issue.  Some democrats are backed by the NRA as well but nowhere near the amount of republicans as well.  I think they should ban all that lobbying and special interest stuff myself but the greedy fat cats love that money.

[SpartyBlue]

12 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

Steve you must have missed the dripping sarcasm in my post.  The republicans will fight at all costs to keep guns because they are backed so heavily financially by the NRA.  It’s their sugar daddy.  They use the guise of mental health to try and skirt the issue.  Some democrats are backed by the NRA as well but nowhere near the amount of republicans as well.  I think they should ban all that lobbying and special interest stuff myself but the greedy fat cats love that money.

Lobbying, in theory, is perfectly reasonable. You have a group who believes in a certain cause or has a particular ideology and they organize to make their position known to those in power and vote for those who share their views. The problem comes from the money and power some of these groups control. The NRA, as an example, supports positions on guns that even their own members do not. Their influence and their views are in conflict with what the majority of the country wants and, I'd argue, with the best interests of the nation. Same for something like the tobacco lobby which wielded huge influence and as a result contributed to untold deaths for decades. The issue though is that there isn't really a good way to stop them in my opinion. Sure, you could limit political donations from these groups but I don't see that as a real fix. There would be nothing to prevent an organization from strongly encouraging it's members to give to certain candidates who would do their bidding. No different than how a particular religious denomination can encourage it's members to vote a certain way. This scenario might be slightly more agreeable because it's up to the individual ultimately but powerful lobbies and special interest groups would continue to persist.

[Ghoat]

To Sparty's point, the framers of the US Constitution were a bit paranoid about the central governments powers. A significant portion of the Constitution is restrictions on the power of the central government with various checks and balances, putting the military under elected civilian authority and the rights of states. Whatever was not specifically granted, or prohibited within the Constitution fell to the states. 

Generally speaking you had a mixture of lay people and thinkers of the day that had the opportunity to create what they considered an ideal country or an ideal system of government. The intent was for people to be governed by the laws of the state they chose to live in, and for the states to send their own elected representatives to the two legislative bodies  for a few days, hash out laws that affected the Union, and then go back home to their jobs and let the states take care of the rest. 

For 13 States and 2-3 million people it worked. Almost 250 years later, it's 50 states, 300+ million people and the document still works with little changes. There have only been 27 amendments in all that time, and 10 of those (Bill of Rights) included in the original Constitution so I don't really know why they count as amendments. And the first 10 were largely restricting the power of the federal government, and granting citizens protection from prosecution. I guess it will be fair to say the second amendment falls under both of those categories.

Regardless there have only been 17 actual changes since the Constitution was adopted, and several of those apply procedures for Congress. one said liquors illegal, and another one said nevermind no it's not.

There are probably maybe 10 "big" amendments, that range from the abolition of slavery, the rights of women to vote, voting age etc. It's not perfect and there have been some changes and interpretations and powers, but the framers did a pretty damn good job I'm creating something out of thin air that has had that few substantial changes over time.

And For better or worse, Americans tend to get a bit skeptical when you seriously talk about changes to the Constitution. It has worked stunningly well over the test of time, and there is a fear of making a substantial change within it that upsets any of the balances/checks of power or limits the rights of individuals or states that are expressly provided.

I do find it a little humorous or ironic that we revere the Framers/Founder as some of the greatest Americans history... Without stopping to realize most of them were first generation born in this country to ex-pats/colonists.... So it was pretty much a collection of very forward thinking, wise Brits who wrote it

By comparison, my State Constitution (Alabama) is only 117 years old, but written by crooked redneck lawyers. It's more than twice as long as any constitution in the world, over 40 times longer than the US Constitution, and has nine hundred and twenty fucking eight Amendment. 

And back on topic, amendment or not, I can't see any reason for a 21 year old to be able to buy an AK-47 or handgun with a 30 round clip

[SpartyBlue]

59 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

To Sparty's point, the framers of the US Constitution were a bit paranoid about the central governments powers. A significant portion of the Constitution is restrictions on the power of the central government with various checks and balances, putting the military under elected civilian authority and the rights of states. Whatever was not specifically granted, or prohibited within the Constitution fell to the states. 

Generally speaking you had a mixture of lay people and thinkers of the day that had the opportunity to create what they considered an ideal country or an ideal system of government. The intent was for people to be governed by the laws of the state they chose to live in, and for the states to send their own elected representatives to the two legislative bodies  for a few days, hash out laws that affected the Union, and then go back home to their jobs and let the states take care of the rest. 

For 13 States and 2-3 million people it worked. Almost 250 years later, it's 50 states, 300+ million people and the document still works with little changes. There have only been 27 amendments in all that time, and 10 of those (Bill of Rights) included in the original Constitution so I don't really know why they count as amendments. And the first 10 were largely restricting the power of the federal government, and granting citizens protection from prosecution. I guess it will be fair to say the second amendment falls under both of those categories.

Regardless there have only been 17 actual changes since the Constitution was adopted, and several of those apply procedures for Congress. one said liquors illegal, and another one said nevermind no it's not.

There are probably maybe 10 "big" amendments, that range from the abolition of slavery, the rights of women to vote, voting age etc. It's not perfect and there have been some changes and interpretations and powers, but the framers did a pretty damn good job I'm creating something out of thin air that has had that few substantial changes over time.

And For better or worse, Americans tend to get a bit skeptical when you seriously talk about changes to the Constitution. It has worked stunningly well over the test of time, and there is a fear of making a substantial change within it that upsets any of the balances/checks of power or limits the rights of individuals or states that are expressly provided.

I do find it a little humorous or ironic that we revere the Framers/Founder as some of the greatest Americans history... Without stopping to realize most of them were first generation born in this country to ex-pats/colonists.... So it was pretty much a collection of very forward thinking, wise Brits who wrote it

By comparison, my State Constitution (Alabama) is only 117 years old, but written by crooked redneck lawyers. It's more than twice as long as any constitution in the world, over 40 times longer than the US Constitution, and has nine hundred and twenty fucking eight Amendment. 

And back on topic, amendment or not, I can't see any reason for a 21 year old to be able to buy an AK-47 or handgun with a 30 round clip

Well said. I think it's important to both recognize the success of the document and it's limitations. By doing so it will hopefully appear to people as less of a religious text and more of the insightful but changeable framework it was meant to be. One example I like to cite to people who are a bit dogmatic about the Constitution is the slavery exception in the 13th amendment. If you're convicted of a crime the government is perfectly allowed to force your unpaid labor and you are essentially a slave of the state. The consequences of this exception have directly resulted in a lot of the problems we have with our prison population to this day. Also, we still don't have an Equal Rights Amendment which I bet would surprise a lot of people. 

[Ghoat]

40 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

Well said. I think it's important to both recognize the success of the document and it's limitations. By doing so it will hopefully appear to people as less of a religious text and more of the insightful but changeable framework it was meant to be. One example I like to cite to people who are a bit dogmatic about the Constitution is the slavery exception in the 13th amendment. If you're convicted of a crime the government is perfectly allowed to force your unpaid labor and you are essentially a slave of the state. The consequences of this exception have directly resulted in a lot of the problems we have with our prison population to this day. Also, we still don't have an Equal Rights Amendment which I bet would surprise a lot of people. 

1. I've not heard that brought up vis-a-vis the 13th, 'tis interesting. I'm guessing it has survived legal challenges because the courts see the "pay" as going to offset the cost to the taxpayers of incarceration. I think I have heard $30k used as an average cost per inmate per year. If you assumed 20% of pay to taxes, that would mean a gross of $37,500. If based on a 2080hr work year, they are getting "credit" for $18 per hour - decent for (mostly) unskilled labor?

2. Is this not covered under an umbrella from another amendment/law? What is the consequences of not having it/what would having it address? Confessing total ignorance on this!

[SpartyBlue]

1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

1. I've not heard that brought up vis-a-vis the 13th, 'tis interesting. I'm guessing it has survived legal challenges because the courts see the "pay" as going to offset the cost to the taxpayers of incarceration. I think I have heard $30k used as an average cost per inmate per year. If you assumed 20% of pay to taxes, that would mean a gross of $37,500. If based on a 2080hr work year, they are getting "credit" for $18 per hour - decent for (mostly) unskilled labor?

2. Is this not covered under an umbrella from another amendment/law? What is the consequences of not having it/what would having it address? Confessing total ignorance on this!

1. The prison labor system we have is pretty messed up for a variety of reasons. I expect it’s not been challenged because there is nothing to challenge. You can’t say something is unconstitutional if it’s explicitly accounted for in an amendment. It is, quite literally, constitutional.

2. You are correct that their are various protections in place within other laws. The ERA itself has an interesting history. Cruised through Congress in the 60’s or 70’s but fell just short of the 38 states that needed to ratify largely due to the work of one woman who made it her life’s mission to oppose it. If you’re familiar with John Oliver’s show on HBO he does an excellent (and amusing) summary.

[Ghoat]

Not familiar with him, the cost of adding HBO is far more than my britbox subscription and I have more TV that I can watch anyway. 

I did do a quick scan over the amendments before I posted previously so I didn't say something factually stupid. When I did I noticed something interesting on the 27th amendment - I forget that one, I guess because when I grew up in school they were 26 amendments. it was ratified in 1992 and basically says when Congress votes themselves a raise it doesn't take effect until the next session. So in theory you're not voting yourself a raise unless you get reelected. The interesting thing to me was it was proposed in 1789, along with 10 others that became the Bill of Rights. That it took 202 years to ratify that is somewhat embarrassing.

But....A 19 year old sophomore at the University of Texas wrote a paper about it, claiming it could still be ratified. He got a "C". He was pissed off about the grade, and managed to launch a national campaign bringing attention to it and it was indeed ratified. That is actually a pretty cool story that I never knew.

[SpartyBlue]

1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

Not familiar with him, the cost of adding HBO is far more than my britbox subscription and I have more TV that I can watch anyway. 

I did do a quick scan over the amendments before I posted previously so I didn't say something factually stupid. When I did I noticed something interesting on the 27th amendment - I forget that one, I guess because when I grew up in school they were 26 amendments. it was ratified in 1992 and basically says when Congress votes themselves a raise it doesn't take effect until the next session. So in theory you're not voting yourself a raise unless you get reelected. The interesting thing to me was it was proposed in 1789, along with 10 others that became the Bill of Rights. That it took 202 years to ratify that is somewhat embarrassing.

But....A 19 year old sophomore at the University of Texas wrote a paper about it, claiming it could still be ratified. He got a "C". He was pissed off about the grade, and managed to launch a national campaign bringing attention to it and it was indeed ratified. That is actually a pretty cool story that I never knew.

That's very interesting. I believe the ERA is still open for ratification and if I'm not mistaken i think they are up to 37 states and need only 1 more. Looking at you, Alabama. Haha, I kid.

[Ghoat]

4 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

Interesting. I believe the ERA is still open for ratification and if I'm not mistaken i think they are up to 37 states and only 1 more. Looking at you, Alabama. Haha, I kid.

It's closed - but could always be reopened with an extension. But I guess with EEOC, it's a moot point.

Looking at Alabama, WTF? First you came for the front seats on the bus, then the water fountains, that whole voting thing...enough, we've done our part! (That would be a lot funnier if that slogan alone wasn't enough to get me elected county commissioner in some of the NE rural counties between Birmingham and Huntsville or NW between Birmingham and Starkvagas)

 

[SpartyBlue]

6 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

It's closed - but could always be reopened with an extension. But I guess with EEOC, it's a moot point.

Looking at Alabama, WTF? First you came for the front seats on the bus, then the water fountains, that whole voting thing...enough, we've done our part! (That would be a lot funnier if that slogan alone wasn't enough to get me elected county commissioner in some of the NE rural counties between Birmingham and Huntsville or NW between Birmingham and Starkvagas)

 

it's amazing how little qualification you need for some locally elected positions. I was watching something on the problems we have with coroners/medical examiners in this country that was pretty disturbing. In one case the sheriff of a town was also the coroner and routinely didn't bother to do autopsies when a death involved an officer. Apparently, in most places you just have to be 18 with no felonies.

[Ghoat]

lol yeah, bu that;s just  the Sheriff, consider this....

 

"Hey, I'd like to be, um, like president of the America"

"OK, qualifications - have you ever been the president of a country before?"

"Um, no"

"World leaders - are you friends with any, speak a foreign language maybe?"

"Sorta, I've seen Spanglish twice"

"Ok, well, have you ever been in charge of a military? Nuclear subs, stealth bombers, battle tanks, launch codes for MIRV's and such?"

"Um, what?"

"Are you 35, born in America, no felonies?"

"yeah"

"Fuck yeah dude, you're qualified to lead the free world, sign here!"

"Sweet"

 

Makes sheriff requirements seems reasonable, no?