The New American Politics thread

[Coach]

So God created and watches over all the universe, and has nothing more important to do than to expose the evils of Obamacare?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by photon

Oh yeah, Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery according to Carson.

It might even be worse than slavery.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ernie

His comments that he would get everyone to rush the shooter and his story that he has had a gun pulled on him in a Popeye's. His response? "I think you want the guy at the counter".

This guy is nuts, but I don't think the idea that in a situation like this, having everyone rush the shooter is the worst plan in the world. I recently listened to a podcast that talked about precisely this. If you had a sort of mutual understanding that this is just how we behave in situations where a mass shooting appears to be happening (in a case where everyone can't just run away, like where you're in a classroom or a movie theatre or whatever), the loss of life would likely be lower if everyone just took the guy at once. A few people would certainly be injured and it's likely someone or several someones would die, but probably fewer than if the shooter gets his way.

The analogy used was, what happens if a guy stands up on a plane with a gun and says "everyone just keep your seats, I'm going to take control of this jet, don't interfere and you won't be harmed". Nobody is listening to that. That guy is, quite simply, going down.

The problem is actually getting everyone on the same page, because if 1-2 people rush him, it isn't going to work. Has to be everyone. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, I suppose.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This guy is nuts, but I don't think the idea that in a situation like this, having everyone rush the shooter is the worst plan in the world. I recently listened to a podcast that talked about precisely this. If you had a sort of mutual understanding that this is just how we behave in situations where a mass shooting appears to be happening (in a case where everyone can't just run away, like where you're in a classroom or a movie theatre or whatever), the loss of life would likely be lower if everyone just took the guy at once. A few people would certainly be injured and it's likely someone or several someones would die, but probably fewer than if the shooter gets his way.

The analogy used was, what happens if a guy stands up on a plane with a gun and says "everyone just keep your seats, I'm going to take control of this jet, don't interfere and you won't be harmed". Nobody is listening to that. That guy is, quite simply, going down.

The problem is actually getting everyone on the same page, because if 1-2 people rush him, it isn't going to work. Has to be everyone. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, I suppose.

Yes and no. The problem here is the "Lottery Winner" type analysis. If we applied this to mass shootings, then yes, life list overall would likely decrease. The trouble is, people don't always know what a mass shooting is before it starts. If everyone rushed a guy with a gun in public every time, how many extra fatalities would we see?

[CroFlames]

What a ridiculous notion this is: a presidential candidate suggesting ways to defend against a mass shooter instead of looking at ways to prevent mass shootings.

The republicans are simply a disaster. But they are pandering to the lowest denominator, and it'll work in the US. I think dems win, but it will certainly be close.

[peter12]

At least people are paying attention to the Republican race, indicating that even through the chaos, the party has somewhat of an interested grip on what matters to Americans.

Meanwhile, where is Hilary Clinton?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by peter12

At least people are paying attention to the Republican race, indicating that even through the chaos, the party has somewhat of an interested grip on what matters to Americans.

Meanwhile, where is Hilary Clinton?

I'd say its more of a car accident fascination.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I'd say its more of a car accident fascination.

Maybe just for the sophisticates on Calgarypuck.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This guy is nuts, but I don't think the idea that in a situation like this, having everyone rush the shooter is the worst plan in the world. I recently listened to a podcast that talked about precisely this. If you had a sort of mutual understanding that this is just how we behave in situations where a mass shooting appears to be happening (in a case where everyone can't just run away, like where you're in a classroom or a movie theatre or whatever), the loss of life would likely be lower if everyone just took the guy at once. A few people would certainly be injured and it's likely someone or several someones would die, but probably fewer than if the shooter gets his way.

The analogy used was, what happens if a guy stands up on a plane with a gun and says "everyone just keep your seats, I'm going to take control of this jet, don't interfere and you won't be harmed". Nobody is listening to that. That guy is, quite simply, going down.

The problem is actually getting everyone on the same page, because if 1-2 people rush him, it isn't going to work. Has to be everyone. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, I suppose.

That's great in theory the problem is that most people freeze when confronted with danger. Not everyone can be a first responder. Not everyone can be the guy a first responder tells to go do something because they are out of it (I know. we had a fire in the lab once and I had to shake me co-worker to get moving because she just froze. It happens a lot). In fact most people will not in the moment even consider rushing a shooter. Look at the panic a fire alarm causes with a large number of people let alone a guy with a gun. People are going to do what they think will keep them alive and most people are going to consider rushing the guy a bad way to do that. In Oregon a trained former armed forces guy did rush the shooter and received 7 or 8 shots. He lived. Many wouldn't be so lucky.

What I was pointing out though is that he had been in a situation where his rush the shooter theory could have been used and he redirected the guy with the gun to guy working the counter! The nightly show the other day had a good comment...one of the writers said he will apply what Carson did to scuba diving and make sure he has a knife. That way if he sees a shark he can stab his friend and get away.

BTW I think The Nightly Show has had a number of episodes recently where they have just hit it out of the park. Typically when they are dealing with race issues.

[nik-]

Why Today’s GOP Crackup Is the Final Unraveling of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’

http://www.thenation.com/article/why...hern-strategy/

[peter12]

Something similar is probably happening to the Democrats. This, in general, is the result of long-evolving class cleavages in the United States.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This guy is nuts, but I don't think the idea that in a situation like this, having everyone rush the shooter is the worst plan in the world. I recently listened to a podcast that talked about precisely this. If you had a sort of mutual understanding that this is just how we behave in situations where a mass shooting appears to be happening (in a case where everyone can't just run away, like where you're in a classroom or a movie theatre or whatever), the loss of life would likely be lower if everyone just took the guy at once. A few people would certainly be injured and it's likely someone or several someones would die, but probably fewer than if the shooter gets his way.

The analogy used was, what happens if a guy stands up on a plane with a gun and says "everyone just keep your seats, I'm going to take control of this jet, don't interfere and you won't be harmed". Nobody is listening to that. That guy is, quite simply, going down.

The problem is actually getting everyone on the same page, because if 1-2 people rush him, it isn't going to work. Has to be everyone. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, I suppose.

Except it seems like a reverse Nash. In circumstances where death is almost certain, ie. suicide jihadists hijacking airliner, gunman opening fire with automatic weapons in a crowded space with few exits, or whatever, the options for parties would look like this:

Do nothing: high chance of death, low chance of survival
Do something: moderate chance of death, moderate chance of survival.

You get the point. The only rational disincentive that I could see is who gets to be the hero. That is, who is the guy who leads the rush. Chances are he is going to get planted with a few rounds, but after that guy goes, basically everyone else has a substantially higher chance of surviving the rush.

It is probably a bystander effect or some similar cooperation problem where everyone expects someone else to be the first to take action. In such a situation, panic reigns, and exposure to similar situations is probably the only thing that would alone an individual to actually respond effectively. However, if you look at Flight 93, the passengers, given time, were actually able to mount a somewhat successful counterattack to the hijackers, essentially sorting out the bystander effect.

[CroFlames]

Have actual security and tactical experts ever weighed in on the "rushing the shooter" technique of defense in mass shootings? Probably a loaded, politicized debate since it involves guns, but nonetheless someone must have discussed the rushing the shooter strategy.

I don't care for what Carson says, and no offense but none of you are security experts either (or are you?).

[ernie]

Well again I was just pointing out how hypocritical Carson is saying what he'd do when in fact he did nothing of the sort when a gun was put on him (and others).

At my place of employment we are briefed and trained annually (by FBI) on what to do in a shooter situation:

1) Run
2) Hide
3) Fight...as a last resort (which trapped in a classroom is likely the case)

That said, it still doesn't get over the hurdle that many people are simply wired to panic and won't have the presence in mind to do anything. Not run. Not hide. Not fight. Well, run is the likely one that people will do but it won't be toward the shooter.

[troutman]

Trump is hosting SNL Nov 7th - this is odd because normally the host has to work long hours from Monday to Saturday that week. How can he take so much time away from his campaign? Unless . . .

[PostandIn]

Hillary plays the gender card early (in this debate, that is).

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

Hillary plays the gender card early (in this debate, that is).

AC- "How would your administration not be a third term for president Obama?"
HC- "Because I'm a woman." hold for applause "And also because of my policies."

[ernie]

It's a significant card to play. Not much different than playing the immigrant wife card or lifetime armed forces card or various other things. But she isn't elegant about it that's for sure.

[DuffMan]

Both Clinton, Saunders and those other 3 guys sure bash the Republicans. I like it.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by troutman

Trump is hosting SNL Nov 7th - this is odd because normally the host has to work long hours from Monday to Saturday that week. How can he take so much time away from his campaign? Unless . . .

Think he'll actually drop out when he's at the top of the polls?