chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

optimal play
Member since Oct-28-11
"Optimal Play" is when both sides make their best move at each turn, or one of equally good alternatives.

"May everyone, not only in the game of Chess, but the game of life, know how to make the next best move." - Chess Club Toast

>> Click here to see optimal play's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   optimal play has kibitzed 4643 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Feb-18-18 optimal play chessforum
 
optimal play: <diceman> I'm beginning to appreciate the complex situation in the USA regarding the issue of gun control. Your argument emphasising the underlying problems in society which need to be addressed rather than just focusing on the sympton of gun violence is well put. However
 
   Feb-18-18 Kenneth S Rogoff (replies)
 
optimal play: <al wazir: <optimal play: May I ask what was the nature of their respective transgressions?> ... When I pressed <Colonel Mortimer> to say whether or not he himself believes that conspiracy theory about the destruction of the Twin Towers, yes or no, he dissembled ...
 
   Feb-18-18 technical draw chessforum (replies)
 
optimal play: <technical draw: ... One thing interesting about Columbo is that he never carried a gun.> Wasn't there an episode when his captain told him he had to report for target practice but since he never carried a gun, he kept trying to get out of it? It was obviously a sub-plot ...
 
   Feb-15-18 Kibitzer's Café (replies)
 
optimal play: <<Charlie Durman: THE AMERICANS on here are LOSERS .. COWARDS .. They won't/ can't address their land's downfall and problems.. Letz talk abooooot frontmen lol 17 DEAD in a School in Florida ... ANOTHER mass shooting in the States.> HeMateMe: well, WE don't have ...
 
   Feb-11-18 S Crakanthorp vs W H Jonas, 1905
 
optimal play: 6...Bxe5 was a novelty. 51...Rf6+? Instead 51...Rg2+ could allow black to escape with a draw. This game is from the 6th round of the New South Wales state championship played in Sydney on 22nd August 1905. The final standings were:- Spencer Crakanthorp 9/10 William Henry
 
   Feb-09-18 Ruy Lopez (C60)
 
optimal play: In a recent blitz game as white, employing the Ruy Lopez opening, I faced 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f6 (C60) As I was unfamiliar with this "Nuremberg defence" I continued with 4.O-O d5 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.Bxc6 Qxc6 7.h3 e4 eventually coming out okay, although I've since realised much ...
 
   Feb-09-18 playground player chessforum (replies)
 
optimal play: <playground player> Superhero studies? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Oprah Winfrey? Che Guevara? Fidel Castro? A degree in that field should be useful in obtaining gainful employment. Anyway, I'm not sure how many college graduates could have correctly identified my ...
 
   Feb-09-18 Tata Steel (2018) (replies)
 
optimal play: Congratulations to Magnus Carlsen & Anish Giri on finishing =1st in this years Tata Steel Tournament. Also well done to Vladimir Kramnik & Shakhriyar Mamedyarov on finishing =3rd Commendable result by Viswanathan Anand & Wesley So to finish =5th Good effort by Sergey Karjakin ...
 
   Feb-08-18 G W Baynes vs H Taylour, 1905
 
optimal play: 28.Qxh7 is not necessarily a bad move, but much better is 28.c6! (28.c6 Nxc6 29.Bxe7 Qxe7 30.Qxf5+ ±) 32...Nxd4?! is a desperate and completely unsound sacrifice which is easily dealt with by 33.Kd3! followed by 34.Bxd4 which wins for white. However Baynes takes the ...
 
   Feb-05-18 thegoodanarchist chessforum (replies)
 
optimal play: <Big Pawn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-i... Your thoughts when you get the chance please.> I took the opportunity to watch the video so if <tga> doesn't mind I'll briefly offer my thoughts as well... First of all, I thought the interviewer was pathetic. He ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

The Optimal Zone

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 56 OF 56 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-21-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: "Abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up."

Yeah, that's because the evolutionists got their brains beat in when they tried to argue it. They don't admit now they lost that battle.

Jan-21-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Nobel winner admits to poor scientific methodology and retracts peer reviewed paper about RNA replication:

<The errors were “definitely embarrassing,” Szostak told us:

In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments.

Szostak added:

The only saving grace is that we are the ones who discovered and corrected our own errors, and figured out what was going on.>

http://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/...

Jan-21-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <OhioChessFan: "Abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up."

Yeah, that's because the evolutionists got their brains beat in when they tried to argue it. They don't admit now they lost that battle.>

Would you care to post evidence of the evolutionists getting their brains beat in and admitting they lost that battle?

Your subsequent post certainly doesn't do that.

<OhioChessFan: Nobel winner admits to poor scientific methodology and retracts peer reviewed paper about RNA replication:

<The errors were “definitely embarrassing,” Szostak told us:

In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments.

Szostak added:

The only saving grace is that we are the ones who discovered and corrected our own errors, and figured out what was going on.>

http://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/...

As per a number of comments underneath that article...

"This is how it is supposed to work. Tip of the cap to all involved including the very senior and very junior scientists for doing the right thing."

"Olsen nails it: 'As a scientist the job is to troubleshoot. You can’t help nor can you ignore where that takes you. I fulfilled my obligation to insure that no one after me would waste their time on this.'”

"Honest scientists recognize this and correct their honest mistakes as soon as possible. Dishonest scientists stonewall, attack the whistleblower and do all they can to avoid accountability for their dishonest data."

"This is how science is supposed to be done. Anyone who thinks that there is a prodigious lab out there that has NOT accidentally published incorrect science has no idea what it is to work in a prodigious lab. What sets this lab apart is that not only were they willing to retract their mistakes but they uncovered those mistakes themselves. They self corrected."

"Correction, revision, and retraction of findings are a key mechanisms in the progress of science. No stigma should be associated with the messy pursuit of truth sought in good faith. Of course, it should surprise no thinking person to find that science doesn’t really proceed in the breezy manner that it’s portrayed by university press offices and science journalists. Good on Tivoli and Jack for upholding the high standards we expect for the field."

<OCF> I'm not sure if your link to that article was meant to be some sort of "Gotcha! This totally disproves evolution!" or whatever, but this sort of thing is perfectly normal in the uneven progress of science whereby setbacks are a normal part of the process.

And as for abiogenesis, it is universally acknowlegded that no evidence has been provided to support the spontaneous emergence of life. Experiments will of course continue but this is no cause for theists, or even Christians, to be concerned.

Feb-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Nisjesram:

start taking classes from me on teachings of Jesus.>

Femto Chopra, lil one of significant bovine stench.

Feb-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: I just deleted a post from <Nisjesram> and placed him on "ignore".

I wouldn't have even bothered to mention that except that the above post from my good mate <diceman> now oddly sits there as a response to Nizzle's expunged nonsense.

I don't delete posts lightly but in this instance I felt compelled to since Nizzle's blather included direct insults as well as crude and offensive epithets.

So it wasn't deleted for something as petty as "Do you not read posts on your own forum?"

Perhaps I should point out that a whole swag of my posts were recently deleted from the forum of <jessicafischerqueen> simply because I asked her "Do you not read posts on your own forum?"

Just to clarify, here is the transcript of what transpired...

<Dec-08-17 Travis Bickle: <harrylime: Robert Mitchum is the greatest actor-Ever.> Robert Mitchum is good but Mr DeNiro is the Greatest!! ; P https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhR...

Dec-08-17 optimal play: Re: Robert Mitchum vs Robert De Niro

A direct comparison can be made via their respective portrayals of the character Max Cady in Cape Fear (1962) & (1991).

I think Mitchum was better.

De Niro's Cady was too much of a psycho.

Dec-08-17 harrylime: <optimal play: Re: Robert Mitchum vs Robert De Niro A direct comparison can be made via their respective portrayals of the character Max Cady in Cape Fear (1962) & (1991).

I think Mitchum was better.

De Niro's Cady was too much of a psycho.>

Mitch was scared they would re arrest him in Savannah .. Greg Peck bribed him with a crate of Whiskey to take the part ...

Mitch PLAYED HIMSELF ... and didn'nt give a fooook ....

Just turned up ..

De Niro took a year out training up and pumping up for the role ....

THAT ... is THE difference between Mitch and De Niro ....

Dec-08-17 optimal play: <harrylime: <optimal play: Re: Robert Mitchum vs Robert De Niro A direct comparison can be made via their respective portrayals of the character Max Cady in Cape Fear (1962) & (1991). I think Mitchum was better. De Niro's Cady was too much of a psycho.> Mitch was scared they would re arrest him in Savannah .. Greg Peck bribed him with a crate of Whiskey to take the part ...

Mitch PLAYED HIMSELF ... and didn'nt give a fooook ....

Just turned up ..

De Niro took a year out training up and pumping up for the role ....

THAT ... is THE difference between Mitch and De Niro ....>

That's some interesting background info.

Would that suggest that Mitch was the more naturally talented actor whilst De Niro had to work harder at his craft?

Or maybe De Niro was a bit intimidated in re-playing Mitch's role?

Anyway, I liked both Mitch & Peck in their cameo's in the 1991 film.

It was sort of their imprimatur on the re-make.

Dec-10-17 jessicafischerqueen: Didn't <Robert Mitchum> and <Gregory Peck> actually make a cameo in <Scorcese's> Cape Fear?

Dec-10-17 optimal play: <jessicafischerqueen: Didn't <Robert Mitchum> and <Gregory Peck> actually make a cameo in <Scorcese's> Cape Fear?>

Do you not read posts on your own forum?

<Dec-08-17 optimal play: ... I liked both Mitch & Peck in their cameo's in the 1991 film.

It was sort of their imprimatur on the re-make.>>

A short time later all my posts had disappeared!?

Anyway, to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, I think it appropriate to clarify that my tolerance level is substantially higher than that of resorting to deleting posts which have a simple question such as "Do you not read posts on your own forum?"

Feb-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: Further to the above matter, I will just add that posts on various forums should be in keeping with the perceived temperament of the host and/or visitors.

So for instance, in the rough & tumble of Rogoff, the insults fly thick and fast, and anyone with a delicate sensitivity is advised to keep away.

It's different on a personal forum whereby some circumspection is warranted.

In the case of my 'faux pas' on the forum of <jessicafischerqueen> whereby I indecorously asked her "Do you not read posts on your own forum?" I didn't mean to make her cry.

When I subsequently noticed all my posts had been deleted I imagined she was angrily yelling at her computer...

"I hate you <optimal play>!"

"I hate you so much!"

"I hate you! I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!"

... as she feverishly deleted all my posts with tears streaming down her cheeks.

I suppose she must have been in a highly emotional state to have overreacted in such a way, unlike myself in deleting Nizzle's crap, which was done dispassionately.

Look, I don't know if she had just had a fight with her boyfriend / girlfriend / transgender partner or whoever, or maybe as the Queen Bee of chessgames she simply decided that I had not acted sufficiently obsequious towards her like so many of her acolytes on this site.

I don't know, I can only speculate.

I will just conclude that everyone has the right to monitor their own forum as they see fit and my own view is that I don't like abuse on my forum, and I especially don't like crude vulgarities.

However I don't object to blunt questioning and I would never delete a post just because someone asked me "Do you not read posts on your own forum?"

Feb-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: I deleted <Nis>'s post from my forum also. I am not a part of the conversation he was posting about.
Feb-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <TheFocus: I deleted <Nis>'s post from my forum also. I am not a part of the conversation he was posting about.>

Nobody is part of any "conversation" involving Nizzle.

Nizzle is a mentally disturbed guru wannabe posting from a mental asylum whenever the staff permit him to use the internet for therapy.

Based on the drivel he posts, they should increase the dosage of his medication.

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: Philosophical Thought of the Week:

"Do you believe that under the second amendment any person in the USA, including anyone with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction, should be allowed to purchase as many guns as they like, up to and including an arsenal of military assault rifles, and all the ammunition they can store?"

~~~~~~~~~~

I have posed the above question to my good mate <Big Pawn> on the Rogoff forum but he refuses to answer.

It's not a trick question. It's a genuine question which I had hoped would progress a very important debate regarding gun control in America which I had been having on the Rogoff forum.

But <Big Pawn> won't answer it.

BP obviously thinks...

"If I answer Yes, I will be admitting to the criminal culpability of firearm availability in the United States whereby even people with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction are able to stockpile a large cache of military-grade automatic rifles which they could loose on the unsuspecting public at any time, and which happens now on a regular basis."

"If I answer No, I will be admitting that sensible gun control should be put in place to prevent the situation whereby people with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction were able to stockpile a large cache of military-grade automatic rifles which they could loose on the unsuspecting public at any time, and which happens now on a regular basis."

"That dirty rotten <optimal play> is trying to entice me into answering a trick question!"

"I can't admit to criminal culpability and I won't admit to gun control!"

"I'm stuck!"

"I hate you <optimal play>!"

"I hate you so much!"

"I hate you! I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!"

"I'm not going to answer <op> so I'll just call him a "liberal cuck" and not talk to him anymore!"

~~~~~~~~~~

Of course I'm not trying to trick <Big Pawn> or anyone, therefore since BP won't face up to the question, I will offer it up as the "Philosophical Thought of the Week" for anyone who is interested and would like to answer it.

I would be particularly interested in seeing anyone who supports the Second Amendment and is against gun control, giving a response to the question.

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: Philosophical Thought of the Week:

"Do you believe that under the second amendment any person in the USA, including anyone with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction, should be allowed to purchase as many guns as they like, up to and including an arsenal of military assault rifles, and all the ammunition they can store?"

~~~~~~~~~~

Just to recap, this discussion began when <technical draw> made the following post on the Rogoff forum just after this latest Florida school shooting...

<Feb-14-18 technical draw: I just saw the Sheriff giving info on the school shooting. 17 dead and more wounded. Suspect caught, has hispanic name. It's a terrible incident and sure to bring back the debate on firearms. This debate will last a long time. My prayers to the families of the victims.>

I responded...

<Feb-15-18 optimal play: <technical draw: ... It's a terrible incident and sure to bring back the debate on firearms. This debate will last a long time.>

So how long did the debate on firearms last after the Las Vegas shooting?

Or after the Orlando nightclub shooting?

Or the Virginia Tech shooting?

Or the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting?

Oh well, if Americans want to live like this I suppose it's your own business.

Good luck with it.>

Obvious rhetorical questions not requiring any answers from anybody.

I was content to just leave it at that with no further comment.

However, my good mate <Big Pawn> decided to make a comment in response...

<Feb-15-18 Big Pawn: <Oh well, if Americans want to live like this I suppose it's your own business.

Good luck with it.>

Have you considered the fact that America has always been a second amendment country and that school shootings are a recent development?

If an armed citizenry were the simple cause of school shootings, then school shootings would have been happening all along our 250 year history.

My uncles used to take their rifles to school for some after school marksmen club or something like that. But they have photos of them and the teachers with their guns.

The problem is society has taken a moral turn for the worse in the wake of trending liberalism and secularism.

I explained it here Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #316372)

If we want to fix what's wrong with society, it's not the right to own a gun! It's a moral issue and moral issues are split down the line between liberalism and Christianity.>

So as usual, my good mate <Big Pawn> made an insightful and thought-provoking comment as is his wont on the Rogoff page.

Both that comment and the linked post elicited my interest and so I followed it up with a couple of questions to BP, which he graciously answered, provoking a few more questions from me.

Anyway, this continued until he suddenly became agitated and didn't want to discuss the matter any further.

I asked him this one last question...

"Do you believe that under the second amendment any person in the USA, including anyone with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction, should be allowed to purchase as many guns as they like, up to and including an arsenal of military assault rifles, and all the ammunition they can store?"

...but he refuses to answer it.

Therefore, I leave it as an open question here on my forum should anybody wish to offer their opinion.

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  playground player: <Optimal Play> I can't think of anyone who says yes, people diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders or who have extensive criminal records should be allowed to acquire and own as many guns as they please. Have you heard anybody say that?
Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  rogge: <my good mate> well, with friends like that, etc.

Good last question, and I think you know the answer.

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <playground player: <Optimal Play> I can't think of anyone who says yes, people diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders or who have extensive criminal records should be allowed to acquire and own as many guns as they please. Have you heard anybody say that?>

I believe it's HeMateMe's talking point.

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <optimal play:

"Do you believe that under the second amendment any person in the USA, including anyone with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction, should be allowed to purchase as many guns as they like, up to and including an arsenal of military assault rifles, and all the ammunition they can store?">

No.

Do I believe that means they cant get them?

No.

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Big Pawn:

Have you considered the fact that America has always been a second amendment country and that school shootings are a recent development?

If an armed citizenry were the simple cause of school shootings, then school shootings would have been happening all along our 250 year history.

My uncles used to take their rifles to school for some after school marksmen club or something like that. But they have photos of them and the teachers with their guns.

The problem is society has taken a moral turn for the worse in the wake of trending liberalism and secularism.

I explained it here Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #316372)

If we want to fix what's wrong with society, it's not the right to own a gun! It's a moral issue and moral issues are split down the line between liberalism and Christianity.>

BP is correct.
However, what BP doesn't mention is,
it's the agenda.

This magical decline in morality is the
agenda, and is the byproduct of a "Great Society." On the new Democrat plantation, they don't need cotton picked, just votes.

So when you're puzzled why we have the minority slaughter rates we do, it's because it's "the plan."

When the great, great, anti-gun advocates shut their mouth as thousands of inner-city blacks die, it isn't puzzling. They need victims for their political power, and greed.

A destroyed minority is "useful" politically. An underclass is useful politically.

This is the new fascism.
This is the new Nazi party.

As you've stated on these pages,
it's even happening in Australia.
It isn't unique to my Democrat party.

The attacks on religion.
The attacks on marriage.
The attacks on the founding of your country.

All designed to make normal the enemy.
All designed to make you the enemy.

You must take every opportunity to defeat it before it reaches a tipping point where you cant.

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <playground player: <Optimal Play> I can't think of anyone who says yes, people diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders or who have extensive criminal records should be allowed to acquire and own as many guns as they please. Have you heard anybody say that?>

No I haven't, but I think it's a useful question to pose as a starting point in discussing the controversial topic of gun control.

By that I mean, if every rational person acknowledges that people diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders or who have extensive criminal records should not be allowed to acquire and own as many guns as they please, then there is a point of agreement upon which all parties can sit down together and formulate policy to minimise the possibilty of mass shootings.

Unfortunately extreme opponents of any gun laws such as our good friend <Big Pawn> view this as "the thin end of the wedge" and cannot bring themselves to even acknowledge that people diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders or who have extensive criminal records should not be allowed to acquire and own as many guns as they please.

Rather than accepting the obvious need for this minimal precaution, they view it as an all-out assault on the Second Amendment, and dig in their heels fighting against even this obviously sensible precaution.

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <rogge: <my good mate> well, with friends like that, etc.> I still consider BP to be a good mate even though he chucked a hissy fit and won't talk to me now.

<Good last question, and I think you know the answer.> Yep, everyone does, but as per my above post, the extremists can't bring themselves to admit it.

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <diceman: <optimal play: "Do you believe that under the second amendment any person in the USA, including anyone with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction, should be allowed to purchase as many guns as they like, up to and including an arsenal of military assault rifles, and all the ammunition they can store?">

No.

Do I believe that means they cant get them?

No.>

That's a very interesting point you raise and an important contribution to the debate.

It's one thing to make laws prohibiting this or that, but quite another to enforce them in a practical way.

Do you think background checks would be insufficient?

Is it that the black market would provide an ample supply of weapons?

Is it a conflict between federal and state laws?

Even if a law prohibiting anyone with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction was unable to prevent all such people from obtaining military assault rifles, do you think it could at least reduce the number of mass shootings by any significant amount?

Feb-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <diceman: ... You must take every opportunity to defeat it before it reaches a tipping point where you cant.>

I think I get what you're saying, and like I answered BP in response to that post on the Rogoff forum...

<I don't dispute your point regarding the deteriorating culture in the US and elsewhere, but is the second amendment really intended to allow mentally disturbed kids to own an arsenal of assault rifles?>

What effect do you think sensible gun laws would have on <"the plan">?

a) Progress it further by promoting "liberal cucks"
b) Reverse the trend by decreasing the minority slaughter rates
c) No effect
d) Other

Feb-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <optimal play:

Do you think background checks would be insufficient?>

Well they only help if you have a prior
record.

The problem is, folks who snap don't typically have a record. As i understand it the gun used here was "legal."

...and don't forget, murder is illegal!

We have people who kill, and when the cops show up, put a bullet in their head.

When you are ready to give up your life, laws wont work on you.

<Is it that the black market would provide an ample supply of weapons?>

Well, welfare distribution centers/inner-cities are typically run by liberals. (why they do it)

They have the highest murder rates,
gun violence in the US. They also have
the strictest gun laws.

Liberal yap, yap, yap, about gun laws is really about attacking rights and liberties. Murder by folks owned by the government is the easiest crime to fix. Yet, the civil rights champions watch them die.

Feb-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <optimal play:

What effect do you think sensible gun laws would have on <"the plan">?>

Heh, heh, "sensible" is simply a
self serving statement.

"Do you believe in them crazy nut-job gun laws?"

"No not me. I'm for sensible, common sense, gun control."

It's simply designed to dupe the intellectually weak, ignorant, and stupid.

As I see it, there are 3 types of liberals:

1)The ignorant/stupid.

They're naive, they buy the yap, yap, yap. They believe people only have good intent. They don't understand the evil of man, or where their rights and liberties actually come from.

2) The hate filled/angry.

They probably know what they are.
They probably know how they fail.
They simply don't care.
They hate their country, they hate others.
They are willing to throw people under the bus to destroy what they cant stand.

3) The bought and paid for.

Folks like Obama/Hillary probably know
exactly what they do to the minority and the poor. They simply know of no other way to get the wealth and lifestyle of a Donald Trump.

If you want to see the hypocrisy of
an Obama/Clinton, watch how they treat their children, vs their treatment of inner-city children.

They get the mansions. The folks they help get the ghetto/slum.

<What effect do you think sensible gun laws would have on <"the plan">>

The inner-city has shown the complete failure of gun laws. It doesn't address the real problem: Why people pull the trigger.

You can dump 50 assault weapons and
pistols on my coffee table.
I wont be shooting anyone.

The make-believe is that we don't already have all types of gun laws. The make-believe is guns kill, not people.

Feb-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <optimal play: <diceman: ... You must take every opportunity to defeat it before it reaches a tipping point where you cant.>

I think I get what you're saying, and like I answered BP in response to that post on the Rogoff forum...>

I don't know if you read it that way,
but my comments were related to
fascism in general. Not necessarily
gun laws.

Remember that I consider Democrats to be liars. This so called "gun debate" is simply the latest yap, yap, yap.
Slaughter and gun violence was underway daily
in their inner-cities. A school shooting wasn't
necessary to talk about it.

Like other "gun debates" we will move on to the next:

Insert latest atrocity here(______) to be used to attack freedom/liberty, and grow government.

Obviously, attacks on Australia will be situation specific, and not necessarily the same used in the USA.

Feb-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <diceman: ... they only help if you have a prior record.>

Of course background checks will only help if they have a prior record, but wouldn't that at least stop convicted violent criminals from obtaining military style assault rifles?

If someone with no prior conviction or mental health record just suddenly "snaps" then there's little that can be done about that, but if the criminals and crazies are at least stopped from getting military style assault rifles, then isn't a reduction in mass shootings at least accomplishing something?

Just because a firearm restriction of that nature wouldn't 100% eliminate mass shootings, wouldn't a reduction at least make it a worthwhile proposition?

<They have the highest murder rates, gun violence in the US. They also have the strictest gun laws.>

I searched the internet to check out various gun laws in the US...

https://www.deseretnews.com/top/142...

Is it really the case that strict gun laws result in the highest murder rates?

<"sensible" is simply a self serving statement.>

By "sensible" I'm thinking, prohibiting anyone with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction from purchasing as many guns as they like, up to and including an arsenal of military assault rifles, and all the ammunition they can store.

I think you agreed with that.

<there are 3 types of liberals...>

What about the 4th kind?

4) The classical kind

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class...

Or don't they exist in America anymore?

<The inner-city has shown the complete failure of gun laws.>

Do you think it is possible to examine different types of gun laws in relation to different types of problems?

By that I mean, do you think that the problem of mass shootings at schools and other popular places could be specifically addressed and particular gun laws introduced to deal with just that issue?

This is not to disregard the problem of inner-city blacks blowing each other away, but if these two distinct problems could be treated separately, do you think progress could at least be made in limiting military style assault rifles from being used against kids at school?

Then perhaps the other separate issue of black-on-black shootings in the inner city could be examined and specific gun laws applied in that case?

<... my comments were related to fascism in general. Not necessarily gun laws.>

Okay, I understand that the gun-law question is not an isolated issue but falls within the broader problem of neo-liberalism in America.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is if there is any common viewpoint among convservative Americans that some firearm regulations are appropriate and necessary, or if it is a non-issue with all focus being directed upon removing the scourge of neo-liberalism.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <optimal play:

Just because a firearm restriction of that nature wouldn't 100% eliminate mass shootings, wouldn't a reduction at least make it a worthwhile proposition?>

If you get a reduction. However, liberalism tends to make assumptions that aren't real.

<If someone with no prior conviction or mental health record just suddenly "snaps" then there's little that can be done about that>

Yet that is exactly the type of individual we are talking about.

Career criminals tend to not go around
shooting up schools. Also with a life of crime, they tend to know unsavory people who can get them guns.

<Is it really the case that strict gun laws result in the highest murder rates?>

That's actually backwards.
Government is reactive vs proactive.
It's the high murder rates that cause the strict gun laws. It's the lie of addressing the gun and not why the trigger is being pulled. (Of course my Democrat party, cant really address that. It involves success for the individual which is bad for the Democrat party)

The dirty lil secret is, when the school shooting happens, my Democrat party has its eyes on the millions and millions of legal/law abiding, gun owners.
They are who they consider the enemy.
Guns are a protection from the tyranny of government.

<Do you think it is possible to examine different types of gun laws in relation to different types of problems?>

Since I call inner-city crime "the plan" obviously I consider it different vs the individual who snaps.

There are also the non-gun questions.
Access to schools and public places.
Security at schools and public places.

<Then perhaps the other separate issue of black-on-black shootings in the inner city could be examined and specific gun laws applied in that case?>

I don't think the inner-city is about gun laws. It's about individuals not being treated like human beings. It's almost like they are in prison without committing a crime. Some type of a giant government funded steel cage match.

I see it as the easiest killing to stop, in theory. However, in practice, fascism doesn't like relinquishing its power.

<4) The classical kind

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.">

That's viewed as Libertarian here.
In liberal circles it can be viewed as more right-wing than I am.

The <freedom> part means it is no part of my Democrat party.

Many of these things are impossible to resolve.

You'll hear a politician say:

"I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative."

What that typically means is,
he's in a mixed district and needs to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

If you support the trillions in liberal failure, you can be fiscally conservative.

Feb-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <diceman> I'm beginning to appreciate the complex situation in the USA regarding the issue of gun control.

Your argument emphasising the underlying problems in society which need to be addressed rather than just focusing on the sympton of gun violence is well put.

However if you could clarify one thing...

<Guns are a protection from the tyranny of government.>

How would you define a tyrannous government?

At what point would you consider the necessity of using your guns against a tyrannous government?

Do you think America's democratic system is a sufficient bulwark against the rise of a tyrannous government?

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 56)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 56 OF 56 ·  Later Kibitzing>

A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC