Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Why I support gun control

And what kind.

I do after all, even if it's not what you support or any of the loudest activists urge.  No I don't share the urge to tilt at the "Weapons of War" windmills provided us by the media and the more gullible gun control advocates who generally use any sad story to go after what they insist is the root of the problem but rarely is.  I do support, at least provisionally, some of what the President is supporting.

• increasing access to mental health services
• lifting restrictions on federally funded research on gun violence
• extending background checks before the purchase of a gun

Yes -- research for one thing, and here's where it's quite appropriate to be angry at the NRA who has opposed all taxpayer funded study of violence with firearms -- because of course any mention of such things; any attempt to find a way to reduce violence is an obvious precursor  to the Liberal plot to grab our guns. President Obama has ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal agencies to  begin research on gun violence and its effects. The actualization of course depends on Congress which controls the funds and therein lurks the cold, dead, but still active hand of the NRA.

No, I'm not in the NRA camp. I don't think anyone who likes hunting or shooting or owns a gun for legitimate reasons is the 'sick bastard' or deranged potential murderer I've been called any more than I think that anyone who owns a penis is a rapist and child molester and neither does the vast majority of Americans.  I'm not going to waste time arguing with such people. I'm just going to look for solutions that work -- like the vast majority of Americans, like the President.

I used to watch Glades, a TV series about Florida Law Enforcement, and was occasionally amused by talk of finding criminals with "unregistered" guns -- amused because of course Florida doesn't register them and forbids keeping lists of who owns them. I've been amused as well by their showing us how the police could enter a serial number into the computer and find an owner. They can't.  Why is it that people who cry for more gun control sometimes think we have more than we do? The same reason that many think we have less, I imagine. At any rate there's an instance of ignorance being less than blissful.

If 72% of gun-related homicides for which we know the kind of gun used are committed with handguns, and only 4% with rifles of all kinds, why are we obsessing about "assault rifles?"  Perhaps it's another instance of a solution in search of a problem as I hinted at above.  Why are we all in a dither about "high capacity" magazines when more concealable, more portable, low capacity magazines can be changed in less than two seconds? Why are we not concentrating on the most frequently used tools? A revolver, usually with five or six shots remains a favorite choice for professional murderers for reasons I won't go into.  See above and note well that those least informed often seek solutions that are bound to fail and are as intransigent in promoting them as they are in ignoring a larger view. 

At first glance I'm not against some system of  being able to trace guns, a paper trail if you will, as we can do with any property that requires a title, with prescription medicine for that matter.  It seems compatible with a constitutional right, but we find strong objections in a country with such a long Libertarian history of  self re-invention and the ability to shed one's past and most of all the desire for independence and self-reliance.  We remember the New Orleans public being disarmed when they most needed a means of self defense. We remember Jim Crow. We remember lots of things and we worry.

I don't necessarily like the idea of  my possessions and movements being on record and more than my e-mails or purchases or telephone calls. Most people don't like it, but we don't seem to care as much about being spied on as having our shotgun under surveillance. Let's say that  a record of who owns what, might help well enough to keep guns from those with no right to own them that I could support some form of  registration if it could be made to work better than any system has  been so far. But neither hit-men nor drug dealers are not going to comply, nor tell the truth. People who want to die taking as many innocents with them as possible? They don't care about punishment or registration or anything else the law can do. Like the Sibyl, they want to die.

Can we, should we disarm 325 million to prevent 5 or 6 people from running amok with a gun legally or illegally obtained?  Good luck selling it and good luck accomplishing it. The only choice is to screen them out, not to simply register their guns or threaten them with fines or punishment. Better look to better background checks. If we can accept that some people should not, do not have the right to keep and bear arms, how can we not accept that we need to find out who they are?

So how can we manage to get significant compliance with registration?  We can't without screening out the loose canons with effective, mandatory background checks and the observation that States which do require it tend to have gun-related homicides in excess of States that do not, shows that our current efforts aren't always  enough, that off-the-books transfers are far too easy and quite legal in most cases. Making registration work would require that all transfers be done through licensed dealers who must keep records and report to authorities. That's where those background checks come in. Many are surprised that we have them at all, and waiting periods too. Some are surprised that people with no fear of breaking the law by killing aren't afraid to break the law by lying. Make the checks real.

Yes, I advocate background checks and making them more meaningful. As it is, we simply ask people if they're unstable, mentally impaired and under psychiatric care and not surprisingly people who should answer yes, answer no. As intrusive and objectionable as it may sound to make checks more comprehensive, it's necessary if we want to have registration and want it to actually do anything.

It may be hard to prove that such things as we have done so far have indeed made our country safer from gun related violence, but then it's hard to prove to some people that gun-related homicides have declined substantially for 30 years now. Why? Once again, see that solution seeking a problem because when the solution most dearly envisioned is to make all danger disappear at all cost, that cost gets high and people still get killed.
 I do keep in mind however, that while any reduction in the death rate we can accomplish under any circumstances  may not be dramatic and will not be quick to become observable, that reduction is worthwhile.  I also keep in mind that it will not satisfy a great many people. The slow decline of automobile fatalities seems to have pacified us where the slow decline of gun fatalities has not.  Any observation of human tendencies has to include the illogical, irrational nature of humans. We will continue to fear the lone madman more than we fear the drug gangs and robbers and other "traditional" killers even though the latter are predominant when it comes to slaughter and the former far less likely to be deterred by anything short of a straight jacket.

That's why I support research, scientific inquiry and honest, continuing, informed discussion even though the NRA deems it useless and dangerous and even though their organized opposition will see it as an excuse to do nothing.  I support it because there's ill-understood pathology behind the violence we most fear. I fear it won't happen because both sides are afraid of being argued out of their urges to act now or not to act at all. Any effective effort must come from a middle no one is listening to, from a public that doesn't share the pantheon of bogeymen of either extreme and it must recognize an eternal struggle that can't be legislated away. By all means listen to Law Enforcement people. Many of their opinions may surprise you. Listen to mental health people, look at statistics and listen to firearms experts and lets get down to business.



20 comments:

  1. "Yes -- research for one thing, and here's where it's quite appropriate to be angry at the NRA who has opposed all taxpayer funded study of violence with firearms..."

    You say this as if the NRA had two or more distinct agendas. It does not. It's only purpose, for at least the last 37 years has been to be an apologist and lobbying organization. And what they lobby for is everything BUT reducing the carnage.

    If you want to throw all of the "Anti-gun" people out of the debate, then you need to throw out the NRA/ILA and THEIR brainwashed minions as well. I'm perfectly willing to having a conversation with anyone who won't accuse me of being "anti-gun" because they hate reasonable proposals to limit gun violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm perfectly willing to having a conversation with anyone who won't accuse me of being "anti-gun" because they hate reasonable proposals to limit gun violence."

      Me too and I'm not too happy about being accused of being a nut case and a liar and a pervert and all those things because I'm trying to keep things in perspective. I don't get your point about the NRA or why I can't talk about one thing the NRA opposes without having to recite the long litany about all the things you don't like about them. Where did I say anything about excluding anyone from a conversation?

      Is it not important to be specific rather than to mimic some of the incoherent rants I'm reading in the press? Bashing the NRA isn't going to get us anywhere, thinking of good ideas and getting Congress to pay attention to them has at least a chance.

      Delete
  2. I do support, at least provisionally, some of what the President is supporting.
    So why name your link thusly when you are just trying to say that the gun violence caused by handguns far exceeds anything to do with military-style weapons? Did Obama say anything about limiting handgun ownership? Believe me that has been tried. Handgun violence is by far the most prevalent. What are you going to do? Take a rifle to a hold-up? Kill your lover with a 30.0.6? People that kid themselves that American gun ownership is about hunting and sport really aren’t up to the minute, are they? (Governor Cuomo? God love and bless him!) Gun ownership in America is about the right to kill, threaten or maim other people. The other side of the coin is that ten to one gun violence most often takes the form of suicide. Not exactly legal, is it?

    If 72% of gun-related homicides for which we know the kind of gun used are committed with handguns, and only 4% with rifles of all kinds, why are we obsessing about "assault rifles?"

    I guess because we weren’t too thrilled by Arizona and Sandy Hook. Why manufacture and sell these weapons. It’s immoral.

    By all means listen to Law Enforcement people. Many of their opinions may surprise you.

    I know my opinion is biased, but nobody loves the cops more than I do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "when you are just trying to say that the gun violence caused by handguns far exceeds anything to do with military-style weapons?"

      I'm just trying to say that?

      Please, it was a long winded post and I said a lot of things. I'm tired of this "military style" trope. Style is the key word here. They are not military weapons with the capability of military weapons and I'm very tired of hearing this used to terrify and mislead people -- hence my mention.

      "Gun ownership in America is about the right to kill, threaten or maim other people."

      Oh please, that's the kind of hyperbole I'm trying to talk about. What right to kill people? Threatening anyone with a weapon is a felony. Mentioning that you're carrying one to force someone to back down in an argument is a felony - even showing it can be. Murder is not a right, and I am totally frustrated at arguments like this that have no purpose but to tell everyone how angry you are and make it impossible to arrive at anything useful.

      I don't disagree that for an increasing number of men and women, guns are about some real or imagined threat (mostly the latter) and every time the press starts calling for gun control, or every time the public thinks they might do, sales skyrocket. Yes, there is a climate of fear in every direction you look. What can we do to reduce it? Certainly screaming as though crime is rampant and increasing every day is more than just a lie, it's a provocation that causes people to buy even more guns.

      Perhaps we can refrain from banning things that sportsmen and people who live in remote areas or dangerous areas need? I care about that as I have made abundantly clear.

      Are you arguing against suicide or against handgun bans or for them. It's unclear to me what you're trying to say. I shouldn't own a gun because suicide is illegal?

      And what do you mean about "these weapons?" Plastic stocks that mimic military rifles? Large magazines? Immoral? Sorry, but I think they're no more dangerous than anything else and possibly less because as you say, they're hard to hide. Let's make it about all firearms. They're all dangerous in the wrong hands.

      And about cops. I know a number of them, current and retired. None seem to share the opinions I'm being assaulted with and I don't know one who argues against gun ownership, carry permits or the 'castle doctrine' or that express an interest in gun bans.

      I'm saying that I like what I read so far about the president's proposals and am sorely disappointed in the intransigent rhetoric from the left. Why are you chastising me for not proposing handgun bans when we agree that they don't work? The proposals address keeping all guns away from people who shouldn't have them not just weapons that scare certain people disproportionately.

      Do you have a better idea?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Hey Cap,

      Just trying to add to the discussion in my own humble way. I get that you were advocating a meeting of the minds of cooler heads. It is pleasing that you agree with the president's proposals. Certainly no one could fault his executive orders. Don't his proposals include banning high-capacity magazines? That's my understanding. I really don't know what exactly constitutes an assault weapon. I think there are more important considerations than the type of grip, stock, etc. And obviously a Glock would probably be more useful in a police action than a military one. We should learn to avoid loaded buzzwords.

      What we bleeding heart liberal, pinko antis really want to do is prevent the possibility of getting off fifty or more rounds in the space of less than two minutes.

      From the Christian Science Monitor piece, "Gun Debate 101: Time to Ban High-Capacity Magazines?"

      James Holmes, using a "drum magazine" that held 100 rounds, shot 70 people in an Aurora, Colo., theater in July in fewer than 90 seconds, police say.

      I don't believe any law-abiding citizen needs this type of weapon. And , yes, that's my take on this whole idea of owning guns for "protection" That means shooting and killing people. Yes, brandishing, threatening, murder and mayhem are already against the law, but that's mostly all you can do with a gun other than just play with it. Just my opinion, man. I wish it was all just about hunting and protecting one's beloved family on the wild frontier. Castle doctrine, okay. Still no need to mow down a burglar. Stand your ground? No way in hell.

      I only hear from law enforcement on NPR and media sources. They usually come down on the side of gun buybacks, limiting access, limiting types of firearms, etc.

      Delete
    4. I agree about monster magazines, I just don't think you can just make them go away by declaring them illegal. They're going to get buried and hidden against that Zombie Apocalypse or any of the catastrophes the preppers are preparing for. None the less, and even though it might take a hundred years for the numbers in private hands to diminish, it's a start.

      We have to recognize that the demand has so accelerated during the last month that catalogs no longer print prices since they're going up every day. People are buying them for no other reason than they're afraid this may be the last chance.

      Still, I have to maintain that the best solution is to keep all guns away from people that have a history of mental illness and although we do have background checks, states are not reporting, hospitals are not reporting and even some police departments are lax in keeping the data up to date.

      What would you rather see - a guy shooting only 40 people, or 20 instead of 70 -- or would it be better if never could buy any gun at all?

      That's why I support a massive upgrade to background checks and remain more than skeptical about bans.

      Delete
  3. "The slow decline of automobile fatalities seems to have pacified us where the slow decline of gun fatalities has not."

    People really need to stop using this bullshit false equivalency. If guns were as regulated as motor vehicles we would know where MOST of them are and what their owners look like. If liability insurance was required of firearms owners and if "stupidental" injuries and homicides by gun were treated the same as they are when someone kills/injures someone with a motor vehicle then we might have some grounds for comparison.

    The Dallas NFL player whose friend was killed when he had an accident while DUI has pretty much fucked himself up for life. The gent who killed his 7 yo son with his .40, outside a PA gun shop is NOT being prosecuted. No equivalency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again I suspect that you're arguing with yourself, not with me. I just mentioned a LACK of equivalence not an equivalence real or false. And of course I've been rattling on and on about supporting exactly that kind of regulation and perhaps even more - registering owners.

      It's true though, I'm not hearing a great deal of rhetoric about banning vehicles that cause more fatalities and injuries. I'm not hearing about reducing speed limits or horsepower. I'm hearing a huge amount of rhetoric about how life is ever more dangerous. It's fear mongering no matter who does it.

      And for Vishnu's sake, if you kill someone because of negligence with a firearm or a crossbow, it's manslaughter as well as if you run someone over. How the hell can you say it isn't? Because one prosecutor had mercy, thinking the man who shot his son had been punished enough? I have kids. Killing one of them would certainly fuck me up for life and perhaps end my life. Talk about bullshit false equivalency.

      Look, I like that liability insurance idea. Insurance companies have a right to do background checks that exceeds the government's legitimate authority, but "most of them" isn't going to satisfy anyone. Many people are not going to register them, or all of them and most of all not those with sinister motivations. It's better to register gun owners, even though to my knowledge the Illinois effort to do that has had no positive effect.

      But I argue for it because for those with carry permits, it seems they have the smallest propensity to do wrong because they are registered along with a photo and fingerprints and a report from local and state law enforcement. From that fact I'm tempted to say that extensive background checks have a salutary effect on reducing crime and so support the presidents suggestion that we apply such things to all gun owners.

      I'm trying to avoid false arguments and speculative scenarios and hyperbole here. Seems like a losing battle.

      Delete
  4. "And for Vishnu's sake, if you kill someone because of negligence with a firearm or a crossbow, it's manslaughter as well as if you run someone over. How the hell can you say it isn't?"

    I can say it, because it's true.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/joseph-loughrey-craig-dad-shoots-son-outside-gun-shop_n_2489451.html

    This link:

    http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-10/193733-officials-boy-7-shot-death-outside-pa-gun-store-page-8.html

    is to a forum where the shooting is discussed by mostly anti-giving a fuck about other people people. I mean it is okay, isn't it, if I characterize people who don't really give a shit about other people dying as being that way, isn't it? They are describing ALL who oppose their idiocy as "anti" gun when nothing could be further from the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. " Because one prosecutor had mercy, thinking the man who shot his son had been punished enough? I have kids. Killing one of them would certainly fuck me up for life and perhaps end my life. Talk about bullshit false equivalency."

    It is not ONE prosecutor. What happened with the PA shooting happens frequently--when the dead or injured person is shot.

    There is little if any detail about the investigation by the police agencies in PA on this shooting. I cannot find out if the shooter was required to submit blood samples or other samples to be tested for intoxication. There is NO chance that a motor vehicle fatality with that set of circumstances would not require such testing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's a far cry from allegedly lax procedures by one or two or a hundred prosecutors and a further cry from some quasi-journalistic jihadist writing for the HP to a national policy of excusing murders because they were committed with guns.

    Frequently? Express this as a percentage or be accused of the same dishonest self-indulgence as the right wing crazies with their questionable anecdotes masquerading as statistics. Accidentally shooting a family member is not the same as slaughtering someone's family by driving a hundred over the limit down the wrong side of a highway and if prosecutors sometimes ask themselves what good it does to put a man in jail for life for manslaughter if he accidentally kills a family member. That same reservation is true whether it happened through any kind of accident.

    To call this a bullshit argument is as much an understatement as calling bullshit perfume.

    I've been trying to discuss methods of addressing crime and methods of keeping guns from people who cannot be trusted and if you want to keep raging about military look-alikes and magical bans and make statements about how murder is legal and all that, talk to someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hmmm. good post Cap'n.

    I agree we can not contain the 300,000,000 million guns that have flooded the country in order to stop the 6-10 mass murderers who will use them to create mass cas events.

    But, the problem is that the NRA, ALEC and some shady rich conglomerations have flooded our country with all these weapons, spent decades undermining laws (taking them to the Supreme Court often) and engaging in disgusting propaganda efforts to undermine the discussion when a VA Tech, or Dark Knight, or a Gabby Giffords, or a Newton CT mass murder happens that now we are stuck with the Murderous Genie with no way to put it back in the bottle.

    I think it's time to remember that in 2005 George W. Bush gave blanket immunity to Gun Makers. Why? So that the end results of their products designed use can not be used against them.

    Making Gun Manufacturers potentially liable may be the only way to stem the carnage. Every family with a victim of a gun murder should begin class action lawsuits against gun makers. Make them track and police their product. Then maybe they'll be more careful in who gets a hold of their weapons instead of pushing the You aren't a Man unless you have an AR15 marketing.

    Also, the Right does believe they have a "right to murder". The NRA and ALEC pushed stand your ground laws which are being used as a defense for out-right murders in several cases. Faux News, Malkin, Dan Riehl and other Right-Wing racists spent months declaring to their conservative dupes that George Zimmerman had a "right" to murder Trayvon Martin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your points are well made Capt. As a "conservative libertarian" I guess I'm among perhaps the few that support both what you say as well as 1) restriction on semi assault weapons, and 2) high cap. extended magazines,

    It is ridiculous IMNHO Grunge_e_ Gene to hold gun manufactures responsible for the actions of lunatics that have no respect for the rights or life of others.

    And yes the NRA needs to step up to the plate and act responsibly, something they have failed to do IMNHO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RNUSA,

      There is the qualifying word potentially right there in my proposal. That pro-gun advocates are not even interested in allowing those families of the murder victims the chance to pursue a legal option against Gun Makers shows that the NRA and the Gun Crazy Community have stifled dissent and doomed us to a never ending cycle of Gun Massacres. Makers, Sellers and Buyers should all be potentially liable.

      Delete
    2. Guns kill. It's pretty simple. You can't really go after the manufacturers for producing a dangerous product.

      That's just stupid and illogical. I do agree with you. Guns, obviously, are not useful for anything else.

      It was interesting today listening to Terry Gross's replay of her interview with the guy who wrote a book about the Glock. It is very revealing. The guy currently lives in New York and has no interest whatsoever in owning a gun or obtaining a license to own a weapon in the State of New York.

      Delete
    3. The manufacture of these weapons just needs to fucking STOP!

      Unless we are smart enough to sell them to the fucking Italian army.

      Delete
  9. I see too much peril in allowing people to sue any manufacturer for not making it impossible for their product to be misused. The law itself would be misused and I can foresee car manufacturers being sued because their cars appeal to reckless drivers or fail to keep drunks from driving them, etc. Of course they sometimes have been. Anyway, how is Colt or S&W or Ford or GM for that matter going to determine who the end user is or what he does? If I have to worry that someone I sell my car to and someone he sells it to will use it recklessly, I'm going to buy a horse instead.

    So what will we do after moving the arms industry out of the country? Outsource the Army? Brazil will be so happy. Or of course maybe we won't start so many wars and it would be a good thing -- who knows?

    From what I observe, although there certainly is a machismo component to the desire for things that make one look like GI Joe, from hummers to camo pajamas, the biggest impetus to buying ARs and AKs and other look-alikes is the prospect of a ban on them. I never see huge magazines at shooting ranges, yet the sales are escalating explosively. We don't have hundreds of thousands of people, men and women, planning to commit mayhem, we have people who see the government taking away their freedom. I know 90 year old women who are now buying guns and moaning about how we don't have freedom any more. Seriously.

    The demand for guns and ammo initially took off like a rocket when Obama was elected and again when he was re-elected. Ammunition prices went through the roof from fear that Obama would limit purchases. I think its fear based more than anything else and yes, I blame the NRA and the other voices on the right for creating this fear. The right has long been expert at keeping up the panic level, but our side seems not to be so bad at it either. Nothing good comes from panic.

    I also hesitate to agree with the idea that we can describe the actions of nearly half the country by what a few dishonest and disordered extremists are arguing. I'm talking about the idea that anyone is trying to promote murder rather than it being a side effect of their real agenda: power and money.

    Again, we need to stop the arguments that rely on creating and attacking stereotypes. And we have to question our certainties and stop being deaf to things and people that question them for us.

    We need to stop using loaded (pun intended) and deliberately inflammatory terminology. We have to stop marshaling anecdotes to back up flimsy arguments. Most of all we have to look at our experience; at what has worked and what hasn't -- that's if we'd rather get something effective done than argue.

    And back to my original point. Banning the kinds of guns and accessories that are being talked about will have little to no positive effect and I think the proof is there. Banning certain people from owning guns at all will have a positive effect. Yes, the laws that attempt to do so are being ignored, reporting is lax and spotty and we're relying on schizophrenics and paroled criminals to be honest when filling out forms and that has to stop. We can do it, but meeting extremism with extremism is not the way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It's a far cry from allegedly lax procedures by one or two or a hundred prosecutors and a further cry from some quasi-journalistic jihadist writing for the HP to a national policy of excusing murders because they were committed with guns."

    Assertions like the above are why you and I cannot have a discussion about gunz. It's not one or two or one or two hundred or thousand instances. Very few, if any incidents that result in woundings of persons by "stupident" result in jail time or even significant administratives actions in MANY states, particularly those who legislators think you need a gun when you're taking a dump in your own bathroom. When somebody dies it gets a little more difficult for them but there are ample archival stories, not anecdotal, to support the premise that shooting people is not considered a crime unless there was a crime.

    You're a smart guy, you think--a lot--about most things. When it comes to gunz you have a massive blind spot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. " those who legislators think you need a gun when you're taking a dump in your own bathroom."


    I find this kind of statement, this kind of deliberate mischaracterization, this kind of definition of a large group by association with a miniscule portion to be so ridiculously extreme there's no possibility of discussion. It's the tool of demagogues and tyrants. It was this kind of thing that way back when caused me to abandon partisan group-think. More precisely it was the bit about "plastic guns" and how the only purpose was to evade detection at airports. Turned out to be a baseless lie. They were and are 100% detectable and they're the weapon of choice for most police departments -- the Glock pistol. Mail order guns, waiting periods, trigger locks, Saturday night specials, magazine bans, plastic gun bans, "assault" weapons, cop-killer bullets, etc. Each in turn was the crusade of the day, bound to solve all our problems and only an NRA stooge, murder loving, psychotic gun nut would disagree. Nothing changes, especially not minds.

    The revelation of that hysterically supported lie led to the observation of a number of other lies and the fanatical obstinacy of their advocates in the face of abject failure and contrary information. I once quit writing for a Women's Rights group, not because I in any way oppose equal rights for women, but because of that "pornography is rape and rape is murder" chant back in the 90's from which one could not deviate and evidence against which must be ignored without immediately being called a pig.

    Seems like deja vu all over again.

    It's far too easy to scream about the NRA with hands over ears, refusing to see things in any other terms, refusing to admit any other explanation of events and most of all to accuse someone of having a blind spot when it comes to dogged repetitions of doctrine.


    I don't like the NRA - never been a member, but they once had an agenda that was all about education and safety. Like the GOP, they were hijacked by fanatics. I fear the same often happens to our side.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.