I've already said I don't like the precedent, but I'm also acknowledging that we don't have the whole picture and the military presumably has a more complete one.

Ouch......

I think that's reasonable. I tend err on the side of them knowing this guy semi-deserted but went ahead anyway thinking it would be good PR regardless. The whole "we were worried about his health and didn't have time to go through congress" angle leads me to believe there were some skeletons in his actions and they were hoping to sidestep being questioned. I didn't see the 5-1 offer being "pulled off the table" anytime soon.

It's like Pat Riley saying "Hey, I jumped at trading Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Ray Allen and Birdman for Amare Stoudemire. I mean, why wait and risk the deal being pulled? I'm sure my owner and coaches understand why I couldn't risk losing the deal and therefore didn't have time to talk to them first." :D

Flashback! 1/2014: PJ Media Encourages Readers to Sign Petition to Free Bergdahl "By Any Means Necessary" - Little Green Footballs

This is exactly what I meant when referring to the pundits. Back in January (long past the time the investigation into his release was done), there were right wing pundits calling for the Obama administration to do anything in its power to release him, and they even mentioned the possible swap of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Now that he has been released, these same talking heads have fallen all over themselves to throw Bergdahl under the bus.

Obviously...because it's not about Bergdahl - it's about trying to score political points.

I know you know that. Hell - I think we all know that.

Yep, and evidently it is working, as the new set of post-release talking points seem to have made their way swiftly into the news cycle. Forget what was said before he was released. That doesn't matter anymore.

Here's why I feel so strongly about this.

My brother did 3 tours in Iraq. If he were held captive for *any* reason whatsoever, I would want him brought back. It doesn't matter if he went AWOL or whatever. He may have to face the consequences when he gets back, but at least I would know he was back and "safe". I'd also be able to visit him and there would be closure.






My brother came back from Iraq. I'm able to go visit him sometimes like I did tonight. In Arlington National Cemetery.

:(

FWIW - the next time you visit him - give him a big ole thanks from me. Appreciate his service.

Sorry for your loss.

There are six families who will never see their loved ones again because of this guy's actions. I know that alone is not enough reason to leave him there out of spite or whatever if he can be brought back without more bloodshed. Leaving him there won't bring those guys back. It's still hard for me to get past that fact though. I think I changed my mind on the after-the-fact consequences. Maybe he still should be tried and punished if the desertion is proven. (and it sounds like the pentagon already made that conclusion). I wonder if he feels any guilt or if he's just insulated in a world now within his family and community that blames the military or American generally for his actions, what happened to him, and the deaths he caused.

Edit: And I still think it's an open question too whether this kind of thing endangers future soldiers, or if we really should be so quick to disregard that possibility. This isn't like old-timey wars with a far-away country where the threat ends as soon as the war is over. On the other hand, the military has changed too, the advances in technology and everything, the ways wars are fought, and the current status of military activity overseas, it's not like a terrorist group can just pick up a U.S. solider off the street tomorrow in an attempt to gain something in a future trade. A solider would have to pretty much walk into enemy hands to be caught. And presumably, the U.S. still wouldn't negotiate with terrorists if a civilian was kidnapped. Though from the tone of some in this thread, I wonder if people even have that opinion anymore. It is pretty easy to kidnap a random U.S. civilian overseas. Private interests and insurance companies do pay ransoms, and that's turned kidnapping into big business in parts of South America. The private interests don't always have the money - but the U.S. government always does. So if the government were willing to pay money for civilians, everyone would be a profitable target, not just the rich, or relatives of the rich (who also have the ability to protect themselves with security/bodyguards/etc). Hell, I was in Serbia last week, and while that's a safe country, and I made sure not to look like someone who had any money to deter general muggings, I would feel a lot less safe if I knew the government was willing to release terrorists or pay off anyone who kidnapped me. It'd suck to have the kidnapping value of a rich guy (via the government), but not have access to any of the rich guy protections, like bodyguards. It's a lot safer to be a poor schlub the government wouldn't save.

In which case, of all people, I can't reconcile the seeming contradiction here. Apparently you are a far more forgiving soul than I.

That's entirely aside from offering condolences on your loss, which I do, and I hope you understand that.

Whistle blowers are after Serco. They received a $1.2 billion contract from Centers For Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). The contract is for Serco to process paper applications from those seeking to sign up for insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Employees are saying there is no work. One person said they were paid to play games.
There is an office in Wentzville, MO and out congressmen and senators are after them.
Its been on the news for a couple weeks here. Interesting stuff.

http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage...261768091.html

What I'm tired of is one side crying out about war crimes, illegalities and corruption and then turning around and defending their guy when he not only does the same thing, but does so even more blatantly. Seems to me if a politician takes a sh*t and calls it roses, the party faithful are quick to fall in line behind him and say, "smells great, give me a dozen."

I don't see anyone saying that he shouldn't be put on trial if he is in fact charged with desertion. So not sure what point you are trying to make, unless you are saying he is already guilty in the absence of being charged with anything.

If you don't understand why his family would want him back for closure, then maybe that should trigger something within you that your moral compass has *really* gone astray.

Interesting video. I had kinda imagined a cold war spy exchange on a bridge somewhere where the prisoners walked by each other and to the other side.

Taliban video shows Bowe Bergdahl's release in Afghanistan - CNN.com

I'm not talking about Bergdahl. Whatever else happens to him, I hope the knowledge that at least six of his brothers gave up their lives for his actions gnaws at him for the rest of his life. I'm talking about the most 'honest' and 'transparent' administration in the history of mankind. Hope and change, baby, hope and change.

I'm in full-on "vote third-party, or if you can't vote against the incumbent" mode right now because both sides keep pulling this "talk out of both sides" stunt.

As I said, the mistake here was not getting him back. It was parading him around on the White House lawn. That was just sheer stupidity on the part of the Obama administration.

I'm not Jon, but I completely understand why his family would want him back. What about the families whose son/husband/father died looking for him? Should they get a say as well? Or in matters like this is it best to ignore the emotion and do what "we" think is best.

Not to be crass, but do families of soldiers that die in other missions get a say in how things are done in the military?

Of course not, but they are certainly allowed to criticize a mission if it turns out to have cost their family member's life and wasn't really needed/productive.

Yet this is entirely different that what you were arguing above.

The administration definitely had a different take on this whole thing, from the tone of that press conference. I agree, this should have been handled quietly without fanfare, with a press release after the fact.

But since the administration apparently sees this guy as something of a hero, I wonder how that will manifest itself in its relationship with him going forward. I think its fair to assume he'll get free mental and physical health care, probably for the rest of his life. Will other military pay and benefits accompany that?

Has he been court martialed? Dishonorably discharged? Until either of those happen, why would he not receive what any other member of the armed services would be eligible for? Because of a series of links from the Drudge Report?

It's not what "we" think is best, it's honoring the code that no one gets left behind.

I guess no reason at all, which is interesting to me. According to reports, the pentagon determined he walked away willingly. Other investigative reports like that Rolling Stone piece determined the same thing. I'm not sure that's debatable any more. But some of the reported comments from officials this week make it seem like the government doesn't want to prosecute, because he's been through enough already. So ya, I guess he's entitled to back pay and everything else.

I was reading somewhere else, the Boise sub-reddit I think, where some were calling for this guy to be strung up, others were calling for him to be prosecuted (some were saying he was correct for fleeing an unjust war). But some tried to calm the first two groups down by saying, "look, this guy's not a hero, he's going to get dishonorably discharged and he's not getting military benefits." I thought - why is that so obvious? I think he might get his regular benefits and then some, based on how the government has held this him and their achievement in getting him back up on a pedestal. They're not going to want him struggling on his own in rural Idaho. They're not going to want him going on a mass shooting or whatever down the road. He'll be setup for life. I can understand how that would infuriate other military families.

Not a big fan of the overall decision, but as a father I feel for his dad and what he has been through. He has to be elated no matter where this goes from here.

Oliver North is concerned there might have been a ransom paid to the Taliban as part of Bergdahl's release. I guess he is upset he might have missed out on getting consulting dollars on how to conduct such a transaction.

Yeah I saw that yesterday and I almost spit out the water I was drinking onto my computer.


In a delicious piece of irony, keep in mind that the Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan when we invaded. This soldier was a POW of that Taliban regime. We got him out the same way we got John McCain out of Vietnam.


In case someone demands the links to where those things were actually said - this article's got the links to the actual statements. Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding 'Every Effort' Be Made To Free Bergdahl | ThinkProgress

Is there a distinction between money, weapons, and prisoners as far as trade chips? Can you be in favor of using some and not others?

There are laws prohibiting the use of cash transfers and weapons in certain cases. Not so with prisoners.

There was the 30-day notice requirement for GITMO releases, but I guess that's not a big deal.

But what about from a moral perspective, like we've been talking about here? Would you change those laws if you could? What if we could have gotten him back for $500 million or something, and it was legal, should we pull the trigger, or is that different?

The 5 names had been discussed for over a year as trade targets. Not sure what the requirement was for notification, but this was not something was was suddenly sprung on Congress. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that advanced approval was given by the committee for a certain pool of detainees. Would the captors still have honored a deal after 30 days of grandstanding by Congressmen in an election year?

From a moral perspective, I'm ok with using all legal methods available in negotiations.

But what if was your choice whether to make money or weapon exchanges legal? Should we be doing those things, should we re-visit those laws?

What if my aunt had balls? Would she then be my uncle? What if the choice was to make prisoner exchanges illegal? Not really sure what you are getting at here.

There was this whole debate about the morality and security concerns of prisoner swaps. But now you're just tying your opinion exclusively to what the law currently is. Which renders all those previous arguments you made kind of pointless.

I'm just trying to figure out what the basis of the differences of opinion on this. Is there a point where you would say that a prisoner trade shouldn't be made because it endangers U.S. troops too much? Is it just that that these 5 released prisoners don't create a risk, but cash and weapons might?

Is Oliver North vilified only because his acts were criminal? Was that scandal a scandal only because of the laws in place? I always thought there was more to it than that. Like that we found those actions revolting from a moral perspective too. It just seems weird to see him continue to be vilified in a new world of, "hey, we negotiate with bad guys all time, who cares." If the only reason he's a villain, and the only reason that was a scandal (at least the hostage part of the scandal) is that laws were broken, should we change those laws?

The laws should change so that someone who was accused of breaking them can be viewed in a more favorable light? That is a strange argument to make.

It's really not that complicated. Do you think it should be legal for the U.S. government to pay for the release of hostages?

It's a different question than what was argued above. I think it's well within a family's right to question the need for a mission where a love one perishes - esp if there is information available on it. That doesn't mean that should impact a true leader's policy decisions, but that doesn't change the family's right to question.

Heck, Bowe's dad could lambaste the administration for years for a decision to not trade for his son - that's his right and even understood to a point. But, that doesn't mean his actions should impact real policy decision by the military and Obama. If it's in the country's best interest to do a rescue or make a deal, then do it. If not, then you have to have the guts to make an unpopular decision. That's why being president isn't an easy job. Releasing these five terrorist to bring back one guy while sidestepping notification laws to congress doesn't seem to be in our country's best interest. I guess others in this thread disagree - such is life.

If there could be a case made for it, other than because it would make people accused of breaking it look better, then it would be something to consider. But the US generally follows the Geneva Convention, even when the other side in a conflict doesn't. The Geneva Convention specifically mentions prisoner transfers, and general practice before that avoided the use of ransom payments for POWs.

This is so frustrating. I didn't say that ransoms should be legal so Oliver North looks better. Why are you so hostile towards my question that I guess you're just not going to answer? I wasn't even asking you specifically. If you don't have an opinion on my general thought you didn't have to respond.

Edit: I really didn't mean it to be this controversial thing. I think the arguments about why the prisoner swap was appropriate are really good, and I agree with them. I was kind of surprised by some of the reasoning behind it, and I just wondered if people looked at cash and weapons swaps the same way. If that question makes you pissy for some reason, then just don't answer it.

I guess I misunderstand what you are asking with this:

Basically:

Obama sidestepping a notification law and trading 5 terrorists to get back Bowe = good

North sidestepping a law to trade weapons to get back hostages = bad

So, it's OK to sidestep a law as long as you don't agree with it.

I'm having more of an issue with why anyone would want a treacherous SOB like this back, tbh.

My child does that, I'd shoot him myself. And reload.

If we don't think the underlying conduct is bad anymore, maybe we should make it legal. Like how people who want to legalize marijuana or gay marriage don't believe that those activities are wrong or harmful to society. It's not so that people who were previously convicted of marijuana or homosexuality in the past can "look better." (though that might be a side-effect)

Edit: The majority vibe here seems to be, "we've always negotiated with terrorists and rogue states, why the angst now?" So it was weird to see Oliver North's name thrown out in a negative context. Obviously he's a criminal, and no future changes in the law will change that. But if the only difference between him and prisoner swaps is the law, and there was nothing wrong or harmful about his conduct, then maybe we should re-visit those laws. Not for his sake. But for the same reasons we want to change gay marriage and marijuana laws. Because we don't think that conduct is bad or harmful anymore.

Well, that says more about you than anything anyone else could say.

False equivalency is false. There's a big difference between "notification" and "trading weapons". I guess your partisan goggles don't let you see that though.

North et al wouldn't have been in any more than political hot water if it was only about arms for hostages. You're forgetting the whole Contra part of Iran-Contra. The indictments were not about the sale of arms, but were based on the transfer of funds to the Contra rebels in direct violation of U.S. law.

I am very comfortable with what it says too.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, doesn't matter who does it.

I absolutely agree. Too bad you didn't learn right and wrong. Here's a hint - threatening to shoot your kid because he did something you didn't like but there's no immediate threat of harm to anyone? Wrong.

You're just like those wonderful people who took part in the recent "honor killing" in Pakistan by stoning a woman to death because she married someone they didn't like. I find it quite ironic that you are so alike the people you most despise.

Well they both failed to notify congress. Aside from that failure to notify, one of them broke the law and the other didn't.

Your argument is like saying 1/2 = 1/4 because 1 = 1.

Well at least Jon would wait for all of the facts to come out and a court to decide things before murdering his own child.....

There's really not a whole lot lower than a person who would leave their comrades in combat. If I'd raised a child that does that, I'd at least have the decency to clean up the mess myself.

The harm was already done, ask those who had the misfortune to serve with him ... or rather, ask the ones who weren't killed looking for him.

The Rolling Stone article, which is about the most comprehensive source for information about Bergdahl's disappearance and capture, came out in 2012. There really hasn't been any info released since the publication to add to what has been known about the incident. So why the massive sea change in just a few days regarding how he is viewed?

Angry Conservatives Forgot Their Old Angry Tweets Supporting P.O.W.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...er-withdrawal/

I don't think that angle was in a lot of the main stream articles about Bergdahl. From what I remember, there'd be an AP story every so often about him, then in the comments section somebody would claim he was a deserter, and maybe link to that Rolling Stones article. I don't think the deserting angle itself was ever front page news.

Well simple. Back then it was a way to bash Obama and now, they can't let Obama have the victory, so they have to bash him for something else. Consistency be damned!

Maybe "The Consrvative Diva", "Chaos2/504", "Bob", "Hawkeye" and the rest knew of the desertion angle, or maybe they didn't, either way, I'm not sure that's worthy of a big article or why their views are so relevant. You can find a lot of interesting views on twitter.

The last of the WW2 Navajo Code Talkers passed away. This statement talks about a level of honor many cannot understand

I have a good friend who was personally involved in the capture of one of the 5 released.

He said today given what he knows about the individual, and given the choice, he would have preferred to sacrifice his life in exchange for killing the guy as opposed to the deal completed.

I don't have a strong opinion either way. but I found that statement interesting on a different level.

My comment is not specific to this Bergdahl discussion.

I do think there are clearly some things that are "right is right, wrong is wrong" but I also do believe there are alot of "it depends on your point of view".

So for an encore, maybe the Bamster can swing this deal...another good prospect from Gitmo to the Taliban, who can then threaten to blow things up in Mexico until they release Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi from jail. Come on BHO, earn that Nobel Peace Prize, baby.

Well, now, that's an interesting summary of what Oliver North did.

And by "interesting" I mean "minimized beyond all recognition".

:D

SI

We'll never know if it's the case, but I suspect whoever said this is a sophisticated bag and tag operation is probably right. Bergdahl was just a convenient tool to get it all done, though not politically expedient. It's really impressive that after how good Obama and his folks have been at handling the media during campaigns, that he's been tone deaf a lot as President.

I just see the conversation going something like this
Taliban leader: (on phone) Bergdahl? Bergdahl? Uh, yeah! We have him! He is a prisoner of our holy war and jihad against, uh, you" (smirks) "um, western imperialists""
Taliban: (to his subordinate) "Is that the putz in the back? I can't imagine why they want him. I can't believe how stupid Americans can be sometimes."
Taliban leader: (back on phone) "If you want him back, I demand back $10K untraceable US dollars, 5 iPhones, 5 prisoners from Guantanamo, and 9 members of the Asian Dawn..."
Taliban subordinate: (mouths silently) "Asian Dawn?"
Taliban leader: (hand on phone) "I read about them in Time Magazine"
US negotiator: "That sort of thing takes time. The first three are easy. We've been wanting to get rid of those Gitmo guys for years, but..."
Taliban leader: (breaking in quickly) "Fine, fine. You drive a hard bargain. Make it $20K and 10 iPhones and you have yourself a deal"
US negotiator: (thumbs up to everyone in the room on the speaker phone) "Very well. My AA will call you to negotiate the terms of this exchange"
US general: (to another, quietly in the back of the room) "Now we'll be able to track where they go and find the enemy bases. I can't believe how stupid the Taliban can be sometimes."
Taliban subordinate (quietly, to leader): "Did we just agree to accept 5 prisoners?"
Taliban leader (hand on phone): "Hell if I know. As long as they deliver the money and iPhones, I don't care what they do about anyone else. We'll just shoot them when they get back and we get rid of the whiny guy in the back room."



SI

It's going to be a fun 2016: ads showing "You can keep your doctor" warring with ads showing "Bring this prisoner home Mr. President!".

Thoughts on this student loan "Pay-As-You-Earn" program? Not loving it...it seems like it would just add to the bubble and debt of the taxpayers.

Is this a program whereby you pay more as you earn more?

If so, it was an option for my student loan debt (incurred in the early/mid-90s). I ended up not using it, but liked it as a concept. However, based on the stories' of others, I think I lucked out in getting one of the more reasonable companies to service my student loan debt (i.e. not Sallie Mae).

Any cheapening of student loan money kind of scares me. More and more rationalizations to take out non-dischargable six figure debt. I guess that's their own problem, but I think it's a huge long-term issue for the economy, so many people in their 20s and 30s who will never be in a position to save like their parents did.

I'd be OK with it as some kind of amnesty thing for all student loan holders going forward, but not for new loans. The easier you make the money, the more tools you have to pay it back, the more students are going to borrow, the more expensive school is going to be, and the more crushing debt these people are going to have.

Should probably be a tier based on skillset. You want to major in archeology, sure, but the aid is smaller. You want to major in engineering, biotechnology...a better percentage.

Which will then end up eventually creating an oversupply of engineering and biotech majors - kind of like how the late '90s-early '00s were all about the Comp Science majors, and the '10s has been all about the Nursing majors. It's good for a while to address shortages in the workforce, but if you're not on that early wave, things get rough.

According to Vox:

Obama’s plan to lower student loan payments, explained - Vox

And the reasoning for it is quite simply (as somewhat stated by molson):

I don't really have an issue with the refinancing bit. I mean the government is going to make money off these loans anyway - the lowered interest rates will be like 3-4% after all (though they would lose money on refinancing of the debt already held by the government). The loans being only 10% of income seems to be a day late and a dollar short - I mean this would have been a great idea for early on in the Great Recession, but now it seems a bit strange.

A bit strange now? Not from my vantage point - the job market is *still* terrible for anything other than the healthcare field it seems like.

Until this gets solved, I'm not sure much will matter:

Or maybe linked to your performance in school or the school you go to (Go to a Top 50 university, you'll get more aid; meaning you performed in school)?

Do we have many too many universities and colleges? Reallocate the financial aid so more goes to trade schools as well?

What field are you trying to break into? What's your background?

I don't often agree with Arles, but when I do....

The rate of increase in the cost of education is clearly unsustainable. Given that we need an educated workforce, a solution is clearly needed.

And it isn't just colleges, it is private high schools as well. It was ~$1500/yr for the high school I went to back in '87-'90. Now it is $13,650. But at least there you have a 'free' option, unlike with colleges.

Currently trying to break into a PR agency - Creative Writing, English, and Marketing background education wise, but everyone's wanting internship or previous agency experience (i.e. - they're pretending to be entry level positions, but are actually experienced positions they want to pay entry-level wages to).

But just in the general job searches I've done for various cities on various websites (Indeed, Careerbulder, LinkedIn, Monster, etc), the following industries are the ones that have job openings for college graduates - you know, the ones who would be most affected by this:

1. Healthcare professions
2. Direct/event marketing (In reality, a retail salesforce for companies who have outsourced their sales staff)
3. Insurance companies
4. Truck/delivery drivers

Oh if only it were that cheap :(

We're just looking forward to our child graduating high school so we can cut the bills, college is shaping up (based on even moderate estimates for scholarships, etc) to be around 1/2 to 1/3 annually of what we've been spending ... and that's with a relatively elite private college as his leading candidate.

Govt run stuff is not free, somebody's paying for those public educations.

Hence the quotes around free. Society pays for the schools via taxes, whether or not you have kids attending them. You incur no extra tuition costs sending a kid to public schools.

Uh oh. Not good

Iraqi Militants Seize Government Headquarters In Mosul (VIDEO)

LOL

Tuesday's shooting marks the 74th shooting since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 in Connecticut


That frequency means that it marks an average of four school shootings across the United States per month during the past year and a half.


Read more: BREAKING NEWS: Suspect dead and one student killed after shooter with semi-automatic weapon invades Oregon high school | Mail Online

Pure... Unadulterated... Bullshit.

That chart only goes to 2003, the decrease in violent crime has continued since then. It's a very inconvenient fact for both law enforcement agencies trying to justify budgets and gun control advocates.

There's also the issue of varying reporting standards, an increase in the impact of cultures that fail to report violent crime, etc. etc.

Two thoughts always come to mind with these things. First, how many people who were actually killed are listed as missing because no body has ben found.

The second part of this, and to me it's the big deal, it's so random anymore. I feel like it used to be if you never pissed anyone off you would be fine. Now, I feel like you can walk down the street and just be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Is there any data that shows violence is more random nowadays than in the past?

Or are we dealing with just your gut feeling.

It varies to some extent the actual report includes one notable configuration (stranger/known, location, etc) where an increase in frequency & percentage is stranger attacks on victims engaged in "travel, shopping, other leisure activities", as well as the same stranger attacks that occur "while sleeping/other activities at home". Big difference being that the latter involves attackers three times as likely to be known to the victim while the former involves attackers twice as likely to be strangers ... which makes perfect sense given the locations.

The last I checked--and it was fairly recently--the huge majority of murderers knew their victims. I would make sense, though, that the random cases get more media play and it would therefore "feel" like they're more prevalent. They're more interesting/frightening/compelling because of the statement I quoted. I'm not likely to click/watch a story about one drug dealer killing another drug dealer precisely because it feels completely non-threatening to me in my world. But when a kid gets hit in the crossfire or a guy shoots up a movie theater, that's going to get my attention, because of what you said above. I don't "fault" the media for this; they've got to bring in revenue.

If you felt at peace walking the streets in the early 90s and feel nervous about it today, I think your perceptions are just off, and influenced by the nature of modern news and social media. I don't think there's any way to reconcile these numbers with the myth that the U.S. is a "war zone" today.

Im not any more worried walking the streets than I was before, I was always careful in downtown boston and I try to be careful in L.A. now. Im far more worried about psychos with guns showing up in random spots than I can ever recall though, its the stuff I feel we couldnt prevent even if we tried thats freaking me out.

I can't say I felt a helluva lot of peace on a lot of streets in the 90s either. Difference being, perhaps, that I was actually more often on much bigger streets then than I am now ... but with fairly similar levels of trepidation.

Yeah digging into the link gives me this line:

"In 2010, about 1.8 million nonfatal violent victimizations were committed by strangers,
which was a 77% decline from 7.9 million
victimizations in 1993."

Sounds like we should be feeling safer around strangers than before.

There's some debate whether 2012 marked a real, permanent increase in "mass shootings", or whether it was just a blip, but even if you read it the most pessimistic way possible, we're still only talking 100ish victims a year - in the whole country. If you make a list of things that kill 100 or more Americans a year and live in fear of them, you'd never leave the house. If we change all of our laws, and limit everyone's rights, and spend hundreds of millions in taxpayer money to prevent those other things that kill 100 people a year, it'd seem reactionary and silly.

Graph of the day: Perhaps mass shootings aren’t becoming more common

And Boston,there were 40 homicides in Boston in 2013, and 116 in 1990. That's not as a dramatic a drop as NYC, but risk of being murdered is just about negligible (and you cut it down further by not associating with Aaron Hernandez).

Call me crazy, but I'm still going to say that an AVERAGE of 4 school shootings per month over the last 18 months is still unacceptable. In fact, I'd argue than an average of ONE is unacceptable.