TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#44051: Dec 16th 2012 at 8:15:40 AM

[up] [up]Speaking of cultural differences, if you were in the UK and shot someone who was unarmed you would be charged, tried and very probably convicted of murder. That's what 'disproportionate retribution' means.

Throwing a punch at someone does not deserve the death penalty. Period.

Under UK law, the Trayvon Martin case would be decided on whether the accused was genuinely in fear of his life, or whether it was Mr Martin who was in genuine fear.

As to 'how do I know what they intend' - I don't know what anyone intends. I don't know what the people I pass on the street intend.

But if they throw a punch at me, the law says that I may reasonably guess that they intend a fist-fight. I may run away, or I may defend myself appropriately. However, I may not assume that they have an invisible gun hidden in their pants and that they intend to shoot me.

edited 16th Dec '12 8:16:24 AM by Bluesqueak

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#44052: Dec 16th 2012 at 8:23:48 AM

Unless you want to argue that police shouldn't carry guns, because more guns on the streets means more dead people overall?

You might like to look at the British Police who are currently unarmed on regular patrols - though they do have armed units.

Arming them routinely is invariably voted down by the police themselves.

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44053: Dec 16th 2012 at 8:24:40 AM

[up] It's the same thing here. Trayvon Martin may have been Standing His Ground under Florida Law, but so was George Zimmerman. The question is whether someone provoked it, and if both were reasonably fearing for their lives.

You shoot an unarmed man, it's the same thing. It would be murder unless they felt they were in reasonable fear for their lives. That's why most people in their right minds and are responsible don't shoot people.

This seems to be the big problem that is difficult to understand here. Most people are good. But here you want to get rid of guns because of the few bad people who are out there.

You want to know a secret? Many american police don't like guns either. There's a myth that police and soldiers are all crack shots and expert marksmen because they still have to qualify for their weapons. Most do just enough to qualify and then don't bother with their own guns.

Digest that, and think about that.

[up][up][up][up] The honest truth is that many cops are -not- firearms enthusiasts and don't want to use their guns any more than a reasonable gun owner. There's myths that all soldiers and policemen are crack shots because they deal with firearms at some point in their training. Ask any policeman in the United States, ask any soldier in the Armed Forces, even those overseas. Not everyone likes guns, even in the military or the law enforcement community.

The gun-free zone thing is what allows mass shootings to happen. It's an advertisement that says there is no one there who is going to be able to respond to a shooting. The Colorado movie theater, Columbine, Connecticut, etc.

Concealed Carry means just that. Concealed carry. Hidden, you don't know, and don't have a way to check. In a school, the idea that rumors only spread among students is actually a good thing. Will students try to frisk a teacher, knowing there's a rumor that he might be carrying?

edited 16th Dec '12 8:28:29 AM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#44054: Dec 16th 2012 at 8:27:14 AM

The Treyvon Martin case isn't that clear-cut. Zimmerman claims that Martin was trying to get his (Zimmerman's) gun — presumably to use it against him, at which point Zimmerman would have been justified in killing Martin in self-defense, regardless of whatever else was going on. The "stand your ground" argument is over whether Zimmerman was justified in fighting back rather than fleeing in the first place.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#44055: Dec 16th 2012 at 8:32:22 AM

@Devil: Most advocates I've sene online from the NRA to other pro-gun groups have said "all the teachers need to be armed" nevermind concealed carry is downright impossible unless you want all the teachers to constantly wear coats or other ways of concealing the fact you have a gun at your waist. after all, concealing a gun on your person while wearing semi-formal clothing is a tad difficult.

Not to mention its a response time thing. name me one situation in which a teacher who has to carry a gun concealed can conceivably unconceal it, take the safety off, aim, and fire with perfect accuracy before an assailant who gives zero shits about any of those concerns walks in ythe room and fires a few rounds.

Hint: said scenario only happens in fantasies fueled by movies.

edited 16th Dec '12 8:33:02 AM by Midgetsnowman

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#44056: Dec 16th 2012 at 8:43:54 AM

The scenario in mind for people going armed in previously gun-free zones is not getting into quickdraw contests with potential attackers. If someone kicks in the door with no warning and a gun drawn, then yes, concealed carry is probably not going to help much. But anything after the first shots — when you have more than a second or two of warning — it could conceivably make all the difference in the world.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44057: Dec 16th 2012 at 8:51:11 AM

[up] This is one of those arguments that's existed along with concealed carry. Can -anyone- who is ambushed be able to draw and fire their weapon at the drop of a hat in a defensive situation?

The police practice the Tueller drill, a defense against knife attackers at a distance of 21 feet or so. It takes 1.5 seconds to cover that distance and stab a target. You have precisely that long to draw and fire before you risk injury to yourself.

Slim chance of getting a defense off? Isn't that better than no chance? Show me something more effective if you can. Gun, knife, punch to the face, whatever.

edited 16th Dec '12 8:59:14 AM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#44058: Dec 16th 2012 at 9:00:51 AM

This seems to be the big problem that is difficult to understand here. Most people are good. But here you want to get rid of guns because of the few bad people who are out there.

Ah, I think we've reached our real differences in opinion.

Most people, most of the time, are good. However, most people, under the right circumstances, are killers. The circumstance can be a flaming row, too much to drink, or some scary guy in a dark place who appears to be reaching for a weapon when it was a piece of chewing gum.

Now if your view of people is 'basically good', then those 'basically good' people who are armed will not reach for the (loaded) gun in the middle of a row with their wife, they won't go out armed when they know they're going to drink, and they won't think they're Quick Draw Mc Graw in a dark alleyway.

But if your view of people is 'will murder on impulse', you'll try and make damn sure any easy-peasey means of killing people is kept far, far away from them. That way, all those potential murders will be downgraded to 'assault' rather than 'homicide'.

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44059: Dec 16th 2012 at 9:25:26 AM

[up] I accept that most people are good, most of the time, but that the worst can come out of people at any given moment. What I don't do is trust everyone to be good all the time.

If this is the case that anyone might be having a bad day and might kill if something is slightly off, do you implicitly trust the police? The people who most people will look to for help. Police are human, too, and are capable of having bad days or moments of lapsed judgement.

For instance, there's concerns over the use of stun guns, and their overuse. Remember that they are not non-lethal, they are "less than lethal", and have caused deaths and some serious injuries to people. In fact, earlier this year, there have been a couple officers arrested for murder when a suspect was tasered to death.

In America, this is compounded by the idea that the police don't have to help you - there is no constitutional obligation to save you. Maybe they don't want to commit the resources, maybe they can't find your house, maybe they're so backed up that they can't respond to even your urgent call, and you're on your own.

Poor judgement? A bad day? Whatever. For many people, the only person that they can trust is themselves. And to that end, they need to have the best tools available to them.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#44060: Dec 16th 2012 at 10:35:28 AM

@Devil: My point is even outside a quick draw, theres really very few people who can pull a gun on another person without any hesitation or panic and take a shot. Those people are generally trained cops and soldiers. Not teachers. You wont be able to hand a teacher a gun and expect any decent results unless you also give them military combat training.

Most people do /not/ have the combat instinct necessary to shoot another human being.

edited 16th Dec '12 10:36:15 AM by Midgetsnowman

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#44061: Dec 16th 2012 at 10:47:32 AM

You're missing the point. We're not suggesting that giving everyone a gun turns everyone into a one-man army capable of defending themselves and others from any and all comers. We're saying that the existence of gun-free zones effectively creates areas of "get your first ten minutes of shooting rampage free", since shooters know beforehand that they will be the only person in the building with a firearm.

Of course, with murder-suicide incidents like this, that's probably not going to be much of a deterrent — but I'd rather see such shooters kill one or two people before being shot by a bystander than kill ten or twenty people before shooting themselves.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#44062: Dec 16th 2012 at 10:48:22 AM

I dunno,. If I was a shooter and knew everyone on campus was potentially armed, I'd just resort to Bombs or setting fire to every entrace to the schoolbuilding and shooting them as they came out.

edited 16th Dec '12 10:48:46 AM by Midgetsnowman

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44063: Dec 16th 2012 at 10:50:53 AM

[up]

Well bombs require effort to make.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#44064: Dec 16th 2012 at 10:50:56 AM

Yeah because the shooter will automatically be gunned down and the person responding couldn't possibly hit a bystander or miss and hit someone in an adjoining room.

Look, you are saying guns should be allowed on school. I do not fucking want guns at school! That is a fucking stupid idea and I am outraged that you are considering it.

[up]Yes. So if getting guns is a pain in the ass people won't use them as much either.

edited 16th Dec '12 10:51:48 AM by Kostya

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#44065: Dec 16th 2012 at 10:52:06 AM

Obama won't go after recreational Marijuana.

Only recreational users. Everything else is fair game.

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#44066: Dec 16th 2012 at 10:53:08 AM

Makes sense. There really are better things we could use money and police officers for.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#44068: Dec 16th 2012 at 10:58:00 AM

[up]

Well, then they should also consider who's going to fund putting every teacher in america through basic military combat training so they wont be useless with a gun in a high stress situation.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#44069: Dec 16th 2012 at 10:58:17 AM

Why is this a possible solution! What is wrong with people that "We need to arm all the fucking teachers!" is seen as more rational than "Let's see, how can we keep these nuts from getting guns?"

edit: We have a police officer stationed at my school. He apparently has a gun but prefers to carry his taser. If you must have a gun at the school why the fuck does it have to be a teacher? Give it to someone trained to use the thing.

edited 16th Dec '12 10:59:15 AM by Kostya

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44070: Dec 16th 2012 at 11:00:56 AM

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said Sunday that Friday's shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, requires a 9/11-style commission to find ways to stop future shootings in the United States.

Only recreational users. Everything else is fair game.

What's non-recreational use?

edited 16th Dec '12 11:02:03 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#44071: Dec 16th 2012 at 11:01:42 AM

[up]We already have people offering solutions. MAKE IT HARDER TO GET THE FUCKING GUNS!

edit: He mentions assault weapons but that's not enough. Every single person that wants a gun should undergo mandatory training and psyche evaluations and must keep it locked up or on their person at all times. Failure to do any of these should constitute a federal crime.

edit: Marijuana can be a pain killer. That would be medicinal use.

edited 16th Dec '12 11:03:33 AM by Kostya

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#44072: Dec 16th 2012 at 11:03:25 AM

I know how you can stop more shootings.

Have every bullet cost a bare minimum of 5000 dollars.

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44073: Dec 16th 2012 at 11:03:29 AM

Speaker John Boehner pitches millionaire tax hike

THE REPUBLICANS ARE CAVING!

He mentions assault weapons but that's not enough. Every single person that wants a gun should undergo mandatory training and psyche evaluations and must keep it locked up or on their person at all times. Failure to do any of these should constitute a federal crime.

Right....

Good look selling that idea to anyone not on the far-left.

edited 16th Dec '12 11:05:16 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#44074: Dec 16th 2012 at 11:04:33 AM

How? It's the same thing. You cut entitlements we'll let you raise taxes. Frankly I hope Obama doesn't concede unless they let entitlements stay and allow taxes to rise above pre-Bush levels. 50% sounds good right about now.

[up]Why the hell shouldn't it be required! We make you go through training to drive a car. Why not to own a gun?

edited 16th Dec '12 11:07:22 AM by Kostya

Linhasxoc Since: Jun, 2009
#44075: Dec 16th 2012 at 11:04:46 AM

[up][up][up] Ah yes, the Chris Brown theory of "Bullet Control". [lol]

edited 16th Dec '12 11:04:55 AM by Linhasxoc


Total posts: 417,856
Top