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
@thorn 3 posts back- Humans Are Bastards afterall.
edited 18th Dec '12 6:13:41 PM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackThat's the sort of hand-wringing, pessimistic bullcrap that prevents any solution from actually happening. You care about it? Organize people, lobby your senator. Part of what's so broken with American politics is the defeatist attitude that allows the vocal minority to be massively over-represented.
@Ace
Yeah, that's a good point in and of itself, but what I have a problem with in catch-all factoids like that in a context of self-defense. The statement itself is logically valid, but it implies that you should be wary of half the members of your own species, and that's a dangerous line of thinking in a socio-political context, as well. More relevantly is a lot of political rhetoric used to make people feel afraid of something that isn't a likely threat. It's like the old saying about the salesman who insists that you buy his elephant repellant on the off-chance that an elephant will come storming through your house. Females in the US are frequently the victims of sexual assault, and while that kernel of data is true, that data is politicized and abused for ulterior motives.
This is why, as a gun owner, I'm annoyed that many neoconservatives perpetually hijack interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and warp the language to make it seem like Obama is a communist devil who is going to disarm us in his first step toward "communizing" the US. When people run around talking about the necessity of a black belt or gun ownership as a means of self-defense against a "potential" attacker (a nebulous term that is often abused in martial arts circles), it ignores the actual likelihood of specific scenarios playing out the way many Americans think they will.
Using possibility as a source of galvanization has gotten our nation into serious problems such as the search for WM Ds that - gasp - never turned up while people have to take their shoes off due to a shoebomber and his possible copycats. We take our shoes off because if it happened once, it can happen again, right? And when people try to elucidate the pitfalls of operating under such overly simplified logic, proponents of grand, sweeping changes such as that seen with the Patriot Act defend themselves with catchy bumper-sticker rhetoric. You see phrases such as "freedom isn't free" and "land of the free because of the brave", but these slogans sometimes erode debate instead of encouraging it. The slogans also ignore the complex reality of society.
Both liberals and conservatives are prone to this type of discourse, and the gun debate is one clear example. Anti-gun liberals make uneducated statements about the nature and use of firearms, which fuels the conservatives' stance on preserving gun rights based on exaggerated notions of emergency militias and home defense. We need to take a long, hard look at the data being gathered on crime and use that as our yardstick instead of relying on sensationalized rhetoric that appeals to instant emotional gratification. For example, the FBI notes that violent crimes dropped about 3.7 percent between 2010 and 2011, and we are still seeing a decline. However, you turn on the news and see stories of children being shot, and that leads you to believe that we're in a state of chaos, despite that figure suggesting otherwise.
My issue is that people watch that stuff all day long at work, at home or at school. By the time they get to the training floor, they want to know how to break someone's entire skeletal system on the off-chance that 20 Middle Eastern guys are going to break into their house, steal their guns, rape their family, shoot them and blow up their church the next day. That's the crap people brought into my class when I taught Kenpo, and I still see it from time to time.
So what do we do? Pointless assault rifle bans? A hunting rifle carries the same kind of ammunition, and the Aurora shooter's AR jammed before he expended any more than a standard rifle would anyways, and look what he did.
Ban all guns? People will get them anyway.
Unless we can get our ENTIRE CULTURE to change, I don't see anything happening.
edited 18th Dec '12 6:19:28 PM by Thorn14
Lobby to get better REGULATION, not bans. Sure, we might not stop the dramatic spree killing, but honestly? This is going to sound terrible, but the School Shooting is a tiny blip on the overall picture of gun violence. People die. It sucks. It happens. There's not much we can do about things like the Sandy Hook shooting. What we can do is try to limit the sort of gun violence that happens on a daily basis, all over the nation. I'd guess that several (over 10x) as many people die from that then they do from a random, isolated spree killing.
If I could choose three major problems contributing to the smaller ones in the US, it would be:
1.) The disproportionate gap between the rich and the poor
2.) Insufficiently educated youth and a cultural climate of anti-intellectual contentment
3.) Partisan-based monologue rather than anti-partisan, unified dialogue
Those are very broad perspectives, but it's something to work with.
Well, you don't change a damn thing with pointless whining, Thorn. You pick something to do, and then go fucking do it. Nothing comes of nothing, but going out and doing something productive got women the right to vote and created the Equal Pay and Lily Ledbetter acts, got segregation declared illegal, and gay marriage legalized in three states this last election. And you know how that stuff happened? By not succumbing to the pointless, childish cynicism you're currently engaging it. Go out, go talk to people about different types of solutions. And then do something.
Which we've already covered. And suggested things such as controlling the amount of magazines/bullets that are sold. I keep hearing that one on TV. As well as taking guns out of the fucking superstores and putting them in actual gun stores.
@Aprilla: I only singled that out because that phrase has a very specific meaning to me and to a lot of women that's unrelated to the gun issue. And that we have, for cultural reasons that are as problematic as how we treat guns, reason to currently think that way. And again, it's for the threads on sexism and would lead to a massive derail here.
The general immaturity of how we think of self defense is not something I'm arguing against. Nor are the unrealistic expectations people seem to have about how badly they can hurt people. I took a self defense class fairly early on in college, and while I didn't go in with that attitude the teacher had encountered a lot like that; his basic advice was hit something soft and squishy and run while they're down. (I went in because it seemed like a more entertaining way to fulfill the gym requirement.)
edited 18th Dec '12 6:34:49 PM by AceofSpades
Mandatory registration could work in theory. The problem with that approach is that it might only work after the fact, that is, following an investigation after a gun crime has been committed. It could act as a deterrent by scrutinizing people who don't have paperwork much in the way lack of vehicle registration and insurance can raise some interesting questions about why one's tags are expired or why the VIN has been defaced. Cops are very particular about proper vehicle paperwork because the lack thereof can and will raise their suspicions about how you obtained the vehicle and why you're operating it. A paper trail with guns could work in a similar fashion, but I have doubts about its long-term effects.
Oh no, absolutely. I'm sure it is a special concern for nearly all women who at least keep themselves informed. When you live in a society where 1 in 4 women has some history of sexual abuse, you can imagine far-reaching implications of political debates on the overall safety of women. I didn't want to go too far off-topic, so I used your example as a bridge toward the whole socio-political concept of personal safety.
edited 18th Dec '12 6:38:31 PM by Aprilla
I'm just not hearing many good arguments against why we dont arm everyone now. I'm not saying we should but it sounds like it would be the safest.
Pro gun people are making much better, less emotional counterpoints. Well, other than the "stop a tyrannical government" bull.
edited 18th Dec '12 6:36:19 PM by Thorn14
I'd honestly model it after the regulation we have on cars. Require tests to make sure people are trained in use and safety, and also perhaps some sort of mental health eval. (That would be soooo much easier if we have universal health care.) All guns you have are registered to you, and you only, and you're responsible for all actions taken with said gun. If you want to transfer ownership, you have to log that you've done so. At the very least, make guns require a license, which is subject to periodic review, and renewal. That's just my rough outline, off the top of my head.
It's not a panacea, but it's progress. We shouldn't be quick to reject imperfect solutions, because really, the only way we can get solutions is by throwing stuff at the wall, then modifying it.
Really? You can't see anything wrong with giving people the ability to turn physical confrontation into a lethal one? Look, man, I've been pissed before. So pissed I've gotten in pretty nasty fights. Now, I'd like to say that if I had a gun, I'd be smart enough to use it, but when you're enraged-like all people get sometimes, you don't think like that. Your brain is screaming "BURNMAIMKILL." If I had a gun at the time, someone would be dead, and someone would be in jail.
edited 18th Dec '12 6:40:35 PM by DrTentacles
Arming everyone does not sound like a good plan. For one thing, that would require a HUGE amount of training for everyone who is given a firearm. Secondly, just because everyone has a firearm does not mean that it cancels out the other guy with a firearm. Proficiency is going to be different to different people. Also, most people don't need guns.
That sounds reasonable. Indeed, that's the way we do it here (except for the fact that we have so many legal barriers that guns are defacto illegal)
edited 18th Dec '12 6:39:07 PM by Inhopelessguy
I don't know where you're hearing the rational pro gun arguments, because I'm just hearing a bunch of bullshit from Republican policy makers and some nutsos that are buying guns to defend themselves from the vastly superiorally armed US government.
And Aprilla up there. But sadly, he is not a policy maker. Also, arming everyone IS NOT GOING TO MAKE US SAFER. It is only going to increase the number of incidents of harm because of idiots that don't actually know how to use the gun safely or just flagrantly ignore safety issues. Seriously, no.
![]()
Yes, thank you.
edited 18th Dec '12 6:40:04 PM by AceofSpades
I don't really believe in licensing. But I do believe in safety. In California, there's a safety certificate people have to qualify for before purchasing a handgun.
I don't see why safety certificates (as opposed to "licenses") wouldn't be at least a start. So many people buy firearms without the first thought regarding even just basic safety.
There's a test involved, and it would also require a demonstration of safe handling of various types of firearms with orange dummy rounds. The certificate also must be renewed every few years.
The intent would be to limit purchases of firearms to those who have a current (meaning valid) certificate, but not prevent those who have them already from keeping them.
The reason for this is to allow the instant background check system to remain in place (just because you have a license or certificate doens't mean that something might happen that takes your right to purchase a firearm away, like a felony in the interlude).
edited 18th Dec '12 6:56:17 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I'd like to see an insurance company that would be willing to go along with that.
Remember, any solution we come up with has to co-exist rock-solid against basic rights. Unless you can convince the American people to strike down the 2nd Amendment. And really, good luck with that.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!If you have the time to get a certificate, you have the time to get a license. I don't see how this is all that different from getting a hunting license. You want to do something potentially dangerous, you can damn well go get a license for it.
![]()
I'm not even sure how gun insurance would work in this instance. I don't think people would want to buy something that makes them more financially or legally liable for something other people do than they are now.
edited 18th Dec '12 7:07:34 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
The problem isnt striking down the second amendment. its that some of the most vocal people have interpreted the amendment to mean less "we have a right to guns" and more to "we have a right to machine guns and artillery cannons and if you disagree we have a right to shoot you and overhtrow the government"
edited 18th Dec '12 7:09:05 PM by Midgetsnowman
Honestly the second amendment needs to be changed. Guns are a heck of a lot different than they used to be. It's like saying a law made decades ago about land-line phones should just transfer wholesale to cell phones. They're fundamentally different pieces of technology despite having a similar function and the law should treat them as such.

Sorry, I've been talking to other people, and it really sounds like there will be no solution.
Nor is there a solution that can be done, regarding guns.