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

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#44551: Dec 19th 2012 at 8:42:26 PM

@ Tuefel:

1, 2, 4, 8: Thank you, that's very informative.

3, 9: Irrelevant. Motivation doesn't make a difference to bullets; if you want to kill and frighten people, and you have a gun, you have a good chance of doing so regardless of how armed the people there are.

5, 7: Another point to raise, the presence of other armed people at a shooting does little for the safety of others if the shooter guns them down first.

6: So, a ratio of armed to unarmed personell comparable to, say, the ratio of adults to teachers in a school?

I bring up Hasan simply as a counterpoint to the proposal that we arm teachers. Saturating areas with gun owners will not prevent shootings unless an overwhelming majority literally walks around with a hand on the gun in their pocket, at which point we'll see accidents and bad aim killing more people than gunmen.

The other considerations of gun control aside, more guns do not prevent gun death. I am not for banning guns outright, but this fact cannot be ignored. If it sounds like I'm trying to cut the NRA and GOA arguments out of the discussion, well, it's because I am, as they are utterly ridiculous.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#44552: Dec 19th 2012 at 8:45:16 PM

I guess the idea is that self-defense with guns may work on a personal level, but not on an aggregate level to protect a school?

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44553: Dec 19th 2012 at 8:59:08 PM

[up][up] Regarding point #5 and 7: Having a gun does not guarantee anything except the possibility of preventing the scene from escalating. There is also the possibility of it not. There are too many variables to say whether it would work or not.

And again, a slim chance, is better than no chance. By the time armed security arrived, Hasan had already done his damage inside and the exchange with the armed officers was outside of the building, in the parking lot.

edited 19th Dec '12 9:00:05 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#44554: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:06:28 PM

[up]

It depends on what that slim chance comes at the cost of. Gunfights rarely have zero collateral damage.

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44555: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:18:35 PM

Most crime against other people rarely has no consequences. But your priority is the life and safety of your or loved ones or those whom you have sworn to protect. There are priorities here. And that is the bottom line.

Again, you have to be safe, you have to responsible. It's part of the basic rules of owning and operating a firearm is to know what you're firing at and what is around you, and what is behind your target.

Can I fire without risking someone else? Classic hostage situation is that guy holding a gun to someone's head. You never see the police take action without trying to get the gunman to move the gun away from someone's head, etc.

It is one of those many variables.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#44556: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:25:09 PM

@Radical Taoist: you were told by several people who know that the killings at Fort Hood were not the example of "armed people couldn't stop a killer" that you were using them as, so it'd be nice to stop using it as an example once you learned that, yes?

A brighter future for a darker age.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#44557: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:45:24 PM

Democrats should just make the selling of bullets above certain caliber illegal.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#44558: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:46:44 PM

@ Morven: I find my arguments satisfactory.

@ DTM: True. It is one of many factors. I can weigh the probability a gun at my side actually helping at all versus the probability that it risks unnecessarily escalating conflicts, theft of my gun by criminals, proliferation of violence in society at large, and all that jazz. If I think there being guns around at all is a bigger threat to my loved ones than my personally not having a gun, then the choice is very clear. You can consider priorities on both the small and large scales.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#44559: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:49:18 PM

[up][up]Good luck passing that. Or keeping it from being hindered by state governments or challenged and struck down in court. Plus it tends to galvanize Republican opposition in general and with things like the fiscal cliff around the Dems don't want that. Unilateral action on the issue will get them nowhere, they need to compromise.

Not to mention the fact that high caliber bullets aren't the core of the problem.

edited 19th Dec '12 9:50:45 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#44560: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:50:34 PM

[up]

Nah. They need to double down. Shift the narrative. End the fillabuster. Use unilateral action. Its time for the democrats to adopt the same take no prisoners aproach the Republicans have been using as of late.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#44561: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:52:39 PM

And then they get mauled in the midterms or have the Blue Dogs turn on them again.

On that note, are there any ways for the Dems to boost their normally lack luster midterm voter turnout rate? They really need every vote they can get in 2014, especially when it comes to some Senate seats.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#44562: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:55:52 PM

[up]

The wont get mauled if they do it correctly. You know... like not allowing people to take guns on trains or not allowing people who are on the terror watchlist buy guns (thank you NRA and Republican Party). The voter is not that stupid. There just needs to be an agressive campaing.

As for 2014 the democrats dont need to do anything specially. Demographic shift will ensure another win.

As a side note, the only reason why Republicans have so many sits on the House of Representatives is do to Massive Gerry Mandering.

edited 19th Dec '12 9:56:29 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#44563: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:56:29 PM

@Taoist: No, they are not. If the argument is that "Armed people couldn't stop a killer," but the example given were of unarmed people, your example is not satisfactory.

For example, both points 3 and 9 are relevant in that he would've been able to get his weapons anyway because of his terrorist connections. Terrorist groups do have better connections in getting weaponry as opposed to a random dude on the street. They may not be as well as the military, but he could've still been a threat despite gun laws in the United States. In addition, Hasan was a Major, which means that even with gun laws, he would've been certified to use military weaponry. No gun law was going to prevent him from getting access to deadly weapons as both a soldier and a terrorist.

edited 19th Dec '12 10:02:40 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#44564: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:58:28 PM

[up][up]The Democrats' demographic coalition tends to turn out in weaker numbers during midterms as opposed to presidential elections. That needs to be addressed.

And none of your suggestions will last if the Supreme Court goes "nope, 2nd Amendment". And quite a few justices would need to step down/die and be replaced (and confirmed by the Senate, which the GOP could filibusterer) for the balance to shift away that.

edited 19th Dec '12 10:00:14 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#44565: Dec 19th 2012 at 9:58:51 PM

[up][up] Nevertheless, thats not a reason why they shouldnt be forbidden to do so. Common sense dictates that it should be illegal to sell weapons to terrorist. But the gun lobby doesnt care who it sells its guns to.

[up] Maybe they should promise to legalize weed nation wide?

Now the supreme court argument is a valid one. But, hey! why not give it a shot? Shouldnt call it quits just because the Supreme Court might strike it down. Its not like any such regulations would outlaw handguns and most normal rifles.

Bear arms has a very wide interpretation. Does it mean that Bill Gates should be allowed to buy stealhtbombers? Or that your average citizen has a right to buy a Barret? The president has a wide margin to extend guns restrictions back to as they where 20, 40, 60 years ago.

edited 19th Dec '12 10:05:37 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
IConfuseMe from Washington, DC Since: Jan, 2010
#44566: Dec 19th 2012 at 10:01:06 PM

People keep saying that putting more guns into circulation will somehow solve lower gun crime. Is there any actual evidence of that? Do states with looser gun laws have lower rates of crime?

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44567: Dec 19th 2012 at 10:07:47 PM

[up] Vermont, where concealed carry requires no permit, has very low crime rate. But it also has a relatively peaceful culture there as well.

The question is whether this would work in states where there is significantly higher crime rates but tighter gun control already. There a lot of factors, and there's a lot of fears about how looser restrictions would play out.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
IConfuseMe from Washington, DC Since: Jan, 2010
#44568: Dec 19th 2012 at 10:17:46 PM

Then I really wish people would stop throwing out the total armament of the populace like that's a legitimate solution...

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#44569: Dec 19th 2012 at 10:43:12 PM

[up][up]

Its much easier to quote statistics in a vacuum or cherrypick data points that support your argument than take on a nuanced stance, is the problem with that.

therefore people will cherrypick and "prove" theyre right instead of bothering with the sort of nuance youre pointing out.

edited 19th Dec '12 10:50:27 PM by Midgetsnowman

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44570: Dec 19th 2012 at 10:52:43 PM

On that note, are there any ways for the Dems to boost their normally lack luster midterm voter turnout rate? They really need every vote they can get in 2014, especially when it comes to some Senate seats.

That's true.

Youth Turnout is incredibly low for midterm elections (24% in 2010).

Hmm how can we make young people give a sh*t about the midterms

edited 19th Dec '12 10:55:04 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#44571: Dec 19th 2012 at 11:01:11 PM

The Dems just need to have a better ground game. Still, I'm not looking forwards to 2014.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44572: Dec 19th 2012 at 11:03:26 PM

It won't be as bad as 2010, but I'm not looking forward to it either.

Are any Senators or Governors (of either party) particularly vulnerable in 2014?

edited 19th Dec '12 11:05:41 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#44573: Dec 19th 2012 at 11:24:22 PM

You'd think that if having lackluster turn out during the midterm elections was a regular thing that the Democrats would have learned their lesson about galvanizing people by now. Because seriously, they need to get on that.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/19/1361521/top-conservative-publication-newtown-happened-because-women-ran-the-school/

And just when I thought my respect for conservatives couldn't drop any lower.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#44574: Dec 19th 2012 at 11:46:22 PM

I mentioned this before on a different thread, but what about banning the manufacturing of guns while leaving people's right to buy, sell, and carry guns unchanged? That way the number of guns in circulation would decrease over time, while avoiding the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" scenario.

edited 19th Dec '12 11:48:04 PM by RavenWilder

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#44575: Dec 19th 2012 at 11:55:35 PM

Then you’ve just outsourced all the gun manufacture to Mexico and Canada. Plus you’ll probably kill smaller gun shops that can't afford to source their guns from abroad.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Total posts: 417,856
Top