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
![]()
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!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: 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.![]()
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.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.
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.@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![]()
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.![]()
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.
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.
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!![]()
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
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 2016You'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.
And just when I thought my respect for conservatives couldn't drop any lower.
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
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

@ 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.