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

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#47677: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:09:59 PM

[up]That last one... it better get some coverage because I want to see how some of the people who have been vocal up till now respond to it. The implications for the debate are staggering.

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#47678: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:12:12 PM

No, I do not believe they need to be better more note  regulated (in general). If my odds of being killed by something are less than that of being killed by someones bare hands, I don't consider it a sufficient risk to make it hard to get.

It's on anyone proposing a regulation to state why it would help. A back ground check would not have helped prevent any sort of the crimes that have spurred these discussions since the preferred weapon of criminals is the hand gun, not the rifle (which AR and AK derivatives are). In fact, no degree of tighter regulation would have prevented Sandy Hook since the shooters back ground was irrelevant compared to the owner (who was murdered for her guns). Combined with the two pistols and shot guns he had, simply removing the AR derivative would not have stopped the shooting itself from taking place. Limiting the mag size would also not have helped, as according to wikipedia, he didn't empty his magazines, he frequently changed them.

AR and AK derivatives are pretty much sport/hobby rifles because they're bad at committing crimes with. They're designed with a balance of various traits between hand guns and rifles so that they can be used in multiple scenarios for that purpose. The number one thing that makes an effective weapon for crime/spree shootings is conceal-ability which those models of weapons are not, compared to things like pistols.

As pointed out, the way "dangerous people" lists are generated is not sufficiently transparent for me to trust it, any more than I would trust someones word on whether or not somebody needs their ability to talk to lawyers taken away.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:14:47 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#47679: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:13:30 PM

[up][up] Anyone saying the right to bear arms is a 'God-Given Right' will probably find the Vatican's response rather awkward to respond to. The US doesn't exactly have a tiny population of Catholics, and there are plenty of Protestants who respect the Vatican.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:14:24 PM by Zendervai

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#47680: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:19:50 PM

[up] Separation of Church and State. Just because the Vatican says something, doesn't mean that it is the same opinion being held across the world, after all. There's plenty of disagreement with the Holy See as it stands.

It's like people trying to bring MLK into the debate earlier. Or the whole "Demand A Plan" campaign from Hollywood. Just because there's a plea to emotions, doesn't automatically mean that it is the right way to go.

The right to self-defense is seen as much a natural right as it is a "God-given" right, there is a very simple and practical reason for human beings to have that right.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:22:27 PM 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
#47681: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:20:51 PM

If the ban is not going to make people safer, it should not go through.
This is an argument for making a more effective ban, not for nixing the idea of a ban entirely. Gun violence is a problem in the United States. We should do something to address it. What I'd like to see first and foremost is a simple, reasonable, and consistent definition of "assault weapon" — something I haven't seen from either side of the debate. We have to know what we're talking about before we can decide what to do with it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#47682: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:21:09 PM

I know, I just mean that the Vatican has a huge amount of cultural influence.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#47683: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:21:36 PM

[up][up][up][up][up]

. If my odds of being killed by something are less than that of being killed by someones bare hands, I don't consider it a sufficient risk to make it hard to get.

That statistic says that 8,775 were killed with a firearm in 2010, while only 742 were killed with someone's Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).

edited 20th Jan '13 3:22:09 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#47684: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:22:17 PM

...From what I've heard, neither making gun regulation stricter nor making gun regulation looser has a significant effect on gun violence, statistically speaking.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:23:30 PM by deathpigeon

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#47685: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:24:23 PM

[up][up] The statistic says that less than 400 were killed with a rifle (a statistic that includes both hunting rifles and AR-15s and AK types, the types that are primarily being targeted by the proposed bans). Handguns are -far- more prevalent, but are basically not being affected much at all.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:25:42 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#47686: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:26:17 PM

The National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) identified 413 criminal and civil cases across 44 states involving the arrests, detentions and equivalent deprivations of pregnant women's liberty between 1973 and 2005. NAWP said that it is aware of a further 250 cases since 2005. Both figures are likely to be underestimates, it said.

This is all in spite of Roe v. Wade being passed. Does federal law matter, really? That's just one example of local law trumping federal law.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:27:27 PM by Serocco

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#47687: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:27:28 PM

The statistics say that 358 people were killed by rifles (which is what an assault weapons ban would target), and 742 people were killed by someones Personal Weapons.

@ Native Jovian, you won't find a good definition of assault weapon because it's legal bull shit created by the people making the ban.

The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic.
Source.

So, essentially, it's a ban on cosmetic features. There was, however, a ban on magazines above ten rounds capacity. It expired and little to no effect occurred.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:31:13 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#47688: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:30:21 PM

Which is why I said we need to have a better definition of what type of weapons, exactly, are worth regulating more heavily?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#47689: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:33:38 PM

There's a lot of different ways you can define weapons, but the people who ban the cosmetic features are obviously not going to give good advice. The best way to do it would be to look at the conceal-ability of the weapon.

We can use the ones listed by the FBI: handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

Fight smart, not fair.
Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#47690: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:34:43 PM

Just to troll Congress, I want a law that prevents men from getting Viagra.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:35:28 PM by Serocco

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#47691: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:34:53 PM

The argument is whether the types guns themselves are worth regulating (they are already regulated), as opposed to the types of people who are allowed access.

Everyone is for better vetting of buyers, eliminating the mentally disturbed and criminals. Better mental healthcare and better background checks. Is that enough? The answer on one side is no, the other side says yes.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:36:23 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#47692: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:44:55 PM

Deboss: If anything the link you posted explains fairly adequately why we need harsher controls on all guns. Around 3/4 of all murders were committed with firearms. That is a truly appalling statistic.

It is actually making me contemplate a total ban. I mean compare the number of firearm murders to knife murders. The difference is shocking. Would all of those murders have been prevented without guns? Probably not but a lot of them probably would have. Japan and Britain certainly don't have this problem and they also consumed violent media fairly often.

edit: Okay a total ban is too extreme. Perhaps a ban on handguns would be effective. Rifles can be used to guard your home and hunt but you can't easily sneak them into a public spot.

edited 20th Jan '13 3:47:06 PM by Kostya

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#47693: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:47:55 PM

Senate Democrats promise to pass a budget this year.

All I want out of this is an end to the Gun Show Loophole and Universal Background checks for all guns. That is it. I don't care for all the other stuff being suggested. Is that so wrong?

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#47694: Jan 20th 2013 at 3:48:41 PM

That's the only regulation that'll have any serious effect.

Honestly, if we really wanted to stop shootings like Sandy Hook we'd censor the media so nobody could report on a school shooting. But short of that, school shootings will continue. Even if you strip every American of his or her guns, they'll continue with bombs.

They're the price we pay for having a massive country filled with powerless people, all living in a culture that glorifies fame.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#47695: Jan 20th 2013 at 4:07:04 PM

I'm thoroughly convinced that gun control's effectiveness depends largely on a nation's culture.

Japan cracked down on guns and it saw a large drop in firearm-related homicides.

Jamaica cracked down on guns and its murder rate has soared to become one of the highest in the world,

If Chicago and Washington D.C. are any indications, its that banning guns probably isn't the way to go for America.

Rick Santorum: Obama doesn't want immigration reform

edited 20th Jan '13 4:14:40 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#47696: Jan 20th 2013 at 4:09:35 PM

Yeah, banning guns outright won't work in America. Remember that Japan banned guns literally from the very beginning—back when Europeans first arrived with muskets. So it wasn't too hard for them to say "You know what? Too many shootings. They're all gone."

America is pretty much the exact opposite.

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#47697: Jan 20th 2013 at 4:11:08 PM

Statistics show that laws tightening gun control does nothing to gun violence rates, at least in the US. Same with laws loosening gun control.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#47698: Jan 20th 2013 at 4:24:21 PM

Well that might have something to do with there being 300+ million guns in the US. If you had a way to remove most of those from the equation then it might change things.

edited 20th Jan '13 4:24:41 PM by Kostya

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#47699: Jan 20th 2013 at 4:26:57 PM

I'm up for a allowing media black outs on school shootings. Shootings are better than bombings anyway.

Perhaps a ban on handguns would be effective. Rifles can be used to guard your home and hunt but you can't easily sneak them into a public spot.

You are aware that AR 15 and AK derivatives are rifles, are you not? Which is, you know, what any "assault weapon bans" would cover.

The ban would have to be effective to begin with. Most gun bans in the US have seen effectiveness in the same sense as digital piracy bans. Only the law abiding and "meh" gun users will turn over their guns , everyone else hides them.

Considering the number of knife murders to the number of gun murders is an interesting idea since knives are much harder to kill someone with, we've got more usage of them to make up for it. Or the profound misunderstanding that knives aren't dangerous and that you can outfight someone with a knife.

It would also be much safer if the leading cause of death wasn't "other arguments" or arguments in general.

But, I'm willing to allow handgun access to anyone that passes a CCW license procedure (provided said procedure is reasonable). No sense in giving up the gains from personal weapons.

Well that might have something to do with there being 300+ million guns in the US. If you had a way to remove most of those from the equation then it might change things.

Can you think of one that would work and be something that people are willing to implement?

edited 20th Jan '13 4:28:06 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#47700: Jan 20th 2013 at 4:37:07 PM

[up]Yes. I'm saying you ban hand guns but let those stay legal. That way people can still hunt and defend their home. The crazies that think they can take on the government can also be happy since they are allowed to have a weapon that's a lot more effective against the military. Unless it isn't. I'm not an expert.

For the ban to be effective we'd have to remove the guns already in circulation. That is probably the biggest stumbling block since that's actually doing what the conservatives say we will even if we're doing it for different reasons.

I'm not saying knives aren't dangerous but if I'm up against someone that wants to kill me I'd prefer them having a knife than a gun. If I can outrun them then they can't just shoot me and I could probably get it away from them before they hurt me easier than if it was a gun. That isn't to say it's not dangerous but it would probably be less dangerous than a gun.

No I can't think of one that would work without giving the crazies an actual reason to flip out which is why I'm not sure if I'm in full support of such a measure.


Total posts: 417,856
Top