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
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, I think that the government has (in a very minor way) played some part in encouraging the NRA's brand of brimstone-and-fire preaching by allowing some inefficient firearm regulation to come into play in the first place, which has only heightened the latter's paranoia.
It makes me wonder if we could get a rational state-by-state 'grand bargain' with respect to firearms - heighten regulations on background checks and proven murder weapons in exchange for relaxing regulations where they've been proven ineffective. Depriving the right of the ever-popular 'but assault weapons!!!' tangent seems like a useful compromise point to me, and one of the few places where it seems like compromise could be made without any real harm coming from it.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.See, that's the thing. Again, I'm a bit new to doing active research (much to my chagrin) but from what I'm seeing, gun violence seems to be exceptionally high in every place but the places where gun culture is the norm.
Gun violence seems to be barely a half a percent in rural, Southern areas where folks get guns as Valentine's Day presents.
I quite like that idea.
edited 13th Feb '13 10:49:59 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorI don't think it makes a lot of sense to look at mostly-rural and right-leaning states and see low murder statistics compared to mostly-urban and leftist states and then say that gun regulation isn't a relevant factor.
What would be more relevant is, first, controlling for environment and then checking statistics. Are you safer in a large city in the Bible Belt compared to an equally-populous and dense city in the northeast or California? In a small town in a blue region or a just as small town in a red region?
But even if you want to compare state to state directly for some reason, ignoring environmental effects entirely, Wikipedia gives me this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
Almost all of the nation's wealthiest twenty states, which included northern mid-western and western states such as Minnesota and California, had crime rates below the national average. In addition to having the country's lowest crime rates, New England states also had the country's highest median household income, while the Southern states have the lowest.
Advocates of gun control have been, properly in some cases, criticized for targeting cosmetic issues rather than the ones that are likely to make a genuine difference. That doesn't mean the issues at hand are not important ones. Universal background checks, licensing/registering weapons, tracing sales, and similar regulatory measures have been proven to be effective and should be continued/expanded. The NRA of a decade ago even agreed with this. Bans and/or restrictions on kind, form, and appearance are separate and can be debated separately.
As noted above (
), income rates also play a huge factor in violent crime, so you'd think that people on the gun advocacy side would favor efforts to eliminate poverty, repair the criminal justice system so we aren't filling up prisons with marijuana users, etc.
What is missing from the other side is any genuine suggestions, any attempt to compromise or reach out with offers of ways to help address the causes of firearm-related violence. Jhim, you may say that attempts to paint groups like the NRA as abetting terrorism only cause people to dig in and lash out, but by doing that you're just playing into the rhetoric you decry. If you want all gun owners to be labeled as psychopaths, you have only to start killing people for suggesting that your group needs to improve its public image.
The only "solutions" I've heard from the NRA and pals is that everyone should go out and arm themselves. That's not a solution; that's armageddon. I'm not sure which is supposed to make me feel safer — knowing that my neighbor has a gun and might decide to shoot me for no particular reason, or knowing that we both have guns and can shoot each other.
edited 13th Feb '13 11:31:56 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What people need to appreciate is that mass-shootings like Sandy Hook are almost impossible to entirely prevent, and especially not with gun legislation. In the last 30 years, the UK doubled-down its gun laws, making them far, far stricter. In the last 30 years, the UK suffered the Hungerford massacre, the Dunblane School Massacre (I still, in fact, remember that day, and how distressed it made the whole nation), and the Cumbria shootings. To give you an idea of how seriously (almost hysterically so) the UK takes gun crime (to the point of hysteria), after Cumbria we put a nearby nuclear power plant in lockdown and launched Royal Air Force jets to try and find the suspect. Every single one of these shootings was done with legally-owned firearm(s). It's worth noting.
Don't judge gun-owners by the NRA - they speak for a narrow constituency of very passionate gun owners. But on the other hand, you have people like Diane Feinstein calling for bans on all semi-automatic weapons, you have the Chicago Sun-Times labeling the sling hook as a "bayonet mount", and people (like you yourself, I believe) saying that assault weapon owners and gun collectors should be stigmatized like smokers. Frankly, that sends a message that the government is going to make life harder for gun owners and stigmatize them and mock them even if they do obey the law. Its hardly the kind of message that will make friends and influence people, is it?
edited 13th Feb '13 11:35:36 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiYou can't stop all violence. Playing the Perfect Solution Fallacy card won't fly here. You have to look at comparative statistics to understand what's really going on. Per official world statistics (linky
), the U.K. had 0.25 firearms deaths per capita in 2012. The United States had 10.2, a rate over 40 times higher.
That is not a statistical anomaly. There is no way you can look at Britain and say that its firearms laws are responsible for increased gun violence, unless you are utterly devoted to an ideology and eschew facts.
edited 13th Feb '13 11:37:46 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Don't strawman me, thanks. I mentioned only mass-shootings. Not gun crime in general. The two things are different entirely and require different solutions. The AWB is an ill-thought out solution to the first - because firearm types have little relevance in this area. Universal background checks etc (which I support) can reduce gun crime, and I never argued otherwise.
Then why not try solutions that work?
edited 13th Feb '13 11:38:33 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiThen why not propose some?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I just did - universal background checks, etc. Much the same ones as you did, in fact. What I do not support, indeed, the only current gun control legislation that I don't, is a renewed AWB.
We know very little about how to stop mass-shootings. What we do know is that the AWB doesn't work.
My other point was that the kind of rhetoric being espoused on many on the gun-control side is, if not equally crazy, then at least comparable to many on the gun-promoting side. So saying that everyone who doesn't believe guns should be banned for (gasp) being ergonomic, easy to use, or looking scary, is a right wing shithead isn't fair or insightful. If you are banning attachments, ban things like slide-fire stocks
.
EDIT: I also recall a post of yours (I think it was yours, and CBA checking) earlier where you said you would like to do away with the 2nd Amendment. I'm not disputing your right to express your opinion (indeed, you usually do so very well), but surely you can see why that might make some gun owners wary of any legislative measures on guns, if they think its going to be step 1 in a gun ban?
edited 13th Feb '13 11:51:19 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI am actually in favor of the AWB, but for different reasons than "looking scary". The original ban on automatic and/or semi-automatic rifles had a dramatic impact, not on violent crime in the U.S., but on violent crime in Mexico and other Central/South American countries.
I'm all for anything that deprives drug lords of the means to terrorize the citizens of their own countries. We have to cut off the flow of guns to them, by any means necessary, or we are literally murdering children.
That said, within the U.S., there is a fetish for "AR-15 style assault weapons", to the point where gun manufacturers deliberately model and advertise their products as such. Then they have the gall to claim that "it's all cosmetics." It's grossly hypocritical, like tobacco companies putting cutesy cartoon characters on their packaging and hyping the "cool factor" and then claiming, "But we aren't marketing to kids!"
Gun culture — the aspect of American society that fetishizes, worships, and embraces firearms — is hugely to blame and must be changed if we're going to quell the frankly obscene levels of violence in our country. We can start with this "DEY KINT TAKE OUR GUNZ" mentality that's blocking any attempts to legislate or regulate solutions.
By trying to draw an equivalence between people advocating shooting police officers and people calling for a ban on AR-15's because they "look scary", you are damaging the credibility of your side of the argument. Maybe they want to ban these guns because gun advocates are so damn in love with them.
Edit: You are correct — I think that the Second Amendment has done immense harm to our country and should be changed or done away with. That said, it is the law and we must find ways to work within it. My goal is to address the issue of violent crime as a whole, and in particular that abetted by the easy access to firearms in our country. If the Second Amendment is a barrier to that, then let's fix it so that it is not.
edited 13th Feb '13 11:58:29 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hrrm.
Pity such an agency doesn't exist.
Well, what might make even more influence would be to prevent drug lords making money at all, perhaps by legalizing drugs or taking more efficient measures. But all that is is an argument for more efficient border control and a ban on non-citizens buying guns, as well as licensing, registration, and tracking sales etc. Something I am enthusiastically in favor of. The cartels, in fact, get 90% of their guns from other South American countries. Illegal arms are a global problem, and penalizing people in America will not stop Los Zetas and their fellow nutcases.
That mentality is a peculiarity of the NRA and its constituency. The majority of gun owners are not NRA men, and indeed many of their members are not in full synch with their leadership - 92% support background checks, for instance.
I don't believe I did. In fact, I pointed out that the gun control rhetoric was not equal to the NRA's. But I did make the modest proposal that, for responsible gun owners (ie, ones that aren't in the NRA!) people saying that they should be stigmatized and that the 2nd Amendment should be done away with are going to push them into the arms of the NRA and its client organizations.
@Potatoes Rock
I refer you to this line in my previous post:
Sure, let's get CDC on the case.
edited 13th Feb '13 12:05:52 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiWell then, you and I are in sync. I understand that not all gun owners are NRA nuts. But if 92% of people support universal background checks, why is this even a subject for debate? Let's just do it. With that level of popularity, we could have legislation on Obama's desk in a matter of a week.
The reason why not, of course, is the ridiculous level of influence of said NRA, which practically owns most conservative politicians (and many liberals).
edited 13th Feb '13 12:05:03 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I am not defending the fucking NRA! What I object to is the stereotyping of all gun owners as NRA shitheads and the AWB. That's all. What I was also trying to analyze was the kind of language that threatens gun owners and drives them into the NRA's constituency - if you've hunted, or put $50,000 into a gun collection, can you see why such people might be worried by people saying "this is just step 1"? I'm not blaming you for that, but I am trying to drive home that this is a debate of two sides.
I'm glad we straightened that out.
edited 13th Feb '13 12:09:07 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiFair enough. Not all gun owners are crazy NRA types. So let's kick the NRA out of Congress and get something useful done. The question is how.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"EDIT: ...and I've been ninjaed. That is what I get for being careful about what I am trying to say >_>
@Fighter: I agree with what you are saying. So do most of the people here. What people are pointing out is that how you are saying it includes going against legitamate gun-owners who don't actually pose a threat to anyone and just like owning a self-deffense, sport/hobby, or hunting gun.
While a gun can be used to do horible things to other people and owning one provides a way for the owner to do those horible things, saying that people should be penalized for just owning a gun is going a little far.
What needs to be done is to determine exactly what causes gun vilence, is effective/not effective at reducing gun vilence, and what can be reasonably done in the current political climate. The primary issues that I think we should be focussing on at the moment is how the NRA is preventing all the above and encuraging people to buy more guns that they don't really need, not that people buy/own guns in general.
(please ignore "speeling" errors)
edited 13th Feb '13 12:14:50 PM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!![]()
Indeed, the question is how. I am fairly sure that big-time gun manufacturers are also lobbying in favor of those same politicians that the NRA is supporting, so it might be that we have to limit how much financial sponsorship they can dole out (perhaps by doing away with whatever law it was that was instituted a few years ago that opened the door for much more corporate influence in politics that is acceptable).
edited 13th Feb '13 12:16:39 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.There's nothing wrong with him doing that - it isn't our job to tell him how best to present his argument. All I was trying to point out was that one reason some gun-owners are paranoid is arguments like his. That's a statement of fact, not a moral judgement. I wouldn't tone down my own opinions to suit another and I don't expect Fighteer to either.
I'd have preferred "very few" to "not all" but it'll do ![]()
Get something concrete past them. The best way to smash lobbies is to bring legislation past them on key issues, thus dooming them to slow decline. For instance, gay marriage will soon be legal in the UK (*touches wood). It will never be undone, because the powerful anti-equality lobby will decay once their predictions fail.
This is also a problem, though, again, once gun-makers realize that the influence of such legislation is minimal (which it will be) then they will realize they no longer need the NRA. Hell, even an AWB will only make gun companies change their products to comply with it. Who knows, the NRA might even go back to being an association of gun-enthusiasts, hunters, and sportsmen...
edited 13th Feb '13 12:21:55 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI wasn't referring to a circuitous suggestion that the NRA is abetting terrorism, but the flat statement that the group is itself terroristic. If there is a terrorist group operating on U.S. soil, then certain responses naturally, logically, almost inevitably suggest themselves—responses that give the lie to anyone pooh-poohing the group's "paranoia." And if being the NRA is terroristic, then anyone whose stance on firearms closely resembles theirs is either a terrorist himself, or at lease not dissimilar enough for most practical purposes. That's a lot of terrorists and quasi-terrorists: probably more per capita than there are al-Qaeda members in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
In other words, the implications of your suggestion are not an impediment to the argument, but the end of all argument on the point. It warrants not a counterargument, but a breaking off and departure from the room (impolite finger gestures are optional). If a significant number of people adopt this viewpoint, there will be and can be no debate, in the forensic sense. There will merely be two large groups of people for whom the same country is not big enough, as Yosemite Sam almost put it.
If this be psychopathy, let the scary soundtrack music commence; you're sharing the country with way more crazy than anyone can keep a lid on indefinitely.
@Belian: Well, if you are an honest, responsible gun owner who wants a weapon for self-defense and maybe to hunt on weekends, I don't see how any of the proposed legislation affects you at all. It's not like registering your weapon or getting a license to own and/or carry it (depending on jurisdiction) presents an insurmountable burden. It's not like you're planning to commit crimes with it, so having the police come bashing down your door with the SWAT team seems a bit over the top.
You may range shoot or get instruction from time to time, and you have attended a safety class and know how to maintain and operate your weapons properly. Hopefully you have your weapons locked (and locked up) so that your kids can't get them out and play "pew pew" games or take them to school for show and tell. You hope you never have to use them to protect yourself, but it makes you feel more secure, just in case.
You may go to gun shows when they're in your town, just to look. You don't have to buy everything cool that you see, but you can appreciate craftsmanship and design when you see it. You might give yourself a present once every few years — a new handgun to replace your old one, which you responsibly trade back to the dealer and report sold. You know you can pass a background check, so you don't mind having one done.
None of these laws will affect you. You're fine. You have no need to be paranoid at all, because you are not the kind of person that anyone is concerned about.
@Jhim: Appearances, in this case, make the reality. If you don't want to be seen as would-be terrorists, then tone down the anti-government, revolutionary rhetoric. There would be no need to have this argument if the NRA and pals weren't forcing it on us by waving their private armories around and threatening to shoot anyone who looks at them funny. "Sticks and stones", you know? All we're doing is trying to protect ourselves. You're the ones talking about revolutions and murder. You are damn well looking and acting like psychopaths — what are we supposed to think?
edited 13th Feb '13 12:28:59 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's a "chicken or the egg" situation, Fighteer: if one thinks there's a realistic chance of being widely defined as a terrorist, with all the potential consequences that entails, then such rhetoric isn't exactly out of place. If A's idea of sacrosanct civic liberties is B's idea of terrorism, then A can't really mollify B and retain what he takes to be his integrity as a citizen. At that point, there's little to be gained from not scaring B, and let the chips fall where they may. What are you supposed to think? The question is becoming ever less interesting to me, and not just to me: honi soit qui mal y pense.
I strain to see the logic in this. First of all, for all the comparisons to do-no-wrong UK, the fact is, for a nation of over 300 million people; gun violence is spectacularly low, in spite of it's high saturation of guns in private citizens' hands. So I'm not sure where this "obscene" level of gun violence is.
Now you want to blame the gun culture. Okay. I place blame on our rather lax immigration regulations. You mention the UK; I had someone joke you could win the Powerball before you get British citizenship. You can't tell me having a porous southern border, one we just happen to share with a country rife with drug related violence has no impact.
I blame a criminal justice system that makes it's bread and butter locking up dark boys and men and ensuring they cannot be productive citizens. I blame a healthcare system that makes a simple thing like a yearly checkup a luxury only the well-off can afford. I blame an economic system that ensures some rich slob can have lobster and champagne for breakfast, but other people have to resort to prostitution just to eat.
I blame politicians who want to ban assault weapons, but are too stupid or too two-faced, to realize that pouring a glass of water on a forest fire won't do shit.
edited 13th Feb '13 12:57:53 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor

@49324: I have to fully agree with the last paragraph. Now if the culture behind the guns is the problem...
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman