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
Joining what Julep said, here. It's the US that is abnormal w.r.t gun laws.
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.A ban on domestic abusers buying guns would have, or just a basic ass psychological evaluation to determine if he was going to go shoot up a bunch of people.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHe'd been taken off the list, though honestly the idea of the FBI being able to maintain a list (after providing sufficient evidence to a judge) of terror suspects who can't have guns isn't a horrible idea.
Though currently terror watch lists have a tendency to be petty screwy,
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAye, the current "terror watchlists" and "no fly lists" have a habit of randomly including people with no logic to justify their inclusion. And it's apparently insanely difficult to correct any errors.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanDidn't the S.W.A.T.'s team's explosive cause some deaths too? I mean, it's clearly less than what could've happened if he wasn't stopped, realistically speaking, so that might be why people thought he had one by default, since some deaths happened cause of it.
But regardless, the point was if he wanted to have an explosive ready, he could. Not that he did. In fact, many got what you said wrong, Jovian. This is why they pointed out how easy it was to make explosives(also part of why a simple weapons ban alone won't work and we need more to try and keep things safe more reliably).
Shadow?I'm going to chip in here (long, busy weekend so I couldn't participate actively) to note that perfect safety is a chimera: you can't have it, and trying to get it will drive you crazy.
That said, we can clearly be doing more to prevent weapons from being in the hands of people with criminal intent and/or a history of antisocial behavior. The current political environment is one of abject, mindless resistance to any improvements to gun control laws, which is contributing to a situation in which these incidents are virtually guaranteed to keep happening.
We also need to find ways to dial back the anti-Muslim sentiment in our society, which breeds radicalization, as well as hostility towards LGBT people, which has led some to say horrific things about this attack, such as that it was just retribution.
It is wrong to blame guns exclusively for the Orlando attack, just as it is wrong to exclusively blame ISIS or Islamophobia or homophobia. However, each of these is a contributing factor.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Nope, not at all, I don't think they ever caused any injuries.
Then why didn't he? If it's apparently so easy to build a bomb, undetected and safely with no training then why didn't he?
In the end he didn't have a bomb, so this entire idea that he could have had a bomb is just people guessing.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe first reports were that there were up to three explosions that were connected to it which was wrong information but people are using that as fact.
Anyway I think the worst out of all this is Trump's response to all this has boiled down to an 'I told you so' and to blame immigrants, even though the shooter was not one at all. [1]
edited 13th Jun '16 7:55:59 AM by Memers
On the subject of Trump, Krugman: A Party Agrift
. The Republican Party has been incapable of properly criticizing Trump's many business failures and scams because they operate from a paradigm in which those things are just hunky dory.
Also, it's a bit easier to track idiots buying explosives, if they don't render themselves incapable of planting a bomb first - see the tannerite lawn mower
incident.
It is a valid reason, though. We aren't going to keep weapons out of their hands in the first place by banning guns.This is how it really goes in the real world. We need to prevent the person from getting a weapon, and that requires us to find a way to make sure we're sure they'll be violent and untrustworthy. A psychology test(which is a regulation) will help more because it's easier to catch someone. And keep them on watch, which is a good start in helping prevent casualties. It's far harder for them to have a high body count if they simply are watched all the time, and taken down faster. It's also why I outright called my preference for 0 deaths a Perfect Solution Fallacy. I obviously want it(as many do), but I know all we can do is lower the count.
What we do need to do is proper regulation and make sure that the problemsome person is found out. Again, the weapon choice isn't the problem in itself(and while it's nice that weaker weapons are forced, to help reduce the head count, it's only a short term goal that won't fix the overlying issue that we aren't catching these guys early enough to try and prevent it). Perfect safety will never happen. But we are clearly not doing enough to figure out that they can go crazy fast enough.
It's cool to ban certain ridiculous weapons outside of the army, but that's only a small thing one can do.
Shadow?![]()
It's true that homemade explosives tend to fail spectacularly, and getting the kind of training you need to make them properly is not simple given the FBI and BATFE going nuts on them in ways they can't with guns.
Irene, the problem with guns in this nation is a chicken-and-egg one. So many are in private hands now that banning their sale entirely will just cause a black market to erupt and give more power to the people who already own them. But it is utterly stupid to allow personal use of anything larger than a handgun, because they have no viable use in self-defense. Yes, yes, I know: hunters want special privileges. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
There is no long term solution to gun violence that doesn't start with getting the most dangerous weapons out of private hands, even if it's a slow process. Controlling who can buy guns and what kinds of guns are available for purchase are both necessary components of a solution.
edited 13th Jun '16 8:41:06 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

As long as the Insane Troll Logic of "bad guys will still have large magazines" will be applied, I don't see any significant progress being made. I really wonder what anything short of a civil war could help raise the issue to a level significant enough to get things done.