[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167508]And if you don't you're going to be run over and ignored eventually. That doesn't sound like a situation that benefits you or, really, anyone.
If things continue as they are where nothing's being done about it, people might become so incensed about it that the answer might become 'later' by most.[/QUOTE]
Well, they could put up a good compromise that the pro gun side is willing to accept. That would be one way to do it.
Or they can try to run gun owners over, but that would lead to a LOT of bloodshed, and I don't think we want more violence.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53167557]And what happens when we agree on a solution, and another shooting happens? Logically, you'd say "well the solution just got implemented, it needs time to be effective". But that's logic, and that's not what people care to hear. So instead you'd get "obviously this solution isn't restrictive enough, we're going to make it more restrictive". And then another shooting happens. And the solution gets more restrictive. And another happens. And the solution gets more restrictive. Till the point that the restrictions are driven to the point that a reasonable person can't own a weapon without being a criminal.
That's why supporting law makers who make emotional legislation is bullshit, because they aren't looking at the statistics, they're looking to cash in on the emotions behind the incident.
So in order to prevent abuse, you'd have to make a system that had a failsafe of "if this system is edited in any way, it becomes null and void, this can't be changed or edited out". But then you'd make a system so inflexible that it'd be useless.[/QUOTE]
The problem being, of course, that you can't make it 'non emotional' when this stuff keeps happening week after week. People become restless when they become fearful - and if nothing is being done, that's far worse than visible progress of things being done.
Kicking the can down the road is only going to work so long - and each time it is people will become less sympathetic for pro-gun arguments.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53167571]No I absolutely agree, its next to impossible to legislate when one side is screaming "you'll ban all our guuuns" and the other side is screaming "you didn't ban guns, you hate childreeen".
In all reality, i'm totally sure that we could come up with various solutions that could be implemented that would improve society, and couldn't be abused to the point of turning into a defacto ban. But we're not going to come up with that shit a week after a shooting has happened.[/QUOTE]
That's the problem, again, though because shootings keep happening week after week after week. Stating 'well we can't come up with a compromise this week because everyone's still recovering' is just going to result in people becoming tired of that line of reasoning and refusing to accept it any further after the 28th straight week. If you think the conversation is heated now, it's only going to get worse if this just keeps happening every other week while nothing visible is being done about it on the national level. We're able to at least speak civilly now - in another 23 weeks I'm not even sure if that will be possible anymore.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53167581]I mean, its up to the legislators to create legislation that's actually effective, not ruled by peoples emotions. People can get mad all they want, but creating feel good legislation is just going to piss off more people, especially when it does fuck all for the crime rate/shooting rate.[/QUOTE]
Creating no legislation is far, far, worse in how much it'll piss people off. Even creating legislation that's later repealed would poll more favorably than doing nothing.
People are willing to abide inefficiency, I mean look at the Congressional approval rate during Obama - it reached single digits if I recall and yet none of those Senators were [I]recalled[/I] even though there was practically nobody happy with the Congress.
People do not abide inaction, however, even if there is actually action going on that just isn't visible.
[quote]And, while you haven't played the card of "what if it was your kid that got shot"[/quote]
It's not my card to play. It's the huge number of parents' to play; I'm thinking of this from the grander perspective here. One of these sides has an untenable position; the other is a grimey position but it at least promises possible safety. Even if neither side is objectively better for the country and doesn't solve the problem, the one that at least promises useful action that addresses their concerns is the one more people are liable to side with.
What card I will play is the PATRIOT act; an act that pre-2001 would be universally yelled down and possibly bring down the Senators who might've suggested it. I'd not like a repeat blunder of such epic scale to happen once more.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53167599]But the PATRIOT act is still bullshit, and we both know it. Its a perfect example of "well the people demanded something get done, so we infringed on everyone's rights and made a half measure".
I think that there are some full measures we could take, but those take time and patience, and if people aren't going to have that, then of course we're only going to get half measures and feel good legislation (like trump's bump fire stock ban).[/QUOTE]
Yes, and it's an example of something whose like may be coming soon if something isn't proposed before people [I]demand[/I] either legislative action or the seats of their congressmen.
Much as nearly anything but the PATRIOT act would be an improvement over the PATRIOT act, I'd think you'd want literally anything but the gun-control equivalent of it - because at least that can be modified or struck down later rather than arriving dripping in blood and covered by the flag - where questioning it questions fundamental national ethics or morality.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53167611]So we both agree that something needs to be done. Yes? What solutions do you propose? Let's talk policy.[/QUOTE]
The first objective of this policy is to reduce gun violence, specifically. Even if it's not generalized (e.g. only applies to kids and so forth) it must achieve that in some reasonable capacity that addresses the problem that's being faced (which is kids being shot in schools and having legal access to the guns necessary to do it). There will likely be demanded some form of gun control attachment to this as I'm not sure people will even [I]buy[/I] 'no gun control' at this point unless you give that task to a man with a tongue so silver it could fund the treasury.
What've you got for that?
In my book, I'd increase cooldown some for purchases. I'd also require all sales to those under 21 to require present-and-speaking permission from their parent. I think that's at least a good step forward to trying to hit all of that at once.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165935]It's called an amendment for a reason[/QUOTE]
I know I'm late at this point but I know you can still read this. Can you PLEASE learn something about guns or the constitution before you post in these threads? This snide "it's an amendment for a reason" is basically just low-level shitposting at this point due to you being purposely ignorant in these threads again and again. And for the record, the 2nd amendment is the 2nd of 10 amendments in something called "The Bill of Rights". The reason it wasn't included in the constitution proper was because a deal the drafters of the constitution made to have it added later once it was all figured out because the previous government simply didn't work. Seems like the founders of the United States were pretty serious about this whole gun owning thing, considering they put it in as an equal among things like freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53167645]So, specifically reducing gun violence isn't doing society justice, IMO. Reducing violence in general should be the goal, To that end I propose the following:
1. Fund education properly, pay teachers what they're worth
2. Fund social safety nets properly, and rework them so that we reduce abuse as much as possible, without excluding people from the list.
3. Better communication between the NICS and state LEO's. Make failing to report to the NICS a crime (to prevent bullshit like the church shooting, where the guy could buy a gun because someone didn't bother filing the paperwork)
4. Better LEO response to threats. The shooting in parkland could have been avoided if LEO's took the reports seriously. I'd be fine with judges temporarily removing guns from people their families were concerned about, provided there was a definite period that'd guarantee that if they were judged to be mentally sound, they'd get their weapons back.
5. Rebuild our mental health network. From the ground up. Make it accessable to everyone, its crazy that we have 6 month waiting periods just to see a psych doctor, assuming they're even taking new patients.
6. Get rid of the war on drugs, begin the war on poverty (a series of sweeping reforms, specifically aimed at improving education, improving social safety nets, improving "bad" areas of cities, with the general idea that proper education and training will allow for people to avoid a life of crime that they'd otherwise turn to)
That's my opening salvo, it'd require some pretty hefty moving of legislation, it'd require some rethinks of how we do education, and taxes, but in the end it'd reduce violence as a whole, which, by doing that, would reduce gun violence.
[editline]28th February 2018[/editline]
What about those who have already moved out? I was married and in the military at age 18, why would I need my parents permission to own a gun, when I already owned a house?[/QUOTE]
We could make an emancipation exception here, I suppose, though it'd be a tough sale as it'd still be 'a kid with a gun' even though said kid, being emancipated, has already proven that he's capable of providing for himself and is more adult than most their age to begin with. As someone who was once 18 and who was also out and renting at around that time, I sympathize, however we already have stupid 'you're not 21 lol child' laws in place and so a lot of people still do universally see 18 year olds as 'kids'. I think it's fatuous but it's still something a lot of people hold as true.
I will say that those bullet points wouldn't be received well on their own because the first thing in it is just going to have to be something about gun control of some sort - even if it's limited like my own suggestion.
I do agree all the other things would be useful - but it'd be rough to push something that big through Congress, and this one in particular. You're going to have to cut some of those, I think, as it's just not viable as a package - it'll just get endlessly mired down in debates over who should fund what and that money comes from where and so on.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167619]The first objective of this policy is to reduce gun violence, specifically. Even if it's not generalized (e.g. only applies to kids and so forth) it must achieve that in some reasonable capacity that addresses the problem that's being faced (which is kids being shot in schools and having legal access to the guns necessary to do it). There will likely be demanded some form of gun control attachment to this as I'm not sure people will even [I]buy[/I] 'no gun control' at this point unless you give that task to a man with a tongue so silver it could fund the treasury.
What've you got for that?
In my book, I'd increase cooldown some for purchases. I'd also require all sales to those under 21 to require present-and-speaking permission from their parent. I think that's at least a good step forward to trying to hit all of that at once.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think having a waiting period between purchases really would do anything for people who already own guns, but increasing age requirements to 21 sounds good. Also think we should have harsh punishments for parents or legal guardians who fail to keep their guns in a secure location if their children gain access to them and fuck up.
By secure location I mean like locked in a hard case or something similar, not necessarily requiring a big expensive safe.
Edit: forgot to add in if any measures do get passed though, I’d like to see some rollbacks to pointless gun legislation as an ACTUAL compromise made in good faith since a lot of these things tend to be turned against gun owners. Maybe get short barreled weapons and suppressors off the NFA and repealing the Hughes amendment. That or national reciprocity.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53167654]I don’t think having a waiting period between purchases really would do anything for people who already own guns, but increasing age requirements to 21 sounds good. Also think we should have harsh punishments for parents or legal guardians who fail to keep their guns in a secure location if their children gain access to them and fuck up.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that. It's mostly just a bone to throw to the fences to begin with -- and that waiting period could be later reduced once all this simmers down from this roiling boil we're starting to get here once it's proven that the age requirement change was effective.
[quote=ilikecorn]I mean, passing them bit by bit is entirely possible as well, as long as we're tackling the source of violence, violence as a whole will drop. [/quote]
That's true, but people aren't going to wait around to see if it works. They're going to want to see something big change and change immediately in a visible way - upping the age would satisfy both those things but I don't think, despite how many countless secondary benefits it would entail and in the long run probably be great for us right now, rebuilding healthcare can effect changes fast enough to sate their need for something to be done.
Even if we want to fix the underlying problems the public will demand an immediate band-aid for the time being at the very least if this carnage continues - what's at stake here mainly is what sort of bandaid and how large it is.
e: Also this conversation is a thousand times better than stating that 'no compromises can be made'. We should have these more often.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166686]Where have you seen me rant about freedom hatin' leftists? Do you realize I'm not opposed to gun control and have proposed a number of solutions based on FBI statistics which could conceivably have an impact? Are you talking to me or your caricature of me?
Guns are only a partisan issue in Congress, like everything else in Congress. There are plenty of pro-gun liberals and plenty of anti-gun conservatives who have to play ball with the party that enshrines [I]most[/I] of their beliefs because of our stupid ass 2 party system. Stop arguing with what you think I think and argue with what I've actually said.[/QUOTE]
I was directly addressing the fact you're not opposed to sensible gun control though? I don't know why the shitty 'freedom hatin' joke makes the post seem like a personal attack to you. I'm sorry it bothered you, it was pointless exaggeration that changed the tone of my post, but it seems it caused you to do what you're accusing me of by missing the entire point
not really sure how you can say it's not a partisan issue, a cursory google search shows a [URL="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/bipartisan-support-for-some-gun-proposals-stark-partisan-divisions-on-many-others/"]pretty clear divide[/URL] in surveys. but ok I'm not an expert in US politics so I'll change that too, again its failing to address my actual point:
[QUOTE]if the slippery slope gun apocalypse is the main concern here, why doesn't the pro-gun lobby propose a counter-offer reform comprised of plain-language, intelligent laws (background check, licencing etc), while repealing some of the sillier laws they love to complain about?
there wont be a need for further slope-slipping if your solution is actually effective... otherwise the american public might have to face the uncomfortable fact that the right to bear arms is simply not compatible with the right to be free from random shootings[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53167676]I mean, if we're capitalizing on peoples emotions, we could up the age to 21 (to throw the bone, so to speak), and increase funding for education, under the guise of "now they'll have more staff to help prevent these things".
As much as I hate creating emotional legislation, we could at least do it the right way.[/QUOTE]
You have to understand, though, that it has to be 'immediately relevant' and 'addresses the concern'. I don't think anyone will buy that 'an increased funding for education will prevent these shootings' because people won't see the connection.
They'll wonder why the solution is for teachers to get paid more or for the school to be able to buy more computers. You'd have an easier time banning zero tolerance policy (though that could get heated really fast if people think 'but if zero policy didn't work, won't this be a thousand times worse??') and providing funds specifically earmarked towards psychologists and their like to be accessible in school.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167660]I agree with that. It's mostly just a bone to throw to the fences to begin with -- and that waiting period could be later reduced once all this simmers down from this roiling boil we're starting to get here once it's proven that the age requirement change was effective.
That's true, but people aren't going to wait around to see if it works. They're going to want to see something big change and change immediately in a visible way - upping the age would satisfy both those things but I don't think, despite how many countless secondary benefits it would entail and in the long run probably be great for us right now, rebuilding healthcare can effect changes fast enough to sate their need for something to be done.
Even if we want to fix the underlying problems the public will demand an immediate band-aid for the time being at the very least if this carnage continues - what's at stake here mainly is what sort of bandaid and how large it is.
e: Also this conversation is a thousand times better than stating that 'no compromises can be made'. We should have these more often.[/QUOTE]
If compromise doesn’t involve ways to identify every gun owner through a potentially abusive registry (like NY SAFE act) then sure.
I'm not retyping all my arguments & solution proposals so I'll simply mirror a recent post of mine which talks problems and solutions.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132671]OK, so windows restarted for updates while I was out and lost my post but I'll try to retype what I was doing.
I'm gonna use this post to explain a bit about myself and talk about what I think the issues are and how I as a gun owner think we could attack them.
So here's the deal. I'm Texan, 22 years old. I have a huge interest in antiques and history in general, and as I started buying up antiques with pocket change at flea markets and stuff I became interested in firearms. I shot my first gun when I was 12 and that got me into it bigtime. Guns were never really big in my family but I developed enough of an interest that my dad had one of his friends show me the ropes.
I now own between 13 and 16 firearms, depending on how you define firearm (more on that later). Most of them are antiques, but among them are a modern AR-15 and a newish Colt 1911 copy - and most of a Sten sub machine gun. When I was 13 I was gifted a Marlin Model 60, semi-automatic .22LR, for plinking and when I was 14, I went to my first gun show and used lawn mowing money to buy a gun for the first time (under parental supervision, obviously).
The gun I picked out was an 1880s stagecoach shotgun, a break-action with big old hammers on both sides, 12-gauge. Due to its age, [B]the law does not consider it a firearm[/B] even though it is functionally identical to any break action shotgun you can go and buy brand new today. I could have bought that with or without my parents present and nobody could have done anything about it.
For Christmas when I was 15 I got a Mosin Nagant M91/30 (Soviet WW2 infantry rifle) from my mother because of my interest in antiques and that fed my interest in guns further. At the time those rifles were about $99 apiece due to huge oversupply.
Eventually I was saving up and buying new-old guns every few months. Somewhere along the line I got my dad into shooting and he gifted me a Smith & Wesson MP-15 (a police-model AR-15) for my college graduation gift. I had learned long ago to be a safe and responsible shooter and never personally had any issues with bullying - so in my case I was never a risk factor. However, you're probably starting to see the many legal and seemingly innocuous ways troubled kids can come into possession of a firearm...
This is a pretty normal course in the US. Guns are viewed as pretty much inert objects unless they're in the hands of someone who plans to do something bad with them. It's easy to see how parents, [I]thinking their kid would never do that,[/I] wind up giving them as gifts to kids who display an interest in them or leaving them stored in an accessible place. They're fun - they really are a lot of fun. I honestly encourage anyone with a negative opinion of firearms to find a rental range in their country and give them a go to see how they [I]can be safe and fun.[/I]
But bad shit happens. There's not enough in place to keep troubled kids from getting guns. I don't know what to do about parents gifting their kids firearms, meaning well, but that's the main way they get into kids' hands. I have some ideas but we'll talk about that in a later section.
The main thing I want to highlight is the troubled kid. However they get their hands on the weapon, there's a problem in that the kid is having these thoughts to begin with. [highlight]Do I think it should be harder for kids to get their hands on guns unsupervised? [U]Absolutely.[/U][/highlight] Please don't get me wrong on this. But there is an epidemic-proportion problem in US schools with the mental health of the kids. Counsellors tell suicidal kids to get over it, teachers often don't say anything if a kid's acting funny, they push each other around and put each other in bad places. That is what causes the majority of these school shootings conducted by students. Not the fact that they had access to the gun - again, not that they SHOULD have had access to the gun - but that a growing mental health concern went completely unnoticed or ignored because there's this perception that people should just harden up.
So how do we keep guns out of kids' hands? This is a really tricky subject to tackle. It seems obvious: introduce mandatory safe storage laws is the first thing that jumps to mind, but how do you enforce that?
The problem you develop when you start looking at enforcing most of these non-confiscation gun control methods is that Americans are really, really, rightfully, paranoid about confiscation. Anything that puts them on a list in a government office somewhere that has their name and address on it and says they own guns compromises their right to bear arms.
You may not be in favor of a total ban or confiscation, but a growing movement in the government IS. We have already seen it happen in New York: gun owners getting conned into accepting a registry with the condition that it could never be used for confiscation - only for that law to be changed later and the registry used as a shopping list to collect newly banned guns.
So when you start talking about enhanced measures like registries and anything else that creates a centralized list of who owns what guns, Americans start to sweat. It's not that we're intrinsically opposed to those measures, just that they have a history of being used to abuse our trust.
So how do you work around that? As a gun owner, I have some ideas. They may not be 100% effective, but I think they would be a good start.
Looking at statistics (I would encourage you to do some of your own research on this rather than relying on me to cite sources - but I can probably find some if you'd like me to), we can see a clear link between poverty and firearms crime rates. It is clear that firearms are most heavily involved in gang crime - most shootings in poor areas are gang-related. Firearms enter gang members' hands in a few ways, but very rarely does it involve the actual shooter going to a gun store and buying one.
Theft is of course the number one method. They are stolen from cars or houses or anywhere else guns may be kept. The serial numbers are filed off and they're hidden somewhere until the search for the gun itself is over. Then they briefly enter the world of crime - most are used a couple times, then ditched.
The other main way is what's called a straw purchase. Most violent gang members already have rap sheets and aren't allowed to buy firearms directly under the current background check laws. But they can have someone who's clean buy the gun for them and hand it off to them. While illegal, there are ways to mask these transactions which are difficult to pin down.
What do you do about that? I'd start by making it illegal to leave a firearm unattended in a car sunless it's your licensed conceal carry weapon and you had to leave it there because an establishment doesn't let you bring it in. Most stolen guns are stolen from cars, and while not everyone would comply, that alone would put a dent in new gun thefts.
I would crack down on straw purchases and shady private transfers bigtime. Currently, no background check is required for a private transfer. I wouldn't change that particular detail - you could still gift or sell a gun you don't like to a trusted friend or family member - but you had better damn well trust the person you're giving it to, because if they use it in a crime within 7 years, you are charged as an accessory to their crime [I]unless[/I] you performed an optional background check.
Intensifying consequences for failing to look into the person you sold a gun to would cut down on those dubious private sales and straw purchases simply because it's not worth the risk at that point.
We can let that simmer for a little while and see what kind of effect it has on gang violence while we tackle the next issue: mental health.
The bulk of Columbine-style shootings where the killer wanders around with a gun in a crowded place shooting anyone who moves are conducted by mentally ill people who showed signs of being dangerous before they acquired their weapons. This country desperately needs mental health reform anyway but if for nothing else, this is it. We need to attack the social stigma against seeking help, we need to establish strong public programs for GIVING help, we need to educate kids on the real impact of this stuff and train teachers and other school staff to look for the signs of a troubled kid and talk to them before they do something stupid.
This is a deeply complicated issue but it is absolutely a huge one and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. I don't really have a clear plan for what kind of legislature could pull it off, but that's the issue in my mind and I think that's what needs to be gone after.
What my argument boils down to is that gun violence is a symptom of a much deeper problem in this country and I hate the far right for blocking discussion of those problems and I hate the far left for trying to attack the symptoms without trying to see the root causes.
Uh, I hope I covered everything, let me know if you've got any questions about me or my thoughts on this or that thing. I really do wanna talk policy on this. I want to show you gun owners aren't all nuts, so help me talk to you. What do you want to know?
Also, a few more posts inbound probably, I'm gonna reply to some other posts from around the thread as I catch up.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53167694]If compromise doesn’t involve ways to identify every gun owner through a potentially abusive registry (like NY SAFE act) then sure.[/QUOTE]
What people are willing to put on the table to compromise will always depend on how often the other side shows up at the table to talk about it (and not dismiss their counterpart's opinions if they are valid and genuine ones), versus their need to have something done right this second about it.
The only requirement these parents have is that their kids become safer after all this. Politicians might debate about how that's to be implemented, but they'll ultimately answer to those parents especially in these tumultuous times if their voices are loud enough. Given the situation in question, the things those parents are fearing is another gunman being in their kid's school and opening fire on them. They see guns involved in each of these cases so some sort of compromise on guns was always inevitable - and likely in the form of some sort of gun control that either directly targets those they fear (other kids) or more generally in the nation.
The only thing necessary for compromise to be possible is for a willingness to compromise to exist on both sides of the table.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167660]That's true, but people aren't going to wait around to see if it works. They're going to want to see something big change and change immediately in a visible way - upping the age would satisfy both those things but I don't think, despite how many countless secondary benefits it would entail and in the long run probably be great for us right now, rebuilding healthcare can effect changes fast enough to sate their need for something to be done.
Even if we want to fix the underlying problems the public will demand an immediate band-aid for the time being at the very least if this carnage continues - what's at stake here mainly is what sort of bandaid and how large it is.
e: Also this conversation is a thousand times better than stating that 'no compromises can be made'. We should have these more often.[/QUOTE]
I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I think this whole thing of the public needing some sort of instant gratification is one of the reasons we get so much bad legislation to begin with. No matter if we choose to ban all guns to stop proliferation, or if we start solving the underlying issues that lead to violence in the first place, to do either properly will take decades, if not longer for the real effect to be noticed (without completely extreme measures that just completely destroy and rebuild everything). I think of it like climate change. We have to think about the effects in decades, not years.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53167801]I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I think this whole thing of the public needing some sort of instant gratification is one of the reasons we get so much bad legislation to begin with. No matter if we choose to ban all guns to stop proliferation, or if we start solving the underlying issues that lead to violence in the first place, to do either properly will take decades, if not longer for the real effect to be noticed (without completely extreme measures that just completely destroy and rebuild everything). I think of it like climate change. We have to think about the effects in decades, not years.[/QUOTE]
We get that bad legislation by not doing something about it before it becomes a crisis and the public demands something be done immediately.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167808]We get that bad legislation by not doing something about it before it becomes a crisis and the public demands something be done immediately.[/QUOTE]
And you get bad legislation by reactionary measures that are strictly for instant feel-good points. I fail to see your justification.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53167864]And you get bad legislation by reactionary measures that are strictly for instant feel-good points. I fail to see your justification.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't a justification - it was a statement of observed truth. I fail to see where we even disagree here. Not all legislation passed quickly is passed for 'instant feel-good points' either. Sometimes the public health requires immediate and reactionary measures to be put in place.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167897]It wasn't a justification - it was a statement of observed truth. I fail to see where we even disagree here. Not all legislation passed quickly is passed for 'instant feel-good points' either. Sometimes the public health requires immediate and reactionary measures to be put in place.[/QUOTE]
I mean all of the instant counter-measures provided here were admittedly feel-good/emotional appeals.
So if passing something immediately as a temporary/band-aid solution isn't viable, and not doing anything at all is just as bad, then I guess that leaves us with working long term prospects, as Silence I Kill You said.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53167918]I mean all of the instant counter-measures provided here were admittedly feel-good/emotional appeals.
So if passing something immediately as a temporary/band-aid solution isn't viable, and not doing anything at all is just as bad, then I guess that leaves us with working long term prospects, as Silence I Kill You said.[/QUOTE]
Not doing anything is not an option though. The more you dig in your heels and say 'we need more time to come up with a long term solution that we'll announce at a later date, now's not the time' the more the public will turn on that and the less they'll sympathize with it.
The being passed immediately is an indicator that a politician's head is about to roll - and they'll choose to pass something reactionary rather than lose their head every time. The less patient the public becomes, the less they care about how 'viable' it is so long as it is something rather than the 'nothing'. Basically, 'time is running out for reasonable solutions - soon the public will turn to unreasonable solutions if no solutions emerge'.
[QUOTE=Scot;53164920]im sick of the mental health meme
it's a factor for sure but stop passing the buck onto a much more complex issue when an easily solvable one exists[/QUOTE]
I feel like it's both. The fact that people wanted to do this in the first place sucks. They don't have access to guns, so they might pick a knife or something. And obviously knives are way less lethal, so if an incident like this happens way less people die. But when I hear people say "We need to ban guns so this stops happening," I'm hearing "twenty deaths are a tragedy, but a few injuries and maybe a few stabbing deaths are acceptable losses."
Like the fact that people feel the need to attempt mass murder in the first place is a huge thing. I don't think a knifing attack where dozens are injured but nobody dies should be treated any less seriously than a mass murder.
[QUOTE=krail9;53166676]why doesn't the pro-gun lobby propose a counter-offer reform comprised of plain-language, intelligent laws (background check, licencing etc), while repealing some of the sillier laws they love to complain about? [/QUOTE]
In 2013, after Sandy Hook, Congress sought to pass a universal background check bill. It failed in Congress, mostly along partisan lines.
One Republican Senator, by the name of Coburn, proposed a universal background check system based on the one in Switzerland. This system worked by prospective buyers appealing to the FBI to get a background check; if they passed, they would be given proof that they could take to a seller within a 90-day period before it expired. It would provide universal background checks with a system that would be cleaner and less subject to loopholes than the current one.
[b]Democrats[/b] rejected it, specifically citing the fact that it could not be used to build a registry of who owns what. A registry which would be illegal under federal law. A registry similar to the one which Canada abolished because it had never, ever contributed to solving a crime. A registry like the ones in New York and Hawaii which were used as shopping lists for confiscation.
Democratic lawmakers have put their cards on the table. I'm sure there are a great many of them who genuinely just want sensible reform, but their party is steered by people who want to exploit every inch of ground that gun owners give, and put their interests ahead of public safety.
So I'm not sure what to tell you. It's been proposed. It just so happens that any gun control solution that doesn't fit existing talking points and score one for the team is ultimately rejected. Congress isn't keen on fixing the problem, they just want to get re-elected.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167923]Not doing anything is not an option though. The more you dig in your heels and say 'we need more time to come up with a long term solution that we'll announce at a later date, now's not the time' the more the public will turn on that and the less they'll sympathize with it.
The being passed immediately is an indicator that a politician's head is about to roll - and they'll choose to pass something reactionary rather than lose their head every time. The less patient the public becomes, the less they care about how 'viable' it is so long as it is something rather than the 'nothing'. Basically, 'time is running out for reasonable solutions - soon the public will turn to unreasonable solutions if no solutions emerge'.[/QUOTE]
Again, I fail to see how this is justification for passing bad legislation. I know why it happens, but that is irrelevant to letting it happen.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53167986]Again, I fail to see how this is justification for passing bad legislation. I know why it happens, but that is irrelevant to letting it happen.[/QUOTE]
Where am I justifying it? I'm merely stating that at this rate it is going to happen - and it's better to roll with that tide and try to control it then let it just do whatever while saying 'I refuse to even consider bad legislation'. If it's going to happen anyway it doesn't make much sense to refuse to take a seat at the table to be there to try and negotiate it when the time comes.
All of that would be avoidable if the crisis hadn't build to such proportions that holding off considerations on legislation about it became inevitable ... but we are talking about politicians who refuse to consider climate change law to this day and refuse to believe that, one day, they will be [I]forced[/I] to a solution that they'd never have agreed for to begin with - but which they created by refusing to sit down at the table to negotiate back when they might be able to control at least the outcome in a way that at least only somewhat sucks.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53167059]Good grief. You've been shown multiple examples that "simple proliferation controls" don't work in the US and aren't required in many European countries to maintain a low crime rate.
Hell, there are plenty of countries with outright bans on firearms which still have unacceptably high crime rates, including firearms crime. Unless you have zero or next to zero proliferation caused by extremely draconian laws and very zealous enforcement, you aren't going to put a dent in it. That isn't practical in the US and it hasn't worked in many countries. Stable societies are not the result of gun laws.
In a stable country like the Czech Republic, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, because people aren't going out and stealing them from each other to commit crimes with. Once again, pointing at stable European countries with overall low crime rates and saying "they also have strict gun laws" is an example of spurious correlations.
Serbia is probably the closest comparison to the United States in terms of proliferation with almost 60 guns per 100 people. I don't know about their firearm laws, but they have a LOT of guns - yet the overall crime rate is significantly lower than the US. There is not a direct correlation between firearm proliferation and crime rates and it is repeatedly provable. Stop trying to find one. Just because two points of data line up at certain intersections does not make them connected.[/QUOTE]
"Good grief"? For [I]fuck's sake,[/I] I've already explained to you several times why inverse correlation isn't evidence for a lack of causation. You think you've proven that proliferation doesn't impact murder rate in the slightest? Then start applying your own fucking standards to your reasoning. Remember the US poverty rate statistics you assured me line up with murder rates? Contrary to you, I've [I]actually[/I] graphed the data and it doesn't look anything close to a fucking line. At most it shows local maximization. If a couple of counter-examples are enough to disprove the impact of proliferation, then the impact of poverty has been disproved ten times over.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/buEzEXC.png[/img]
I specified which cities are over the UK average murder rate (basically most of them) and displayed where the UK average poverty rate sits. Notice how over half of US cities are located to its left? This means that despite having (much) lower poverty rates, these cities actually display much higher murder rates, up to 60 times the UK rate. There's evidently [I]something[/I] that differs between US and UK, which isn't related to poverty, that leads to such discrepancy.
So either you stop displaying such holier than thou shitty condescension and start considering the world with a bit more nuance, or you try and actually put work into computing your own fucking data.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167988]Where am I justifying it? I'm merely stating that at this rate it is going to happen - and it's better to roll with that tide and try to control it then let it just do whatever while saying 'I refuse to even consider bad legislation'. If it's going to happen anyway it doesn't make much sense to refuse to take a seat at the table to be there to try and negotiate it when the time comes.
All of that would be avoidable if the crisis hadn't build to such proportions that holding off considerations on legislation about it became inevitable ... but we are talking about politicians who refuse to consider climate change law to this day and refuse to believe that, one day, they will be [I]forced[/I] to a solution that they'd never have agreed for to begin with - but which they created by refusing to sit down at the table to negotiate back when they might be able to control at least the outcome in a way that at least only somewhat sucks.[/QUOTE]
Bending a knee to take the easy way out is a pretty shameless road to go. Do it right so we don't repeat this cycle that we have been stuck in for 20+ years.
[editline]28th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;53168101]"Good grief"? For [I]fuck's sake,[/I] I've already explained to you several times why inverse correlation isn't evidence for a lack of causation. You think you've proven that proliferation doesn't impact murder rate in the slightest? Then start applying your own fucking standards to your reasoning. Remember the US poverty rate statistics you assured me line up with murder rates? Contrary to you, I've [I]actually[/I] graphed the data and it doesn't look anything close to a fucking line. At most it shows local maximization. If a couple of counter-examples are enough to disprove the impact of proliferation, then the impact of poverty has been disproved ten times over.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/buEzEXC.png[/img]
I specified which cities are over the UK average murder rate (basically most of them) and displayed where the UK average poverty rate sits. Notice how over half of US cities are located to its left? This means that despite having (much) lower poverty rates, these cities actually display much higher murder rates, up to 60 times the UK rate. There's evidently [I]something[/I] that differs between US and UK, which isn't related to poverty, that leads to such discrepancy.
So either you stop displaying such holier than thou shitty condescension and start considering the world with a bit more nuance, or you try and actually put work into computing your own fucking data.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you have some data that you can link to back up your numbers, and maybe some proper graphing. As of now, you just made a picture in Excel, despite whatever sources you may have.
Apparently someone made 62 snow cones in .2 seconds, judging by the dot on the top.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53168111]I'm sure you have some data that you can link to back up your numbers, and maybe some proper graphing. As of now, you just made a picture in Excel, despite whatever sources you may have.
Apparently someone made 62 snow cones in .2 seconds, judging by the dot on the top.[/QUOTE]
Just look up Grenadiac's post history, you'll find those sources. I've already wasted enough time processing them.
[editline]1st March 2018[/editline]
You know what, fuck it. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(100,000%E2%80%93250,000)]Here you go.[/url] [url=https://www.jrf.org.uk/data]Here are the sources for the UK poverty rate.[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]Here's the source for the UK murder rate[/url] Do you want the Excel file too?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Off topic. You didn't need to post about X users history. You could have just quoted him in the thread if that's where the sources were. FFS" - Kiwi))[/highlight]
I don't even know what that graph is trying to show. For starters, I'm not talking about the murder rate, I'm talking about the violent crime rate. You will not find anywhere where I've denied assaults and attempted murders have a lower lethality rate in the UK. This is because assaults committed with the types of weapons generally available to criminals in the UK are not as deadly as firearms. However, the assaults are still occurring. I also don't know why you've set American cities against the UK poverty rate (crime in US cities has nothing to do at all with the UK poverty rate???) when I was talking about the poverty rate in those specific cities.
Once again, you've taken irrelevant data points and mapped them together to reach a conclusion that has nothing to do with what was being discussed in an attempt to support your argument. Run the numbers again with the correct data. Good grief.
Even taking your graph at face value, there is a clear trend where incredibly violent cities tend to be poorer. We see a baseline of a marginally higher homicide rate than the UK's in most cities, becoming more extreme as you turn up the poverty, with one outlier which I'm going to assume is Flint, Michigan. How Flint's poverty rate was calculated I'm not sure but I assure you nothing about that city is less poor than the UK average.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53168149]I don't even know what that graph is trying to show. For starters, I'm not talking about the murder rate, I'm talking about the violent crime rate. You will not find anywhere where I've denied assaults and attempted murders have a lower lethality rate in the UK. This is because assaults committed with the types of weapons generally available to criminals in the UK are not as deadly as firearms. However, the assaults are still occurring.[/QUOTE]
[I][B]You've been talking about murder rates since the beginning of the debate for fuck's sake:[/B][/I]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166616]But fine, let's look at Serbia, then, which is the next highest after America at 58.21 guns per 100,000, a little under half. Their gun [B][I]murder rate[/I][/B] is 0.61 per 100,000, which favorably compares to the United States' 3.49.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166629]Those hot spots are the reason our crime rates appear so high. In 2015, there were 1,451 violent crimes in Flint, Michigan - a city of just 98,000 people and one of the most hopelessly run-down cities in the country - 47 of which were murders. That is a [I][B]murder rate[/B][/I] of nearly 50 per 100,000. We have enough poverty hotspots like this scattered across the country to have a MAJOR impact on national rates. It'd be like taking a weight average of a class of 30 students where one student weighs 1,000 pounds. Obviously that's going to grossly misrepresent the rest of the class.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166668]I have, but here.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(100,000%E2%80%93250,000)[/url]
Sort by [B][I]murder rate[/I][/B] and compare with poverty rates. There is a clear, reliable correlation across multiple examples. Large urban areas with extreme poverty are reliable sources of intense crime rates. This is a repeatable experiment. Your correlation, guns=violence is not, as demonstrated by MANY other countries.
The chain goes like this: poverty + population = gangs. gangs = crime. Gang crime accounts for the vast majority of violence in this country. Again, this is repeatable across multiple urban areas.[/QUOTE]
Don't move the goddamn goalposts. You talked about a correlation between poverty rate and [B][I]murder rates[/I][/B], which you assured did exist and told me to verify it myself. This correlation doesn't exist.
[QUOTE]I also don't know why you've set American cities against the UK poverty rate (crime in US cities has nothing to do at all with the UK poverty rate???) when I was talking about the poverty rate in those specific cities.[/QUOTE]
You said that poverty rate was the primary drive behind high murder rates. The mere fact that most of the US cities you told me to analyze have murder rates orders of magnitude higher than the UK despite having lower poverty rates disproves this. Not sure what the fuck else I could tell you.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53168149]Even taking your graph at face value, there is a clear trend where incredibly violent cities tend to be poorer. We see a baseline of a marginally higher homicide rate than the UK's in most cities, becoming more extreme as you turn up the poverty, with one outlier which I'm going to assume is Flint, Michigan. How Flint's poverty rate was calculated I'm not sure but I assure you nothing about that city is less poor than the UK average.[/QUOTE]
...And you also have cities that are much poorer yet display murder rates identical to the ones you see in low-poverty cities. According to the reasoning you use to dismiss proliferation impact on murder rates (some countries have high gun ownership rates and low murder rates), poverty has no impact on murder rates (some cities have high poverty and low murder rates).
[QUOTE]Once again, you've taken irrelevant data points and mapped them together to reach a conclusion that has nothing to do with what was being discussed in an attempt to support your argument. Run the numbers again with the correct data. Good grief.[/QUOTE]
I've used the exact data points you told me to analyze and now you tell me they're irrelevant? I should report you for trolling. [B][I]Now quit your bullshit and stop wasting my time.[/I][/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
