There are 120 guns for every 100 Americans

[Mina]

1. Power corrupts. Giving absolute power to a central government will result in absolute corruption.

I don't know anyone who calls for giving absolute power to a central government. Think of it in numerical terms. Take federal receipts as a proxy for how much of the overall economy the federal government seizes for collective use at that level. For FY 2021, it was 18.1% of GDP. So, over 4/5 of the economy ISN'T going to the central government. Mostly, we're at the mercy of the private sector (with some also in the hands of state or local governments.) Would moving a little bit towards a public/private balance, similar to what we see in most other wealthy nations, result in absolute corruption? Isn't the current risk really more the other way -- that so much power is in the hands of private corporations that they're the ones most at risk of absolute corruption, and having a stronger federal government to hold them in check would do more to defend our liberties?

If you empower the Federal government with absolute power then what happens when another Trumpian asshole is elected to office?

Again, nobody is calling for absolute power. But, if a Trumpian asshole gets elected, we vote him out. We don't really have that same power when Trumpian assholes get too much private-sector power, since we don't get any vote there. If I think Rupert Murdoch exercises his power corruptly, I can't vote him out of his position at the head of Newscorp. It's effectively a feudal lordship, which he is set to bequeath to his heir. Something more democratic than that appeals to me.

Julius Caesar was only thinking of his present when he broke the Roman Republic and installed himself as a dictator

I think to some extent he was thinking of the past, with the Republic having fallen into corruption and decay, with corrupt politicians like Sulla abusing the powers of the state for their own benefit. I think preventing a Julius Caesar would have needed to start a lot earlier, with people like the Gracchi, who were murdered before they could force political and land reforms that would have helped the masses against the ultra-wealthy and ultra-powerful (people like Crassus, for example, who helped Caesar into power in the first place).

When the wealthy patricians defeated the reforms pushed by liberals like the Gracchi, they weren't thinking of the consequences such as Julius Caesar a hundred years down the road. They were just trying to preserve the prerogatives of the aristocrats against the dirty masses looking to use the powers of the state to spread the wealth of Rome more broadly. But they put the Republic directly on a path to collapse.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch,

Then maybe I misunderstood this comment:

Your interpretation of it and my intent are not the same.

If taken literally, the comment represents my intent. No more.

When somebody walks into a school with an automatic weapon and starts mowing down children, that is a person acting too irresponsibly. Similar events have occurred. It would be unlikely that doing nothing will change that pattern. Therefore, something must be done. It falls on government to do something.

The good part is we have control over our own government that we created.

When enough of us have had enough then we can get effective change. Because of big money, the 'enough' figure is way more than a majority. With every mass shooting, more people are ready to make changes. Logically, there will come a time when that occurs. The only thing we don't know is if this is the time, or if more slaughters will push it over the top.

Gun enthusiasts need to compromise on this or the nation will likely just go completely the other way and ban all guns.

It is definitely time to talk about what to do.

We are tired of:

"Thoughts and prayers"

and

"Now is not the time."

 

[PoliTalker]

We have also had about enough of: "Oh, Democrats are just trying to politicize the issue."

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't know anyone who calls for giving absolute power to a central government...

Of course not, just like you don't know of anyone calling for the complete disarmament of the poor and Middle Class. You only advocate pushing in that direction without looking down to the road to see where you are going to end up.

Not sure if I asked you already, but if Biden resurrected Obama's 2013 gun control bill and passed it, would you agree that is sufficient gun control or would you see it as a great starting point for more gun control?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch,



Your interpretation of it and my intent are not the same.

If taken literally, the comment represents my intent. No more.

When somebody walks into a school with an automatic weapon and starts mowing down children, that is a person acting too irresponsibly. Similar events have occurred. It would be unlikely that doing nothing will change that pattern. Therefore, something must be done. It falls on government to do something.

The good part is we have control over our own government that we created.

When enough of us have had enough then we can get effective change. Because of big money, the 'enough' figure is way more than a majority. With every mass shooting, more people are ready to make changes. Logically, there will come a time when that occurs. The only thing we don't know is if this is the time, or if more slaughters will push it over the top.

Gun enthusiasts need to compromise on this or the nation will likely just go completely the other way and ban all guns.

It is definitely time to talk about what to do.

We are tired of:

"Thoughts and prayers"

and

"Now is not the time."

Ramos didn't have an "automatic weapon". When you are either lying, mistaken or simply engaging in hyperbole, it undermines your argument as untrustworthy. Sure, the RWNJs, especially the Trumpian fellatists, do the same thing. I don't trust them either.

You and I can agree that murder is wrong. What we are disagreeing upon is the solution: You want to treat all gun owners like a future Ramos or Gendron. I want to make mental health care as routine as annual checkups and vaccinations.

 

[Mina]

Of course not, just like you don't know of anyone calling for the complete disarmament of the poor and Middle Class. You only advocate pushing in that direction without looking down to the road to see where you are going to end up.

It's a hot day today, but I don't dare remove my jacket, because when I look down the road I see that everyone is going to be running naked in the streets if we start taking off clothing.

That kind of argument strikes me as "I can't deny the prudence of that next step, so I must instead pretend that we're standing on a slippery slope where any step in that direction must necessarily lead to the utmost extreme." Yet we know for a FACT that it's not a slippery slope. For example, we know that gun controls have been made and reversed... that taking a step in that direction doesn't lead inevitably to total gun seizure, any more than rolling back gun controls leads to a an A-bomb in every home.

Not sure if I asked you already, but if Biden resurrected Obama's 2013 gun control bill and passed it, would you agree that is sufficient gun control or would you see it as a great starting point for more gun control?

I'd take a "see how it works" approach. Unlike the gun fetishists, I don't start with an assumption about how it would turn out. There are regulations that turn out to be overreaches and others that turn out to be insufficient, and depending on what the data shows us, we can fine tune our course as we move forward.

Actually, my idea would be to do structured experimentation, to guide us. Like pick two groups of ten states each, designed so that together they're more or less a matched set (similar overall urbanization, population level, income level, crime levels, etc.) Then implement a change in one set (e.g., reinstate waiting periods for gun purchases). Then track the stats. If there's no clear benefit, reverse it. If there is, roll it out nationally. We're a big enough country we could run a couple of those experiments at any given time, and gradually come up with an approach that has the most bang for our buck, in terms of life savings/crime reduction without excess interference.

I expect you would get eager adoption among gun controllers, because they're pretty confident their ideas will work. By comparison, I expect you'd get fierce opposition among the gun fetishists, because they're also pretty confident the ideas of the gun controllers will work. They wouldn't want that kind of experiment, because if the group of ten states with a waiting period showed a significant dip in gun crime relative to the other group, it would really hurt their position. They prefer to argue based on blind assertions and rote repetitions of the NRA catechism, rather than have actual data to work with. It's the same basic reason that they blocked the CDC from doing any studies that might be used to support gun control. Deep down, they suspect the facts are against them, and so work to prevent anything that might make those facts clearer.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's a hot day today, but I don't dare remove my jacket, because when I look down the road I see that everyone is going to be running naked in the streets if we start taking off clothing.

That kind of argument strikes me as "I can't deny the prudence of that next step, so I must instead pretend that we're standing on a slippery slope where any step in that direction must necessarily lead to the utmost extreme." Yet we know for a FACT that it's not a slippery slope. For example, we know that gun controls have been made and reversed... that taking a step in that direction doesn't lead inevitably to total gun seizure, any more than rolling back gun controls leads to a an A-bomb in every home.



I'd take a "see how it works" approach. Unlike the gun fetishists, I don't start with an assumption about how it would turn out. There are regulations that turn out to be overreaches and others that turn out to be insufficient, and depending on what the data shows us, we can fine tune our course as we move forward.

Actually, my idea would be to do structured experimentation, to guide us. Like pick two groups of ten states each, designed so that together they're more or less a matched set (similar overall urbanization, population level, income level, crime levels, etc.) Then implement a change in one set (e.g., reinstate waiting periods for gun purchases). Then track the stats. If there's no clear benefit, reverse it. If there is, roll it out nationally. We're a big enough country we could run a couple of those experiments at any given time, and gradually come up with an approach that has the most bang for our buck, in terms of life savings/crime reduction without excess interference.

I expect you would get eager adoption among gun controllers, because they're pretty confident their ideas will work. By comparison, I expect you'd get fierce opposition among the gun fetishists, because they're also pretty confident the ideas of the gun controllers will work. They wouldn't want that kind of experiment, because if the group of ten states with a waiting period showed a significant dip in gun crime relative to the other group, it would really hurt their position. They prefer to argue based on blind assertions and rote repetitions of the NRA catechism, rather than have actual data to work with. It's the same basic reason that they blocked the CDC from doing any studies that might be used to support gun control. Deep down, they suspect the facts are against them, and so work to prevent anything that might make those facts clearer.

We, the People already have that: 50 Laboratories of Democracy. Unfortunately both the Democrats and the Republicans want to empower the Federal government to overrule any results that they don't like.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That kind of argument strikes me as "I can't deny the prudence of that next step, so I must instead pretend that we're standing on a slippery slope where any step in that direction must necessarily lead to the utmost extreme." Yet we know for a FACT that it's not a slippery slope. For example, we know that gun controls have been made and reversed... that taking a step in that direction doesn't lead inevitably to total gun seizure, any more than rolling back gun controls leads to a an A-bomb in every home.

to understand the slippery slope argument, and it's existence, one needs to read the history of the roberti-roos act from california.

I'd take a "see how it works" approach. Unlike the gun fetishists, I don't start with an assumption about how it would turn out. There are regulations that turn out to be overreaches and others that turn out to be insufficient, and depending on what the data shows us, we can fine tune our course as we move forward.

Actually, my idea would be to do structured experimentation, to guide us. Like pick two groups of ten states each, designed so that together they're more or less a matched set (similar overall urbanization, population level, income level, crime levels, etc.) Then implement a change in one set (e.g., reinstate waiting periods for gun purchases). Then track the stats. If there's no clear benefit, reverse it. If there is, roll it out nationally. We're a big enough country we could run a couple of those experiments at any given time, and gradually come up with an approach that has the most bang for our buck, in terms of life savings/crime reduction without excess interference.

I expect you would get eager adoption among gun controllers, because they're pretty confident their ideas will work. By comparison, I expect you'd get fierce opposition among the gun fetishists, because they're also pretty confident the ideas of the gun controllers will work. They wouldn't want that kind of experiment, because if the group of ten states with a waiting period showed a significant dip in gun crime relative to the other group, it would really hurt their position. They prefer to argue based on blind assertions and rote repetitions of the NRA catechism, rather than have actual data to work with. It's the same basic reason that they blocked the CDC from doing any studies that might be used to support gun control. Deep down, they suspect the facts are against them, and so work to prevent anything that might make those facts clearer.

then you would agree that the federal gun free school zones act should be repealed because it's obviously a failure?

 

[Truth Detector]

I support the 2nd amendment, and the right to own a gun.

But there is something wrong w/ America. Gun ownership has a near-religious devotion among some segments of the population. We hear "God, guns & gays" from voters in some regions, and for many, it is the top voting issue. Every small regulation or background check is a "slippery slope." The NRA refuses to postpone or move a large event that is taking place within days of a devastating shooting in a nearby location.

Like Trump support, it's a bit of a cult, and always a battle for those who are believers. The government is just an entity that wants to "grab their guns."

We're unique in the world in this respect. The 2nd country on the list has half the guns per capita that America does.

We're a gun nation.

Is the Huffington Post credible enough for you?

Fewer and Fewer Americans Own Guns
A clear majority -- two thirds -- of Americans don't have guns in their homes. Almost four out of five Americans don't personally own a gun. And as the gun-owning population continues to age and die off, fewer Americans are taking their place.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fewer-and-fewer-americans_b_7382326

 

[Mina]

We, the People already have that: 50 Laboratories of Democracy.

The problem with the analogy is that's not how laboratories work -- random, unstructured behavior. Real experiments have control groups, for instance, so that there's a meaningful way to interpret results. I'm talking about something that would function more like a real scientific experiment.

That said, there are ways to structure research with "natural experiments." One of my favorite recent examples looked at Romneycare by way of an artificial control group. Basically, they took a set of counties outside of Massachusetts to assemble a "synthetic state." Those counties, taken together, had about the same population as Massachusetts and matched it in most important socioeconomic and demographic ways, so that it could function as if it were basically a second Massachusetts.... but one without Romneycare. Then they tracked what happened with health outcomes in Massachusetts versus that other "state."

https://www.businessinsider.com/romneycare-study-lives-saved-how-many-2014-5

It turns out Romneycare saved thousands of lives -- about 300 per year, in fact.

Unfortunately, most Republicans don't really care about the results that come out of these "laboratories of democracy." They function more like pre-Socratic philosophers, rather than modern scientists, in that they try to reason their way from first principles, rather than ever considering the fact that the real world's results may have something to tell them about the quality of their beliefs.

So, for example, they'll start with the assumption that the Brady Bill would boost crime, by making it harder for law-abiding people to get guns with which to defend themselves from criminals. Then when the Brady Bill passes and crime plunges at a rate never before seen in history, it doesn't phase them even a little, since real-world observations are as inconsequential to them as to an ancient Greek philosopher pondering the perfection of the crystal spheres of the heavens.

 

[Truth Detector]

So, it's a topic for discussion. We lead the world in gun ownership, and in gun violence. This is not a coincidence.

There is no correlation. It isn't about gun ownership. It's about broken families, abuse, drug and alcohol use and lack of two parents. For those who are engaged in useless partisan hackery, yes, guns are bad things that make people murder others.

It's worth discussing. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe people are fine that we lead the world in gun violence, and this is just the way it is.

It's only "worth" discussing if you want to avoid the real solutions. Guns are not the issue here.

 

[Mina]

Is the Huffington Post credible enough for you?

Fewer and Fewer Americans Own Guns
A clear majority -- two thirds -- of Americans don't have guns in their homes. Almost four out of five Americans don't personally own a gun. And as the gun-owning population continues to age and die off, fewer Americans are taking their place.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fewer-and-fewer-americans_b_7382326

That decline in gun ownership by household may have had a role in the steep decline in violent crime from the mid-1990's onward. Gun ownership had been roughly flat in the Reagan/Bush era, which was an era when the nation experienced a surge in violent crime rates up to all-time records. Then guns started to fall out of fashion and violent crime rates fell, with an especially steep decline after the Brady Bill passed.

 

[Truth Detector]

People always say the bolded. Is it true?

How do we know?

Is it a total coincidence that we lead the world in gun ownership by a significant margin - and we also lead the world in gun violence by a significant margin? Do other countries not have similar issues w/ mental health?

It seems like there is only one variable in the equation, and it's getting harder to deny.

Is Norway a gun crazy nation? :shrug:

Norwegian Anders Behring Brevik killed 77 people, many of them teenagers, in a bomb attack and gun rampage. The July 22 attacks left Norway, a small, close-knit Nordic country, stunned and grieving.

Is France a gun toting nation? Paris massacre: At least 128 killed in gunfire and blasts, French officials say

There are many examples of mass shootings far more devastating than what we have witnessed. Guns are not the issue. More laws, against criminals who break them, are not a solution.

This is about mental health and broken, dysfunctional families and the ability to recognize them before they decide their lives are so useless they want to die and go out in infamy.

 

[Truth Detector]

Americans need guns to defend themselves and their families.

Biden is responsible for releasing scores of criminals who use gums and then are released back onto the streets.

Biden is responsible for open borders with scores of violent gangs and drugs.

The massive Democratically supported BLM riots and violence illustrated how relying on Government is dumb and naive.

 

[Truth Detector]

That decline in gun ownership by household may have had a role in the steep decline in violent crime from the mid-1990's onward. Gun ownership had been roughly flat in the Reagan/Bush era, which was an era when the nation experienced a surge in violent crime rates up to all-time records. Then guns started to fall out of fashion and violent crime rates fell, with an especially steep decline after the Brady Bill passed.

This is non-factual gibberish. You seem to be quite full of it. But I am amused by moronic arguments suggesting that more gun laws and gun bans will cause criminals to think twice before they commit their heinous crimes.

Imagine for a moment, the depraved mind of a young man who sees himself as useless and unloved and has decided to end it all. But instead of just shooting himself, as so many do, he decides to die in infamy and commit the most heinous crime possible, shooting elementary school children. Do you actually believe he cares about laws? Dumb.

 

[Mina]

to understand the slippery slope argument, and it's existence, one needs to read the history of the roberti-roos act from california.

I'm not clear what your argument here is. If anything, Roberti-Roos is a very clear COUNTER-argument to the slippery-slope argument, since the premise is if we take a step in a particular direction, we won't be able to stop ourselves from sliding ever further in that direction. Roberti-Roos not only didn't lead further in that direction, but it was outright overturned, meaning the subsequent movement was in the OPPOSITE direction.... something that would have been impossible if it had been the "slippery slope" that people were claiming.

then you would agree that the federal gun free school zones act should be repealed because it's obviously a failure?

I'd need to be convinced it was a failure, first. As I recall, that passed in 1990, right? So, were shootings in school zones more or less common before 1990? I haven't seen a comprehensive look at pre-1990 school-zone shootings.

 

[Mina]

This is non-factual

Which fact are you denying: that gun ownership rates fell in the 1990s, or that violent crime rates did?

 

[Granule]

Projection. You've been shitting your Depends here all morning. LOL

You're next, fuckface. You're an even bigger mess than dumbass over there -- at least he doesn't fully understand what he's doing.

 

[American Man]

It's an irrelevance. Guns aren't the problem, crazy people, criminals, and such are. Without guns we'd still have just as much violence, only it'd be with knives, hammers, or whatever instead.

The place to start is trying to reduce, or at least restrict, the ability of the crazy, insane, drug addled, and emotionally unstable from getting access to guns. Criminals are going to be a problem regardless. That's true anywhere. I've already suggested a more flexible approach to restricting access to firearms one where you put someone on "The List" fairly easy with some evidence, but they can get off that list fairly easily by contacting the authorities and being interviewed.

That would massively cut down on gun violence on its own. The current system is difficult to put someone on the Red Flag list, and once you are on that list it's nearly impossible to get off it. That 0 - 1 approach is wrong. We need a middle way.

The logical solution is to ban war machines from public consumption.

 

[Truth Detector]

Which fact are you denying: that gun ownership rates fell in the 1990s, or that violent crime rates did?

It's not the 1990's dimwit. It's the Biden Presidency and 2021 where crime rates are soaring. Funny how most of these mass shootings have occurred with Democrats in charge? Perhaps you can find a correlation?

When gun ownership peaked, there were fewer crimes. When gun ownership has gone up, crime has not followed.

No, states with higher gun ownership don't have more gun murders
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-states-with-higher-gun-ownership-dont-have-more-gun-murders

I wish you knew what a fact was. Perhaps then, you wouldn't look so ignorant and uninformed.