SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the anthropogenic-population-change dept.
We have a recent report by the US government that climate change is almost certainly caused by humans. However, we don't have the same rigor in gun death statistics; instead policy debate can rely only on FBI crime statistics which aren't directly comparable year-over-year due to changing measurement methodology (see "Caution to users").
This is because the NRA put pressure on the CDC through a Republican Congress to halt this research, under the logic that it promotes the cause of gun control.
But how likely is it that this is intentional, to use the US Second Amendment as an ongoing lightning rod for public attention (in a "bread and circuses" sense) while political business continues as usual on the back end (e.g. Paradise Papers)? Obama and a Democratic congress had the opportunity to restart this, which would presumably be just as "common sense" as the actual reforms they have been promoting on this issue, since whoever was actually supported by the facts would presumably have a motivation to set the program back in motion to improve support for their proposals.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:16AM (115 children)
Suppose that some studies reveal that gun control has benefits greater than the drawbacks.
Suppose you make public those studies.
Suppose that you actually believe in democracy and trigger a referendum on the matter of gun control.
Suppose that the referendum turns a majority in favor some form of gun control.
What happens next?
---
Suppose you don't even want to look into the gun control problem. What happens next? (hint: "doing the same thing and ...")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:21AM (7 children)
Suppose those gun owners don't agree to give up their guns despite what the media says.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:17AM (6 children)
It's not whether the media says that, it's whether the law says that. Let's say it does. (I dunno if that will happen or not, or whether it would be good or not, but that's irrelevant). People who violate laws are criminals. What do you do when criminals flaunt their violation of the law?
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:00AM (1 child)
Depends on who the criminal is. In the case of Hillary Clinton, people came together tonight to "scream helplessly at the sky" because we didn't make her President as a reward for breaking just about every law we have and every moral principle backing those laws.
Or if you are a stoner you have enough unofficial power to get states to ignore Federal Law and have the media praise this situation... while screaming in rage at other States having the hate to attempt enforcing Federal immigration laws.
Short version, some laws are more real than other laws, some people are more subject to laws than other people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:53PM
I thought the Rs were in favor of state rights?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 09 2017, @11:52AM (3 children)
A more relevant question: What do you do when you just made a third of your population into armed criminals?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by number11 on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:19PM (2 children)
In practice, nobody is going to ban all firearms, so the details matter. It's not likely to be anywhere near a third. If they just banned 30-round magazines, we'd just have to listen to a lot of whinging on the part of people who can't hit their deer in less than 30 shots.
If the criminals are drug users (I'd bet that 1/3 of the population either is, or has, used illegal drugs, especially if we count alcohol that's not used in a legal manner), we arrest them and lock them up. Expensive, but the cops and the prison industry make out like bandits.
Of course, most drug users aren't armed. Cops tend to react very vigorously when faced with an armed perp. Especially if the perp shoots at them. It would be messy, and criminals do get hurt sometimes. That seems to be ok with our society in other contexts.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:16PM
Yeah, I'm thinking that's part of why the gun-phobes are trying the death by inches approach. They know there's nowhere near enough police to disarm a third of the population.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday November 10 2017, @04:00AM
This.
We're all very keen on pointing out the gun crackdown in Australia following Port Arthur, and based on some of the conversations around this you'd think it's illegal to own guns in Australia.
That's not the case. There are certain kinds of guns that are not allowed, and the process to obtain a gun license is more difficult than before. But most farmers still have rifles, there are still individuals with handguns etc.
I've found it fascinating how quickly the gun industry rolled over on bump-stocks, yet they oppose equally reasonable measures (background checks on purchases at gun fairs etc). Perhaps when bump-stocks are banned and the English fail to invade, the US might think about looking at other measures?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:22AM (36 children)
Read the Constitution first, look closely at the section on Amendments. That is why we aren't a Democracy and the majority do not rule. If a big enough supermajority are stupid for long enough it could be done but it was intentionally made difficult. And large numbers of those of us with all those guns believe we would be entirely morally justified to kill every motherfucking one of you for trying. While you are looking things up, ask Google what "inalienable" means. Please keep that detail in mind.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:27AM
I don't remember seeing "inalienable" in the US Constitution. And the Constitution was specifically designed to be amended, which is a good thing because it sure had a few major flaws when it was first written.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:40AM (20 children)
I surmise I don;t need to look at the amendments themselves, I only need to know that:
- amendments exist - thus the constitution can be amended
- amendments themselves aren't immutable - see the XXI one [wikipedia.org]
You mean you are not a direct democracy, but a representative one. So?
Suppose the referendum turns out in favor in gun control. Would you dare to be a representative that goes against the will of your electorate?
A large number of you are stupid enough to kill others that disagree with you.
Got it - that will be a problem indeed.
But I can think of a (longer) process in which you will eventually die of natural causes, be buried with your disabled guns and a younger and informed generation will override your choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:57AM (17 children)
And now we come full circle irony, what are you going to do about it if those Americans still don't want to give up their gun? So the solution is to kill those who disagree.
Why would they do that? Guns are not banned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:18AM (16 children)
Really? Here's another one.
Let them keep their guns, but forbid them to get them outside their house - put them in jail for two weeks and confiscate their guns if they do. Kill them only if they use their guns for murder.
Make exception for hunting permits at best. In any case, put strict control on guns/ammo manufacturing and sale.
Takes a generation to have mostly a population without guns, but you'll get there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Troll) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:16AM (13 children)
And the next moment every other freedom will be gone too. Learn a little history, and watch the debacle that was England. You can't even carry a butter knife, and people are being arrested for owning books.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:40AM (12 children)
Are you saying there is a strict causality relationship and the gun control is a sufficient condition to end with a ban of butter knifes and owning books?
If indeed it's this what you are saying, do you care to demonstrate it gets the same result in all the other countries that implemented gun control?
Because, you see, if gun control is not a sufficient condition, there may be other things that need to happen before "banning butter knifes" and you may worry for a - other things happening may be more dangerous to your liberty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Troll) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:00AM (10 children)
Are you stupid or trolling? I really can't tell. Have you studied history at all? Quick quiz: what does a tyrannical government always do before it starts ethnic cleansing? I'll give you a hint: they disarm the people.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:16AM (5 children)
You define a necessary condition (render them to be killed defenseless).
To say "controlling my guns means it automatically results in you killing me", defines a sufficient condition. If you can't tell the difference, think some more.
Further more, "gun control" does not mean "population has no guns" it means gun possession is controlled. See the case of Switzerland for "gun control" - the gun control is strict and there currently exist an average of 0.5 guns for every Swiss citizen.
Then, it amuses me to no end the position of "guns are a guarantee of my liberty".
You can have no matter how many guns and:
- NSA is still going to intercept your communication - bye-bye the right to private life
- the banks are still going to take extra "administration fees just because..." and you can't sue them (just get them into private arbitrage) - opps, the freedom to enjoy your possession is no longer whole
- much good it would do you your gun in the face of a drone raining bullets or rockets on your head from 2 km away.
Should I continue or you did you get my drift?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:40AM (1 child)
Stop saying "control" when you mean "confiscation". And yes, if you manage to get 99% of civilian guns confiscated, then you will put many lives in danger. An armed populace increases the cost and risk to a tyrannical government and as such acts as a deterrent. As an example, look how much it's costing the US to impose control over the armed populace in the Middle East despite tanks, planes, missiles, and drones.
Regarding your "necessary condition" argument, consider Russian roulette. Pulling the trigger may not mean that you'll die, but you have a much higher chance if you do. Disarming the populace is akin to pulling that trigger. That is a chance I'm not willing to take, and that you do not have the right to force me and everyone else to take just so you can feel more comfortable.
You are obviously not a student of history.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:52AM
It's obvious your critical thinking ability is weak, and 'the free and the brave' in you just let some yellow matter into his underwear.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:25PM (2 children)
By that definition the US already has gun control. You can't walk into any gun store and walk out with a weapon right there on the spot. You have to go through a background check and jump through other hoops like waiting periods, etc.
So what your interlocutor has said seems to be true. It's not gun control you want, it's gun confiscation.
As for the NSA, et al, what you said is true when it's them against one or a handful of people. What about when it's 1/3 of the population? Will they be able to rain down those hellfire missiles on gun owners mixed in with the other people at your kids' school, because those gun owners are your neighbors? How about when you're trying to drive into your desk at Ft. Mead? Think somebody can't set up in the trees outside that super-secret exit ramp on the highway? In short, it's one thing to rain down fire and death on goat herders in some country whose name nobody can pronounce. It's quite another thing when you're talking about doing that to the people who keep your lights on or do everything your cushy government job depends on. It's not so cut and dried as you make it sound.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by etherscythe on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:41PM
Except it has glaring holes in it, such as no background check between private (non-dealer) parties, no waiting period at gun shows, etc. We might want to think about that when we talk about implementation, because there was definitely an implementation problem with Devin Kelly.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @11:05PM
Yeah, right, awesome control [go.com]: "Texas shooting suspect escaped from mental health hospital in 2012, attempted 'to carry out death threats': Police report"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:18AM (3 children)
You surely can back up that claim with hard data? (And no, a few examples of where tyrannical governments indeed did that is not sufficient for it. To validate your claim, you have to consider all tyrannical governments that ever have done ethic cleansing).
And even if that should be the case, it doesn't imply gun control as such being bad. For example, since the mass media existed, any tyrannical government talked to the people through them on them, and that was indeed a big part of their strategy of staying in power and manipulating the people. Does that mean politicians talking to the people through mass media is inherently evil, and necessarily leads to tyranny?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:42AM (2 children)
Surely you can come up with a counter example then.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:47AM (1 child)
It is you who made the claim, thus it is your job to provide proper evidence.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0, Troll) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:56AM
Okay, here it is: Google.com
Or you could study history.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 09 2017, @01:50PM
The brits have been "tough on books" now and then, and if they don't need butter knives for tea and scones - then Parliment just might ban them one day as something to pass the time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:11AM (1 child)
Found the European! Guns only for hunting? Where is the ammosexual fun in that? Do you enjoy fucking up deer or javelinas with your hot lead? Or would you not rather have your hot rounds explode in the body of another Man? Against his will? Especially if he already was trying to forcibly insert some object into your unwilling flesh? War is completely a matter of homosexual rape: men inserting things into the bodies of other men, against their will. This is why you cannot have gays in the military, destroys the whole purpose.
But even worse is the American NRA member, who like George Zipperman, lies in wait for the opportunity to stick something into the body of another male, even if you have to settle for a teenager. But, seriously, George, a kid? Epic fail! Americans, from my experience after WWII, are cowards, and people with very tiny hands. Amazing they can reach a trigger.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:34AM
Nope. Just clay pigeons.
Listen carefully to the call: Pull!.
See? No penetration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:33PM (1 child)
The ones in high school now are shockingly conservative. You'd have to look back to the Greatest Generation, those who grew up in the depression and fought World War II, to find a more conservative generation.
You can expect more of this. Liberals endorse many things that reduce their family size: abortion, LGBT, birth control, working women, and expensive city life.
The future is owned by those who show up. Evolution includes mental traits: hostility to outsiders, risk aversion, fear of anonymous crowds, preference for purity, independence, etc.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pr on Friday November 10 2017, @06:38PM
I think it's important also to recognize the evolutionary importance of forming strong groups - something that defines us as a species.
So sure - hostility to outsiders - i guess i agree, but for there to be a notion of outsider there needs to be a community for them to be outside of. Risk aversion - sure, we're definitely going to need that. Fear of anonymous crowds - not totally sure why you put that in there, sorry. Preference for purity - you must mean racial purity I guess? I'm not so sure that's so great for evolution what with the consequences of a smaller gene pool. Independence - from what? As humans we are entirely dependant on our community for our basic needs. I'm not with you on this one.
PR
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:56AM (13 children)
People like you are too stupid to see that there must be some sort of connection between allowing any idiot to own a gun and the number of killings by people with guns per week that occur in america. Probably a case of "muh freedoms". There is a mass shooting in america VERY DAY OF THE YEAR. But that's okay.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:17AM (10 children)
Yup, I'm just too stupid to realize how many NRA members go out and mass murder. Hint: zero. Nada. Zip.
I'm too goddamned stupid I believe mental patients who somehow aren't put in the database to be barred from buying guns isn't the result of incompetence, but a deliberate plan to create mayhem for Prog politicians to harvest. Only a moron could believe evil people could do something evil like that. Ya know, the sort people, probably just like you, that support abortion which has now passed Hitler's body count.
And why are you people so hung up on guns anyway? When one of the pet Muslims you idiots imported ran amok in NYC with a truck we joked about banning trucks... then some of you fucking morons actually took it seriously and now there is real discussions about limiting vehicles. Maybe I'm just being stupid again, but isn't the problem people wanting to kill people? And isn't it amazing how accurate a predictor political affiliation is.... almost every one of these defectives is a Democrat. Is it really stupid to wonder if your obsession with guns isn't just an attempt at distracting everyone from noticing who is killing who?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:48AM (3 children)
> how many NRA members go out and mass murder. Hint: zero. Nada. Zip.
We know this because Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s lobbying arm [cnsnews.com] said it on Fox News.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:07AM (2 children)
No moron, we know it is true because if ONE member of the NRA were to ever do a mass murder the media would make damned sure every person on the planet knew. They media have not done so therefore it hasn't happened. q.e.d.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by number11 on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:24AM
Most people who own guns don't see any reason to waste their money sending it to the NRA. I have no idea if any NRA members have become mass murderers (I suspect the NRA would erase any record of their membership as fast as possible), but I suspect it shouldn't be hard to find some have become individual murderers. Hell, give me a copy of the membership list, and I'll do the research.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:36AM
The NRA is ultimately responsible. Those bumpstocks and assault weapons will never be illegal because if we did something effective about gun violence it would make it hard for them to fund-raise and they'd have to actually make a valid argument about why people need guns in the first place.
The kinds of weapons that people use for hunting place a limit on how many people can be killed in a mass shooting. It's why most other countries with strict gun control laws don't have mass shootings on this scale. And for there to be more than one in a given year is completely unprecedented elsewhere.
People like you are ultimately responsible for arming these psychos and yet, you're too damned ignorant to see the connection between the weapons and the violence. We literally lose as many people in 3 months as we did in 9/11 and we can't get even modest gun control regulation because people like you don't give a crap about the consequences.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:20AM (3 children)
You now have to be an NRA member to be allowed to own a gun in America?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:04AM (2 children)
I'm simply applying Alinsky's rules to you, specifically the one where I can demand you obey your own book of rules. The NRA is the nation's oldest existing civil rights organization, devoted to protecting the RTKBA ensured (but NOT created or defined by) the 2nd Amendment. It is declared out of bounds, by the Blue Team, to hold a civil rights organization responsible for collateral damage from upholding a fundamental right. So the only remaining explanation for the constant blaming of the NRA for every mass murder that is committed with a firearm must be some belief that NRA members are personally committing the crimes and that is demonstrably untrue.
The ACLU convinced the courts to legalize pretty much all porno not involving children or animals, (and some of the animal stuff) yet we can't hold them to account for the massive social costs. Feminists destroyed the family, leaving millions of children to be raised in less effective single parent situations, can we lay that social cost on the steps of NOW gang? The ACLU has agitated for the release of almost uncountable quantities of criminals who have went on to slaughter, rape and plunder an almost equally large number of new victims but again, we can't lay blame on them for upholding civil liberties.... even ones that were never considered to exist until they invented them. The open borders crowd equally disclaims responsibility for that slaughter, the ones bringing in militant Muslims who proceed to do what militant Muslims do piously proclaim their own innocence. And so on, with only one glaring exception. People who loudly and annoyingly hold every one of the beliefs above will proclaim that the NRA is responsible for each and every death by firearm.
That is horseshit. I call it out and reject the premise behind the dishonest arguments advanced to support that unsupportable position.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:29AM
Do you even know my book of rules? Hint: I'm not a member of any "team", let alone any American one. (And I have no idea who Allinsky is.)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:11PM
Wow, you really are a walking propaganda victim. It is clear you have bought into the fear and anger being sold.
The NRA does take some blame you knucklehead, they've made it very hard to implement any kind of gun control. We have sufficient measures in place, not a whole lot more is needed, but the loop holes need to be closed.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:19AM (1 child)
Texas Church Shooter: Life time member of the NRA!
Adam Lanza: Mother was a Life time member of the NRA!
Ted Bundy: member of the NRA
Rand Paul: Liver time member of the NRA!
Ammon Bundy: Life-time member of the NRA!
jmorris: not a member of the NRA, and not very good about the whole "facts" thing.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:06PM
Er, are you saying that a sitting U.S. senator went on a killing spree? When was that?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:58AM (1 child)
It's not okay, but I'm not in favor of giving up our freedoms to stop it. Even if there were a terrorist attack every day, I would also not support giving up freedoms to stop them. Cowards think differently, and our values are simply irreconcilable.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday November 10 2017, @04:29AM
But you've already given up your freedom to carry a sword around in public. Perhaps your efforts should be spent on trying to re-introduce that fundamental inalienable right?
How are guns different?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:28AM (26 children)
Chicago has some fine gun control laws . . .
At what point do we just admit that gun control laws are failures? As pointed out already, every instance of prohibition (by whatever name) that this country has tried to enforce has failed. Failed, utterly, and dismally. Alcohol, drugs, alcohol, more drugs, now tobacco, and firearms. And, don't forget file sharing. The harder The Ruling Class tries to crack down on file sharing, the more successful file sharing is.
We need gubbermint to get serious about encryption, and drop both boots on it.
Gun control. Mandate that every citizen of voting age owns a weapon, and is trained in it's proper use. That is proper gun control.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:47AM (25 children)
If that's a proper one, what stops you (all) from adopting it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:49AM
We can't even get a majority of people to vote, let alone agree on something.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:32AM (19 children)
What stops us? A well funded lobby that works against us. Every time an incident with a gun happens, there are influential fools crying for more stringent laws. "Oh, if we just had a law, things wouldn't be like this!" But, the obvious lesson is missed. A lawbreaker doesn't give a damn about one law, more or less. Make a new law, he'll break it just as happily as he was breaking existing law already.
And, if we did manage to get a law passed that every citizen of voting age maintain a weapon, and proficiency in it's use, many of you would just break it. Then what? We start locking anyone up who can't demonstrate ownership and proficiency? The prison for profit industry would like that!!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:42AM (13 children)
Many of who exactly?
I'm living in a country with strict gun/ammo control. And I'm pass my mid-age, with nothing wrong happening because I don't have a gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:47AM (12 children)
Many of "you" who see no value in gun ownership.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:05AM (1 child)
How can you be so sure? What are your arguments of "many who do not see the value of owning/using guns will refuse to have or be proficient in using one"?
(mind you, if you want me to keep a gun, you have the responsibility of issuing one to me or reimburse the cost for it. Fair enough?)
Case at point the regime of guns in Switzerland [factmyth.com] - mandatory military service for able citizens. While in the military service, they are issued a gun and must keep it at home. They are entitled to buy it at the end of the military services; if they chose to do so, the automatic fire is disabled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:28PM
( . . . you have the responsibility of issuing one to me or reimburse the cost for it. Fair enough?)
I'm not Swiss, and this ain't Switzerland. I'm not a complete hardass though. When you are on active duty, for training, or other purposes, I will ensure that you get a healthy diet of salt pork, or salt fish, hard tack, and all the fresh, clean water you can drink. The responsibility for owning a gun is your own, not mine.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by caffeine on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:11AM (9 children)
I'm an Australian, a fully licensed gun owner, and I agree with the Australian gun control laws. Australian shooters do see value in gun ownership, but for different reasons to the US.
My experience is that the vast majority of gun owners here are hunters or farmers. I've never heard an Australian argue that they need a gun to stop a "bad man" or to overthrow a tyrannical government. Those things are just not big fears for us.
I can also see why the Australian gun control system would not work in the US. When your motivation for owning a gun is self protection driven by fear, you'd want easy access to military style firearms.
I wonder if gun control lobby in the US is approaching this backwards, perhaps a better social security system, universal health care and good public education are needed to drop the 3rd world level murder rate first.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:22AM (2 children)
The top three nation's for murder rate in the world ban civilians from owning guns. It's sure helping them, isn't it?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by caffeine on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:37AM (1 child)
Are you talking about El Salvador, Honduras and Venezuela? I think their high murder rates come from much bigger issues than firearms regulation.
And, I was actually talking about gun control laws rather than banning civilians from owning guns, and about the motives of US gun owners compared to Australian ones.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:22AM
Yes, the factor tied most closely to violent crime is poverty, not guns. This is why gun control, which is another term for banning civilians from owning guns, will not help reduce violent crime.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:46AM (1 child)
Sorry at work so not logged in. Also an Australian gun owner. My view, and the view of most others who owns guns here whom I have spoken to about this, is that the current Australian firearms laws are a mess of onerous and poorly defined requirements which are essentially a snapshot of a series of baby steps towards full prohibition. For evidence see the recent Adler shotgun fiasco.
Whist I don't think many of us would like to see American style "anything goes" attitude to firearms legislation, a bit of sanity would be nice.
(Score: 2) by caffeine on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:31AM
I've not noticed any baby steps to full prohibition, if anything I've noticed that the requirement to provide a reason for ownership has gotten easier. The only gun moved up a class that I can think of is the Adler and logically it should have been treated like pump actions from the start.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 09 2017, @01:55PM (3 children)
>better social security system, universal health care and good public education
Ha! Start with a gun control question on a survey - the answer to that is a very strong predictor of how the respondent will rate your "namby pamby, pinko commie, waste of tax dollars on good for nothing layabout welfare bums sucking on the teat of government taxes taken from self-made, hard working, God fearing, gun toting white Christian men who made this country great."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:35PM (2 children)
I know you're right. And, I'll make it clear for anyone who might not understand:
I have no problem with allowing a man to go hungry, if he won't work. Women and children, the elderly, the infirm, I'm willing to feed. But a healthy man with little more to do than watch television all day, before dropping in at the bar for a nightcap, can damned well starve, for all I care. I have little problem with public assistance for a man who is "down on his luck", and at least TRIES to support himself and his dependents. But this country is full of healthy adult males who contribute NOTHING to society. And, I'm not just talking about people in the ghettos, either. We've got them right here, where I live.
And, yes, I am 100% pro second amendment.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:04PM
I don't mind a little tyranny now and then, enforcement of property rights, police interference in murder, rape, and robbery, taxes to support the common defense and public infrastructure - that's some tyranny I can live with.
What I do object to, strongly, is this concept of "determination of need" prior to granting of public assistance. The only "determination" I think we need, or should have, for any public assistance program is positive unique identification of the individual seeking assistance to prevent double (or more) spend of the individual's benefits. If the program exists and is necessary and good for public welfare, then make it available to every member of the public, without requiring a legal degree to interpret the program guidelines, a financial adviser to prepare the necessary documentation, and a bureaucracy to process the applications and audit the distributions.
Universal healthcare, including mental health assistance, nutrition assistance, and any other program out there "necessary for the public good" should be "walk up and claim" based on identity. Instead we have a byzantine maze of obscure benefits, unclear billing resolution practices, and "well, if you can pay then we prefer that you do that" tradition.
For those fine, upstanding folks who make their own way in the world without claiming assistance, well - perhaps they deserve a break on their taxes for not claiming assistance - but that's nothing the individual or their accountant should have to claim, that's something the government should bloody well know and simply notify the individual on January 2 what their "non-claim of benefits" tax refund will be for the previous year - in addition to a website where they can track progress throughout the year and know how their actions impact their future.
And, to be clear, I think that most government specialized programs for X, Y, and Z, can all be scrapped and replaced with a UBI card that pays (on the order of) $0.01 per 30 seconds into the individual's account. Anyone who's hungry and flat broke need only wait an hour or two and they can then afford something off the dollar value menu at a fast food joint. Anyone who's lacking shelter should be able to commit 1/2 their basic income and obtain a safe and clean room, albeit in a low rent district. With these basic needs met, finding gainful employment should be much easier, especially if one does not have to travel across town to meet with social workers sticking their noses into the process of "how many interviews have you gone on in the past week" or "has your personal savings exceeded $2000 in the past month?" and expend significant time and effort to meet the documentation requirements of obtaining aid to meet basic needs. If an individual decides to use their free time to engage in criminal activities, then their UBI can go to pay for their prison expenses.
Man, woman, child (o.k. administration of child and mentally infirm benefits gets slightly more tangled, but...) it shouldn't matter. If you're fortunate enough to work in the world and earn a good wage, then there are taxes to help to pay wages to those who work for government sponsored programs. If you're not fortunate enough to earn enough to meet basic needs, then at least have those needs met so you have the opportunity to train, interview, and obtain meaningful employment that you want, not just a crappy job at WalMart that you have to take to make ends meet while you still spend 10+ hours a week scrambling to keep all the government benefits flowing.
We've got heavy social assistance programs already, and low-end employers are taking advantage of them by taking advantage of people who are willing to work part time for pay and part time to get their benefits. That's a bit of koyaanisqatsi / naqoyqatsi that I could easily live without.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:21PM
It seems nice to help women, but that encourages broken families and discourages marriage.
You need to be careful. Whatever you reward, you will get more of. Rewarding single women means you will have more single women, frequently with children who don't get to have fathers in their lives.
This sort of thing has been devastating for black families in America. Government benefits actually increase if the man is kicked out of the house, so out he goes.
Looking at all the effects on society, we'd be much better off if we severely taxed working women. This would help keep families together. Children would less often be coming home to empty houses. With the switch away from expensive poor-quality daycare, larger families would be more common. This helps the economy and prevents a population crash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:42AM (3 children)
And yet China never has any mass murders using firearms. Australia hasn't had any where more than 5 did since the Port Arthur attack which left 35 dead.
You people keep making these unsubstantiated claims that gun regulations don't work and yet literally all the evidence we have says that it does. You can't completely prevent all violence, but we can cut it way down from where it currently is.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:18AM
What is with this sick obsession with guns instead of MASS MURDER [wikipedia.org]. Throw out the Port Arthur incident since it is such an outlier. Now look at that table and tell me you see a trend other than FEWER guns used to commit mass murder after that spike provided Prog politicians an excuse to do what they have wanted to do since Progs came into existence. Dead is dead, death by stabbing, being flattened to road pizza, etc. is just as dead. And note also that guns are still in the wrong hands, just no more guns in the right ones.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:24AM
Where it currently is, is at almost the lowest it's been in decades. We do not have a violent crime epidemic, no matter what your favorite talk show host might say.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @12:34PM
Obviously excluding the state sanctioned ones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:22AM
Runaway, this is not the time to talk about this. Wait until the next mass shooting. Could be in your town!! Won't be time to talk about it then, either.
Time for open season on the NRA. I want to fill-out my tag!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by etherscythe on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:36AM (3 children)
We can't come to agreement on basic facts because the data is not reliable, so all we have left are opinions which are hard to sell. The loudest voices in the room like to come up with their own facts, but maybe... just maybe, if we can use (at least one) single relatable set of comprehensive data as a starting point, we can finally stop shouting past each other and agree that certain policies make sense, whether implemented by federal law or by applying economic pressure somehow (i.e. boycotting or increasing tax burden of the companies that are shown to support misogyny if it turns out that domestic violence that is a precursor to mass murder is related to gender inequality being allowed to flourish in large employers). Maybe a better solution will not turn out to be related to gun control as such - but we won't know if we can't do the research!
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @12:10PM
Because... profits [soylentnews.org]?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 09 2017, @01:57PM (1 child)
Don't confuse the issue with facts. Don't even let the government collect "facts" to debate about - this is a debate about RIGHT and wrong, facts can only cloud the real issue.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:36PM
No, actually, it's not. Every time people try to suggest "well if we just didn't have guns this tragedy wouldn't happen" it turns that direction, but this discussion is ultimately about how to improve public safety, since we clearly have a problem. A full range of solutions involves related issues of how to keep guns out of the hands of disturbed individuals, how to keep our schools safest, how to care for those members of our population with mental and/or economic stability problems so they don't become gun violence problems. Facts are both right and necessary to that debate, and I find the idea of plugging our ears and singing LA LA LA TYRANNY at the top of our lungs to be, at the very least, repugnantly disrespectful to victims of gun violence and their social circles.
We can do better than this, but we need to be smart about it. And, to borrow an old chemistry joke, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:31AM (31 children)
OK, while we are living in make-believe happy-time land let's also suppose that we do an honest study of racial diversity with respect to social stability and crime rates.
Take away weapons and you guarantee tyranny. If not in 5 years, then in 10 or 20. The 2nd amendment is there to make it difficult and painful to crush the populace and strip them of their remaining freedom and dignity. If this makes some cities less safe (certainly debatable) fine. Perfectly reasonable price to pay.
Also, if we are going to look at death statistics let's really do that. Unintentional Deaths (accidents): automobiles. Heart disease and diabetes: disgusting fat asses. Both higher on the list. Guns don't even crack the top 10. OK, so let's make driving exams and licensing Serious. Crack down like a motherfucker on cellphones and distracted driving. Also, if we are talking about taking guns away, we can fucking take that 32oz corn syrup drink too. Outlaw guns? Outlaw Sugar first.
Not a single additional gun restriction law before sugar is outlawed. It kills more. It's more dangerous. If we are going to go full tyranny let's do it correctly.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:46AM (27 children)
The way the rest of the Western civilization countries are under tyrrany, right?
What would make US so prone to slide into tyranny when all the other countries don't? Perhaps you should start addressing that problem soon?
Seems to me that's on the line of Nivana fallacy [wikipedia.org]. We can't do better if we aren't doing perfect.
If you think it is not, please explain why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:05AM (2 children)
Quite honestly when I look at Europe, yes I do think of Tyranny. Do you believe the EU will dissolve peacefully, even if the majority of the peoples in Europe want it? The EU is collapsing slowly, it is inevitable, but it's going to be violent in little more than a decade.
You can already lightly see it at the seams with the EU planning to "make an example" of Britain after brexit.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:12AM (1 child)
I'm not seeing a majority of people wanting to dissolve it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:43AM
They left for a America long ago; those in Europe are the descendants of sycophantic, servile bootlickers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:12AM (13 children)
As the revolutionaries noted, rights predated the government; rights are endowed by the Creator (e.g., they are a natural aspect of being a sentient being), and many of those rights are not even listed explicitly by the Constitution (which is why the Constitution talks about unenumerated rights).
The People vest a government with authority by delegating to the government some of the authorities that go along with having a right; a government does not create rights, and can only restrict The People via their explicit delegation of authority.
The 2nd Amendment was the founder's way of pointing out that the right to bear arms is so important and fundamental that it should be mentioned explicitly as a right that must never be infringed—currently, the Constitution doesn't even allow The People to delegate to the government the attendant authorities of this right.
Were the US Government to alter the Constitution and then pass laws restricting the authorities of the right to bear arms, there would be so many people who felt that they had not legitimately delegated said authorities to the government that there would be, without a doubt, a second Civil War.
The tyranny would be the restriction itself of the right to bear arms.
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:24AM (5 children)
DING!! DING!! DING!!
The AC nails it! Repeal the 2nd Amendment and blood will flow.
The theory of government we operate under says we have "certain inalienable rights" and any attempt to infringe them is automatically WRONG.
Progressives of course disagree with the American theory. Which is why I have so many times pointed this out by saying that is the primary political division today, Americans vs Progressives. If you are American the Progressives are not your Countrymen. They forfeit the right to call themselves Americans when they renounce every principle we live by.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:52AM (4 children)
> Repeal the 2nd Amendment and blood will flow.
But not one drop will be spilled by members of the NRA. Nada. Zero. Zip.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:12AM (3 children)
We are the children of Revolutionaries. The fire of Revolution lives on in us, we owe them the duty to uphold and defend what was given to us, that which was purchased so dearly in Patriot blood. Do not infringe our Rights. Do not confuse madmen and criminals with Patriots. If you were an American you would know these things.
If you want our arms we shall give the same answer Texas gave, "Come and take it" and the same as Sparta when they answered "Molon labe" and the same as the British received in reply to the question. How many times will free men supply the same answer to your question before you tyrants and cowards understand that NO MEANS NO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:51AM
Fortunately is late in the evening, so my keyboard is safe from coffee.
But anyway, thanks for the laugh, has been a while since I had such a good one.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:47AM
You know how's jmorris like potatoes? The best part of his family is underground.
Ah, memories. Can't say good memories but anyway old memories, from childhood.
That's exactly how the ruling communist party was teaching us why we should fight the enemy of the people. Revolutionaries and blood and our debt to their sacrifice, all the kit and caboodle. A pity you were born in US, you'd made a great politruk [wikipedia.org] with the fire in your belly and the spittle on the corner of your mouth.
If you weren't American, you'd realise how hollow this sounds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:17PM
In Tejas, what they said was, "Moron Labia!" Being a gringo, you might have mis-heard.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:36AM (6 children)
You already gave away you right to punch other in the face, remember that "your liberty ends where my nose begins"?
I'd say you did it willingly without the government needing to force you - which means it is possible to cede some of your rights without this implying tyranny.
And if the majority of people agree to repeal the second amendment, it would be tyranny for the government to continue to keep it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:43AM (1 child)
Indeed, such a right would be self-contradictory. Try again.
Also, tyranny implies restriction; a lack of restriction cannot be an example of tyranny. Try again.
Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:06AM
Ah, the idiot libertarian again. I'll better stop here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:45AM (3 children)
Indeed, such a right would be self-contradictory. Try again.
Also, tyranny implies restriction; a lack of restriction cannot be an example of tyranny. Try again.
Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:55AM (1 child)
F/O
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:40AM
Try again.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:34AM
Such as the restriction of people from deciding what should be restricted and what shouldn't.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:34AM (3 children)
The US is ALREADY in a state of tyrrany in case you have not noticed ...
How about looking at history. In Nazi Germany days, there were laws passed to prevent Jews from owning guns. Look how that worked out ...
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany [wikipedia.org]
"The 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which came into force the day after Kristallnacht,[10][11] effectively deprived all Jews living under the Third Reich of the right to possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition.[12] Before that, some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'"."
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:38AM (2 children)
Yes, that was a discriminatory law, and as such a clear sign that the Nazis were going against the Jews (not that this was any secret at that point in time).
Note that Jews were also forbidden to spit on the street. Do I have to conclude that spitting on the street is necessary to prevent a Holocaust?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:22PM (1 child)
Haven't you heard? Diversity isn't good:
https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-call-to-end-the-diversity-visa-has-nothing-to-do-with-national-security/ [thenation.com]
Note: that's the Nation, not the Onion.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:02PM
I really feel for the people of the Onion. The real news these days is so surreal, how do they satire it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:00PM (4 children)
Higher taxes == tyranny. It's one of the founding principles of the United States, they even teach it in elementary school history classes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:13PM (3 children)
All depends on what you do with those taxes. The Scandinavian people are happy to pay a lot of more taxes than US, and they receive them back in form of benefits.
Like roads without potholes, a heath care that cost 1/3 the one in US and it's at the same level as the highest quality care in US (not to mention that the citizens pay a lot less), etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:43PM (2 children)
I spent quite a few hours on Scandinavian trains back around 1990. The Swedes weren't much for chit-chat, but the Danes were constantly bending my ear about how they pay such high taxes to support children and retirees, the Norwegians were mostly drunk at the time, they had just gotten a LOT of oil money...
Just because the Scandinavians appear mostly complacent about their taxes (and, don't get me wrong, I think a lot of their social programs are awesome and wish that we could duplicate them here) doesn't mean that red blooded 'muricans are going to lie down and let the gub'mint take their hard earned money and give it away to a bunch of lazy bums - that there is taxation without representation, or something, and they'll get their Congressmen to stop it, just you watch. It's really amazing how passionate some people with money are about keeping it out of the hands of the Government.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:59PM (1 child)
While in the same time pushing as much as possible their social responsibility into the hands of government (the kind of "coupons for low paid workers").
Because without socializing cost and privatizing profit, the rate of growth of their Bermuda accounts will suffer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 10 2017, @12:16AM
Most of the wing-nuts I know aren't even big-time enough to have an offshore account, but, by damn, the government better not take away anything that's theirs, including benefits that allow them to grossly underpay their workers.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Saturday November 11 2017, @07:42PM
[blockquote]The way the rest of the Western civilization countries are under tyrrany, right?
What would make US so prone to slide into tyranny when all the other countries don't? Perhaps you should start addressing that problem soon?[/blockquote]
Visit England, France, and even Germany. Gross restrictions on free speech, weapons. Full speed ahead on the tyranny train. So, yeah, I reject your assertion that this a uniquely American issue and that governments that have restricted weapons are not sliding into tyranny.
Also, gross misunderstanding of either my argument or the Nirvana fallacy. Probably both. The argument being, if your stated concern is unfortunate deaths then you should consider the _real_ causes of these deaths. But it's not. It's a thin excuse to go after your favorite wiping boy. Despite common sense. Despite the facts. Despite the obvious outcome.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:27AM
You fucking crap-pooh!
I vote that first we take away crapoo's ability to walk, without stepping in poo. Every step he takes, every move he makes, he'll be squishing poo. I wonder if such a punishment for what to the rest of us is his obvious stupidity would have any chance of making it apparent to him? If not, we may have to take his poo away as well. But, then, what would he have to live for?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:03AM (1 child)
I have two problems with this. The first is that your government keeps taking away your rights, but as long as they don't take away your right to own (increasingly ineffectual) guns, it doesn't seem to bother you. How did gun ownership stop the US from militarising its police force? How did it stop control of the government going to two parties with effective laws to lock out new parties? How did it prevent those two parties from falling under control of the same oligarchy? How did it stop border guards from being able to dump data from any electronic devices that you're carrying? How did it prevent you from 42rd position in the press freedom index?
My second objection is that small arms are woefully inadequate weapons if you want to avoid oppression. Ask any general and you'll be told that the two most important things in any campaign are intelligence and logistics. In a domestic environment, logistics are largely a solved problem, but control over the flow of information. People in China today or in the USSR before its fall weren't prevented from rebelling by lack of access to guns, they were prevented from rebelling by government propaganda making them think that there was no better alternative. In your last election, with a choice of Clinton or Trump, how many of your population even considered the idea that both choices were terrible and that there could be a third option? How's that freedom working out for you?
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Wootery on Friday November 10 2017, @11:20AM
There's a famous Jefferson quote:
but let's be real - things are nowhere near bad enough to justify armed revolution. The problem you describe is a function of the US voting system, not of populace-armament.
(To put it another way, we all know that Jefferson was right: armed revolution would indeed, naturally, be shit.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:52AM (1 child)
You can, in fact, prefer freedom over safety. And just because the majority decides something does not make it right.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pr on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:58PM
It doesn't make it wrong either though. It least it means that people get to make a collective decision about the society they're living in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:32PM (1 child)
It does not. Nor will it ever, you cannot quantify freedom.
Lot of studies are not public, or only published after fudging the numbers to push gun control narrative.
There is no direct Democracy in the US for a reason.
It won't unless you allow illegals, the dead, and felons to vote, so good luck with your daydream.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:07PM
FTFY.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:15PM (1 child)
> Suppose that some studies reveal that gun control has benefits greater than the drawbacks.
> Suppose you make public those studies.
> Suppose that you actually believe in democracy and trigger a referendum on the matter of gun control.
> Suppose that the referendum turns a majority in favor some form of gun control.
Here in the US a referendum isn't an accepted means to change the Constitution. The amendment process requires a supermajority of the Senate and Congress to approve a joint resolution, and then that has to be approved by 3/4ths of States. Alternately the Constitution can be changed by a Constitutional Convention.
As a gun owner, I will abide without objection with any new firearms rules that are approved as a ratified Amendment. My objections to firearms laws are that they do not follow this process; they don't take this front-door approach. They are done piecemeal through taxes, permits, rule changes, and executive action. That clearly violates the spirit of the Constitution.
The other point of contention I have is on the effectiveness of Firearms restrictions in reducing violence. Anti-firearms groups are masters of cherry picking data, and that ultimately hurts their cause. If you want to have a reasonable conversation about gun violence you have to start by being honest about what the problem is.
What does that mean?
It means that you stop spewing the "35,000 people were killed by guns in one year" statistic, and use the more intellectually statistic that excludes suicides and police actions, a number around 12,000.
It means you get rid of dumb "It requires a $200 tax stamp, ATF paperwork, and the signature of a law enforcement officer to buy a suppressor" or "A bayonet lug, extendable stock, or pistol grip makes a rifle an assault weapon" rules, and look for things that make a difference.
It means you stop trying to outlaw scary black rifles that are used in 3% of gun homicides, and work on the handgun problem (97%).
More Broadly:
It means you end the drug war, because it's creating a culture that rewards violence and turns police against the people they are supposed to protect and serve.
It means you decouple education funding from local property taxes to break the ignorance that fuels cyclical poverty.
It means you stop blowing people up and toppling regimes in goatfuqistan.
It means you fix prisons so that people have some other option besides crime as a career after they have served their time.
It means you fix our mental health system that dumps crazy people back on the street after a 72 hour psych. hold because there is nowhere else for them to go.
It means you talk to the people you disagree with and find compromises instead of just shouting past them.
The problem is that all of those things are hard, and it's much easier just to rail against guns.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:05PM
I'd like to see some serious studies showing more precise numbers, but... well... that's the TFStory about, isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)
That's a lot of suppositions.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:03PM
Yes, that's a long way to go. And it's refused at the first step, which tells a lot about the chances for it to happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday November 10 2017, @11:11AM (2 children)
The majority already do support some form of gun control. Even among US gun owners, the NRA's position (very nearly categorical opposition to gun control) is unusually extreme.
The Second Amendment is binding unless repealed. The way it should be.
If the overwhelming will of the people is to amend the Second Amendment, there's a procedure to do that.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 10 2017, @11:34AM (1 child)
And that procedure is...?
(seriously, that's a genuine question)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday November 10 2017, @11:38AM
Same as for any constitutional amendment. In a word: it takes a two-thirds supermajority. [wikipedia.org]
There's already a precedent for this sort of thing - the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.