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: 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"