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, @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.