SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Political polarization among Americans has grown rapidly in the last 40 years—more than in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany—a phenomenon possibly due to increased racial division, the rise of partisan cable news and changes in the composition of the Democratic and Republican parties.
That's according to new research co-authored by Jesse Shapiro, a professor of political economy at Brown University. The study, conducted alongside Stanford University economists Levi Boxell and Matthew Gentzkow, was released on Monday, Jan. 20, as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.
In the study, Shapiro and colleagues present the first ever multi-nation evidence on long-term trends in "affective polarization"—a phenomenon in which citizens feel more negatively toward other political parties than toward their own. They found that in the U.S., affective polarization has increased more dramatically since the late 1970s than in the eight other countries they examined—the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden.
"A lot of analysis on polarization is focused on the U.S., so we thought it could be interesting to put the U.S. in context and see whether it is part of a global trend or whether it looks more exceptional," Shapiro said. "We found that the trend in the U.S. is indeed exceptional."
Using data from four decades of public opinion surveys conducted in the nine countries, the researchers used a so-called "feeling thermometer" to rate attitudes on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 reflected no negative feelings toward other parties. They found that in 1978, the average American rated the members of their own political party 27 points higher than members of the other major party. By 2016, Americans were rating their own party 45.9 points higher than the other party, on average. In other words, negative feelings toward members of the other party compared to one's own party increased by an average of 4.8 points per decade.
The researchers found that polarization had also risen in Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland in the last 40 years, but to a lesser extent. In the U.K., Australia, Germany, Norway and Sweden, polarization decreased.
More information: Levi Boxell et al, Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization, (2020). DOI: 10.3386/w26669
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 27 2020, @09:51PM (17 children)
Just curious. How extreme to you take that? Should guns not even be licensed?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 27 2020, @10:06PM (1 child)
Licensing is sometimes denied for arbitrary reasons. For example, in Massachusetts the chief of police sometimes makes a policy of saying "NO" to everybody.
If a person can't be trusted with a gun, then he simply can't be trusted. (with a chainsaw, hammer, crossbow, spear, 5 iron, baseball bat, steak knife...) He simply needs to be in some form of custody, possibly prison or a mental health institution.
The standard driver's license is reasonable as a gun license. It provides no indication that the owner might or might not have guns, avoiding the risk of easy confiscation. It indicates that the person can see well enough to aim at something and that the person probably isn't a drunk or otherwise a mental case.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 28 2020, @03:20PM
I think a bit more than a driver license should be required. Some minimal marksmanship and safety requirements. It should not be allowed to arbitrarily deny everyone licenses. When firing a weapon at a firing range, the objective is to be able to hit the sheet of paper.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday January 27 2020, @10:54PM (13 children)
If the matter of licenses is important, then it should be explicitly mentioned in the right, no?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 27 2020, @11:46PM (11 children)
Well regulated implies state level controls, the whole point of the 2nd was to maintain states' right to form their own militias. An efficient and well run militia would of course regulate who gets to have guns. The 2008 ruling now makes individual protection a right, but that does not extend to all weapon variants and does not imply that states can't regulate. If someone feels their constitutional rights are violated by state law then the case should go to the supreme court for review.
This is how a nation of laws is run, and arm-chair constitutionalists (not you necessarily) don't get to interpret the constitution however they'd like. State's have repeatedly been upheld as having the power to regulate firearms, and the die hards can wake me up if the feds try and pass something more draconian.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @12:05AM (9 children)
Why?
Because the federal cannot do "well" in regards with regulation or what?
How about county/parish administration (or whatever lower-than-state form of local governance may be called)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @01:17AM (5 children)
The Constitution of the United States does not care about how the states decide to form what are known as "political subdivisions" or separation of powers within the states, beyond certain general rules. And the Bill of Rights were designed to protect people from the federal government. It doesn't seem to big of a stretch to combine the two into implying the regulation occurring at the state level in some form of another, even if just in the form of explicit delegation to a political subdivision.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @01:26AM (4 children)
I asked "Why is it good to be so?" and I got an answer "Because Constitution and the founding fathers".
I wonder now when "sticking to the rules" is still a rational choice and when it becomes "worshiping a book"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:16AM (3 children)
Nope, that might have been your intention, but the words on the page were:
Now to address your apparently original question why is it good to have the 2nd amendment? Well here in the US there are a variety of reasons. Personal protection is quite a real need for even mildly rural locations. I've had bears go through my yard, aggressive dogs kill livestock, and once a police helicopter was tracking a murder suspect. People living in high crime areas might want protection against being robbed and beaten/raped. Minorities are 100% safer from hate crimes if they can carry a gun, few bullies want to pick on someone if it involves a real chance of death.
Then there is the more nebulous ability to fight government oppression. At the very least it keeps politicians on their toes because to pull off mass dictatorship they'd have to confiscate the guns before some group manages to take them out.
You can disagree with all of those, say they are unneeded, or they are only needed because of the culture of guns. I understand those arguments, but I think in the age of technology no one should be restricted from owning personal protection unless they have proven themselves a danger to themselves or others. That is my opinion, but then again the US has pretty horrifying gun stats.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:45AM (2 children)
Fair enough. But nothing to do with the 2A (and not necessarily the only solution available).
Mate, I think the politiheads biggest fear is not being re-elected because their corruptions catches up with them in the news.
Dictatorship in US? Healthy levels of competition in the corruption arena makes sure the wannabe dictator gets bankrupt before s/he even tries to obtain monopoly by a military coup. Put shortly, "MAD in the corruption arena"
Unneeded? I abstain from saying it.
I'll say, though, that the Americans would be lucky if they'd get to look into the problem with a cool head, make an inventory of the problems the guns are suppose to solve and list the possible alternative solutions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:58AM
"I'll say, though, that the Americans would be lucky if they'd get to look into the problem with a cool head, make an inventory of the problems the guns are suppose to solve and list the possible alternative solutions."
True enough, I try for my part but as you point out rarely find cool heads to discuss it with. All I got from The Winged Sociopath was fanaticism about the holy writ, and Ruminaway is ready to murder anyone who says he can't own whatever unlicensed penis pumps he owns.
Ok, that was definitely not a cool headed response, but to be fair it wasn't the gun issue that got me lashing out.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 28 2020, @03:38PM
Eevan moar guuuuns!!!1!yksitoista!!
I got some swift knee-jerk mass downmodding when I drew a "worshiping a book" parallel a couple of months back, so I'm glad to see someone else (you) make that point upthread.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @03:14AM (2 children)
AC you responded to here.
Because that was the debate during the creation of the 2nd amendment. It was to prevent a standing federal army that states could not fight. Of course we got the standing army eventually anyway. They were for good reason wary of a tyrannical federal government.
I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment 100%, but I also think we need sane regulations. For the most part these have been accomplished in most places, but things like inheritance and gun show loopholes make it quite simple for someone to obtain massive firepower with little to no oversight.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @03:31AM (1 child)
Assuming you a right (alas, I have no time to check it), the 2A in the form it is now is useless for the intended purpose (the sought after benefit), but caries all the disadvantages (remember TANSTAAFL?)
The rational approach would be to examine if the need still exists and, if so, try and bring 2A in sync with the modern era (if possible, that is. If not, find other ways to guarantee whatever 2A was supposed to guarantee).
All I see is the heated squabble between those who don't want to pay the price for it anymore and those who look at it as the holly scripture - deprecated and negated by reality, but untouchable because it's like of "divine origin".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:21AM
Well most of the AC comments in this thread were from me and I'm a gun-lacking liberal. I think regulation should be heavy handed and it should be harder to get a gun than a driver's license. I've floated the idea of local armories to store more assault-style weaponry while letting individuals store 1-2 guns on their own property.
I fully agree with you and greatly dislike the way the 2nd amendment is treated as scripture. We managed to limit freedom of speech without the world imploding, I think it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @12:15AM
Oh, so the govt of Virginia is in its rights to regulate the gun ownership the way they see fit, those die hards are trying to wake you up for nothing [bbc.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 28 2020, @03:22PM
I was also going to bring up "well regulated", but I see others already have. I think I have a very goodly command of English and understand "well regulated". And I don't mean overly regulated or some arbitrary way to deny people their right to have firearms. But there is some balance. I wish people didn't see things in polarized extremes. We license fishing and driving.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:49AM
Yep. Unlicensed and uncontrolled. And every other weapon up to and including nukes.
Is that a sane position? Probably not, but that's what the 2A says.
And before you start on it, well-regulated means in good working order and is only in an explanatory clause anyway.
Shall not be infringed means what it says. Licenses and tax stamps and gun registrations and concealed carry permits and gun-free zones are all in violation of the Constitution.
If you don't like it, work to amend the Constitution, not undermine it. Ignoring what the law says is a quick way to the very tyranny the 2A was meant to discourage. (The quickest way to get it amended would probably be to enforce it as written.)