Gun Control Discussion 2

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

19 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

And the emphasis on the "white middle class" is another form of privilege. The very formulation of that demographic is telling. Why can't Democrats advocate for all middle class people? Is there some critical difference between white middle class people, and others in the same tax bracket? Why are we spending so much energy trying to save a dying, carcinogenic dinosaur of an industry like coal, which employs tens of thousands of people? Because they're mostly white men. Meanwhile, millions of retail jobs are threatened by automation, but no one in government gives two shits about those workers, because they are heavily minority and female. 

No it's not another form of privledge. Why do you think so many of "white middle class" who usually vote Democrat voted for Trump? Why do you think that is? Because that segment of the middle class has felt ignored. Plain and simple. Call it whatever you want. And, I guess you digging at me about coal, well, no one in West Virginia with an ounce of sense thinks that coal is going to come roaring back. Quite frankly, a lot are against coal in the first place. What we want is jobs. Help with funding to create jobs other than the dying dinosaur that is coal. All the coal towns in the southern part of the state are ghost towns and will remain that way. Coal is a dying industry, we all know that. Thats why idiots only believed Trump when he said he would bring back coal. If you've never lived in a place with no economic options, then you'll never understand how hard it is to raise a family or pay bills. I have to travel an 1 1/2 hour's just to make a decent wage to support my family. My wife has two degrees and has to work in a bar/restaurant to make ends meet, because there are not any other options. We've been ignored for decades.

[DanteGabriel]

MSJ, please take it to US Politics and I'll respond there. 

And me bringing up coal is not a personal shot at you -- it is a clear example of an industry that gets more attention and hand-wringing from right wing politicians than its size warrants (not to minimize the suffering of those affected by it) because the people affected are mostly white men.

[IamMe90]

9 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

What we want is jobs. Help with funding to create jobs other than the dying dinosaur that is coal. All the coal towns in the southern part of the state are ghost towns and will remain that way.

You mean like the actual policy proposal from Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign to provide $30 billion in aid for the purpose of transitioning coal workers into other job industries? Yeah, clearly that's what they wanted. Oh wait...

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

1 minute ago, IamMe90 said:

You mean like the actual policy proposal from Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign to provide $30 billion in aid for the purpose of transitioning coal workers into other job industries? Yeah, clearly that's what they wanted. Oh wait...

Hey, I would take it. I didn't vote for Trump, don't throw stones at me. In just telling you "reasons" I hear from life long Democrats why they no longer have faith in the party.

[IamMe90]

53 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Hey, I would take it. I didn't vote for Trump, don't throw stones at me. In just telling you "reasons" I hear from life long Democrats why they no longer have faith in the party.

I'm not saying anything about you in particular. I'm directly responding to your assertion that coal miners want jobs "other than the dying dinosaur that is coal." It appears clear that this wasn't a particularly high priority for them, since they: 1) voted for someone who explicitly campaigned on unrealistically bringing back coal jobs; and 2) did not vote for someone who offered a concrete policy proposal aimed precisely at getting those people jobs other than coal.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

51 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

I'm not saying anything about you in particular. I'm directly responding to your assertion that coal miners want jobs "other than the dying dinosaur that is coal." It appears clear that this wasn't a particularly high priority for them, since they: 1) voted for someone who explicitly campaigned on unrealistically bringing back coal jobs; and 2) did not vote for someone who offered a concrete policy proposal aimed precisely at getting those people jobs other than coal.

I know your not directing at me personally. Its ok. Its a more difficult issue than that. Most people that I talked to during elections, straight up didn't trust Hillary. And, I won't set here and feed you bullshit. A lot of racists and bigots and so on love Trump. My Facebook feed is littered with them. But, your also naive if you think Hillary would've followed through. Politicians have all kinds of great ideas when running a campaign. But, we should take this to the political thread, I think.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

One way to start to change the culture: destroy the NRA as it is currently composed. Turn it back into a group for gun owners and sportsmen/women instead of a vicious gun manufacturer's lobby that stokes fear and glorifies violence in order to sell more guns. I have no idea how to change the NRA in that way, but the rabid gun nut wing took over in the late 70s, so maybe there can be a counter coup somehow.

But if that happens, won't it create a vacuum for a new group to take it's place? I can't recall their name, but there's another pro Second Amendment rights group that's already trying to box out the NRA over bump stocks.

23 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Tonight, for some reason, I'm inclined to show a sliver of optimism. What you say is true today, and for the next couple of generations at least.

But in the very long run? Who knows.

Apologies for snipping most of your post, but there's something specific about this that jumped out at me. I took French for 5 years, but I don't know a ton about the culture when it comes to depicting guns in T.V. shows and movies, or how much of the U.S. media that you import. That said, in a lot of non-dystopian futuristic Syfy movies and shows, most of today's problems have been solved. There's an abundance of food and water. Racial harmony, at least between humans, has been achieved. Environmentalism is widely supported. I could go on with more examples, but one thing is still omnipresent: the gun. It's still an integral part of futuristic societies. Now maybe this argument is flawed because it's based around fiction that's largely U.S. centric, but it seems to me that the gun isn't going anywhere any time soon. 

[Darth Richard II]

@Tywin et al.That's fascinating, I never thought about that.

[DMC]

Quote

There are surely studies from academics outside the U.S., or within the U.S. not using federal funding, regarding what Michael is asking for.

This may well be, but to both my knowledge and consultation with a policy shop barfly, there's nothing there that will provide for what Michael is asking.  Makes sense - it's a banal request comparing countries that have a gun ban versus those that don't.  While that's eminently doable, comparing outcomes from a handful of countries and analyzing the results isn't really what scholars are interested in doing because (1) it's too easy, (2) it will always have a small "n," and (3) nobody really cares about comparing gun bans.  (While I stand by the previous assertions, I have not personally checked them.  Please, prove me wrong.)

Anywho, @Michael Seswatha Jordan asked for "proof."  I don't have anything better than what I already cited in the previous thread, but there's this.  Common denominator there is limiting access leads to less gun deaths in Australia, the UK, Israel, Japan, the Czech Republic, Canada, Germany, and Norway.  I know, radical idea.

[Rippounet]

22 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That said, in a lot of non-dystopian futuristic Syfy movies and shows, most of today's problems have been solved. There's an abundance of food and water. Racial harmony, at least between humans, has been achieved. Environmentalism is widely supported. I could go on with more examples, but one thing is still omnipresent: the gun. It's still an integral part of futuristic societies. Now maybe this argument is flawed because it's based around fiction that's largely U.S. centric, but it seems to me that the gun isn't going anywhere any time soon. 

It's an interesting to point to make.

I confess I believe in materialism, the theory that ideas and culture are products of their time and thus seldom reflect absolutes. Hence I would argue that it's only natural that today's cultural products contain a lot of guns since they reflect today's reality.
I don't know if that tells us anything about the future.  If anything, I'm tempted to say the depiction of violence has gotten better in fiction these last two decades, but perhaps that's just me.

 

[Stego]

On 10/13/2017 at 0:27 PM, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

You talking about a pocket knife or a switchblade, Rambo knife or something like that? Im assuming the latter, because I don't know many guys where I come from that don't carry a pocket knife. Very handy. 

No one needs a knife because it's handy. If that were the case, you'd have a leatherman. It's bullshit small dicked cowardly bullying behavior. Keep it in your car like a human being. 

[James Arryn]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's an interesting to point to make.

I confess I believe in materialism, the theory that ideas and culture are products of their time and thus seldom reflect absolutes. Hence I would argue that it's only natural that today's cultural products contain a lot of guns since they reflect today's reality.
I don't know if that tells us anything about the future.  If anything, I'm tempted to say the depiction of violence has gotten better in fiction these last two decades, but perhaps that's just me.

 

Saw a study a while back that said that the most common image (by far) found on American movie posters is someone holding a gun. I can't remember where or I'd link it. 

[Altherion]

19 minutes ago, Stego said:

No one needs a knife because it's handy. If that were the case, you'd have a leatherman. It's bullshit small dicked cowardly bullying behavior. Keep it in your car like a human being. 

You must be talking about a different kind of knife. The pocket knife (i.e. Swiss Army style) and the Leatherman have the same idea except that the Leatherman tends to also have pliers and is thus bulkier. You can cut something with the blade part of it, but it's not for fighting.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

2 hours ago, Stego said:

No one needs a knife because it's handy. If that were the case, you'd have a leatherman. It's bullshit small dicked cowardly bullying behavior. Keep it in your car like a human being. 

A pocket knife? Seriously? Something that's two inches long and were I'm from you use on a daily basis? Cutting bales of hay, and an assortment of uses at work. Hell they even give us one at work, company issued. You're being a little extreme buddy. I can see if someone is walking around with a hunting knife or the like. But a pocket knife? I've always had one, almost everyone I know carries one, not for protection, hell it probably wouldn't do a damn thing. You're definitely overblowing this subject buddy.

[Darth Richard II]

https://frinkiac.com/meme/S05E08/606288/m/IFRIQU5LIFlPVSwgRFIuIEhJQkJFUlQuCiBET04nVCBUSEFOSyBNRS4gVEhBTksgVEhFCiBLTklGRS4gWyBDcm93ZCBDaGVlcmluZyBd

[Mother Cocanuts]

17 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Anywho, @Michael Seswatha Jordan asked for "proof."  I don't have anything better than what I already cited in the previous thread, but there's this.  Common denominator there is limiting access leads to less gun deaths in Australia, the UK, Israel, Japan, the Czech Republic, Canada, Germany, and Norway.  I know, radical idea.

is this really up for dispute? I don't think anyone denies that restricting or prohibiting the access to firearms will reduce the amount of incidents in which they are used. (If you don't have them, you can't use them.) But even that can and has been challenged. What should be up for dispute is whether you can justify limiting the access to firearms. Not only does a person have a right (well... more like privilege nowadays) to bear them in the United States, but only a small, small, small minority of gun owner use them in violent offenses. I'm going to assume that this campaign for gun-control is not out of fear of guns, but an attempt to reduce overall violent offenses. So we can posit: does gun-control (limited/prohibited access to firearms) reduce overall violence? And in the cases of the U.K. and Australia, the answer is no.

Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?.pdf

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide.pdf

[Darth Richard II]

You are way late to THAT conversation.

[Mother Cocanuts]

39 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

You are way late to THAT conversation.

Who cares? Find something better to do.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

So we can posit: does gun-control (limited/prohibited access to firearms) reduce overall violence? And in the cases of the U.K. and Australia, the answer is no.

Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?.pdf

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide.pdf

Yikes.  That second link is Don Kates, who's thankfully dead.  Asking him to evaluate gun control legislation is like asking Trump to evaluate keeping audits around.  The first link doesn't conclude much of anything and the trend lines shown are mostly at odds with your argument:

Quote

Given this shortfall of data, it was impossible to elucidate whether the category of firearm involved in homicide and suicide changed post-NFA. The National Homicide Monitoring Program, administered by the Australian Institute of Criminology, has identified this lack of data as a problem limiting effective policy recommendations and has indicated that it may take special efforts to collate more accurate data (Mouzos and Rushforth 2003).

Seems as if your claim about the UK and Australia is total bullshit.  I'm shocked.

[Mother Cocanuts]

29 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yikes.  That first link is Don Kates, who's thankfully dead.  Asking him to evaluate gun control legislation is like asking Trump to evaluate keeping audits around. 

This is not an argument--not a logical one anyway. However you feel about Don Kates doesn't actually affect the argument made. Ad hominems are bad form (can't say that I'm "shocked" though.)

29 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Seems as if your claim about the UK and Australia is total bullshit.  I'm shocked.

Not really, you forgot this little tidbit:

Quote

The lack of effect of a massive buyback and associated legislative changes in the requirements for obtaining a firearm license or legally possessing firearm has significant implications for public and justice policy, not only in Australia, but internationally.

It is tempting to equate strict firearm regulation with effective firearm regulation. If policy is to be truly effective, it must have clearly defined outcomes and it must be able to bring about those outcomes. The desired, and implied, outcome of firearms legislation is to achieve an improvement in overall public health and safety by minimizing firearm abuse and misuse. Such aims may be difficult to achieve when legislation is drafted in the political arena. Consequently, we recommend that firearms policy development should be based on empirical data, careful evaluation of that empirical data, and community understanding and acceptance of proposed legislation. (Baker and McPhederan 2004.) There is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.

Looks like I didn't just read one paragraph.