Senate Gun Control

One does not have to be true for for the other to be. Crime, inherently, is society's response to some kind of need not being met. And it can be any number of things. Does that make robbing someone a moral act? No. But that doesn't mean that societal factors have no input into it either. And that isn't even getting into crimes like drug possession / distribution, which mark people as felons and only serve to enforce minimum capacity prison quotas.

 

Considering your continued support for Republicans, who recycle the same "thoughts and prayers" line every mass shooting, your words of supposed concern ring pretty hollow. But then you know that, considering your endless deflection and rejection of reality, here and in other topics.

You distract by asking if a gun was obtained legally, you put the Democrats on the same level as Republicans to deny their efforts (insufficient, but better than the Republican stonewalling). Yet you support Republicans despite both sides supposedly being equal.

You act like America is a warzone, requiring you to be armed, yet if things have actually gotten so bad, you don't see the need to vote for politicians who try to improve things, and unfortunately the Democrats are the less worse option.

 

You've already admitted to voting for Trump in 2016 and then being turned off by "what he said" after the election, as if Trump wasn't always saying exactly the same things before the election. The explosion of gun violence, especially among his followers, during his presidency is certainly relevant to this discussion.

Thanks for admitting that the electoral college is a colossal mistake. And that you not voting for Trump in 2020 wasn't some 'principled stand' against him on your part, but simply because you doubted it would've mattered anyways.
Considering the backlash against Cuomo's Republican and IDC buddies that ended with the Democrats having a veto-proof majority in the NY Senate, you probably 'wasted' your vote there as well.

I'm sure you can create quite an impressive list of all the organizations you didn't join. One can only wonder at your fortitude and determination at not doing something.
Sorry, you don't get a prize for doing nothing.

Really? No candidate you've ever vote for ever had a position on gun regulation?

Sometimes you answer your own question.

 

And yet statistics routinely show that you owning a gun to "defend" yourself and your family actually makes both you and your family more likely to suffer gun related violence. The defense argument does not hold up. If you own a gun and I don't, I'm safer than you are. You're twice as likely to be shot and three times as likely to shoot yourself. Guns. Do. Not. Make. You. Safer. Yes, I agree, you need to defend yourself and your family. Step one: get rid of your guns.

 

Why on earth would we get rid of semi-auto rifles but let people keep semi-auto handguns? This whole thing feels the exact same sort of misrepresentation. The majority of deaths are from handguns, so if this is about getting rid of something, getting rid of those would remove a lot more gun deaths.

Broadly, while background checks are about making someone that shouldn't get a gun can't, permits and licenses both add costs to access (which is going to have a disproportionate impact socioeconomically, which correlates with race), and permits can also reflect biases in who is able to get those if there's an element of discretion in may issue states.


And none of this goes to the broader discussion, which is actually discussing broader social issues. The broader discussion is not which specific gun they use, but why it is there is this violence. Those issues are social and economic, and can't just be dismissed. *THAT* is the broader discussion that needs to happen, and just trying to sacrifice AR-15s because you refuse to have that discussion isn't having the broader discussion.

The connection is well documented, for example Rogers and Pridemore 2013: "We found that nations with higher levels of social protection not only have lower rates of homicide, but also that the strength of the association between poverty and homicide in these nations is weaker. Therefore,while there are many more direct goals of social protection, one important indirect effect of providing greater social protection is a reduction in violent crime."
doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.12.005

 

If a gun owner does dumb things then yes, the gun can be dangerous to them. But, with some common sense and fairly easy routines you can make gun ownership very safe. So, you go ahead and defend your family with harsh language. . I will keep enjoying some shooting sports and stuff like that. I doubt I'd ever have to actually use a gun for defense but if it ever came down to it, its the best option, IMO.

 

You can't keep going on about really just having a gun for sport and doubting you'd ever need one for defense, and then pretending that not having a gun would be a risk to safety.

It just comes off as liking guns as a hobby and using 'self-defense' as a window dressing to avoid being inconvenienced, but not actually taking self-defense as a serious, let alone primary, driver.

 

It's because it rarely every comes down to the actual purpose behind the weapons. The biggest detractor to sensible gun ownership in the US is modern gun culture. It's never about having a weapon for a specific purpose or with a specific goal in-mind. Think of it like when everyone traded Pokémon cards as kids. No one ever actually played the card game: it was all just about having the coolest cards largely for bragging rights.

 

The thing is, I think for quite a few people, it *is* about that as a serious concern. That is not to say for all of them they have correctly assessed it, but I don't think they're just tossing it on there as an excuse the way I think quigonmike is. There's a sincerity gap (obviously, those that extend it to actually meaning defense against the government is a smaller share, and I think there's more people that toss gun ownership out as a way to push back against government and don't mean that).

 

You're right. Hell, I'm with Marx when he says the working class should never allow themselves to be disarmed. But guns as a category have become such a different beast than just as tools to serve a purpose. Even for gun owners who do just want a feeling of safety in their homes are inadvertently allowing themselves to be shafted into the whole gun ownership pipeline.

 

Yeah so with respect, these are contradictory statements. Firstly, there is empirical evidence that wholesale firearm restrictions will have a drastic and measurable effect in limiting mass shootings. Secondly, by specifically limiting or prohibiting classes of weapons that have been prolifically linked to mass shootings, you are taking proactive measurements that work.

You and people who share your views will contort themselves into every possible logical pretzel shape imaginable to avoid landing on a conclusion that says "we can see that mass shootings do not occur with anything close to a comparable frequency in countries where legislation limits access to firearms." It's why the bit John Oliver is so particularly funny; there's an infantile unwillingness to look at uncomfortable facts because, and there is literally no other reason behind it, "I want to keep my toys".

The NRA would be happy you've found your slogan for consuming product here. Marx also thought the working class was united and yet WWI showed that wasn't true. He also thought Jews were parasites, and had a habit of preying on his maids sexually, like a good oppressor. I would rarely suggest Marx's opinions are the basis for any good policy making, but I'm sure it's the CIA's fault his ideas are bad.

 

Yup, Marx was also a POS. But I assume it's easier for you to bring up his personal failings instead of actually talking about his theories, right?

 

So, additional information is now out on the school shooting in Tennessee. After statements like "Shooting at Knoxville, TN high school has several victims" and "you have the freedom to get shot at school" they're now reporting that the student didn't actually shoot anyone:
https://www.wbir.com/article/news/c...after/51-2ac6a6e7-0d8d-466f-ba7a-fa05c9cffddb

So, we have a student in a bathroom by themselves, that refused to come out, and apparently the solution was for officers to go in there, and at some point an officer shot the student, and the officer that was shot, by a process of elimination here, was shot by an officer. I believe, because of race, we're not supposed to say this, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this seems like a situation that falls into an issue with mental well-being on either a short or long term, as this wasn't just someone with a gun, but someone with a gun hiding in a bathroom. Maybe having someone that could talk to him would've been a nice place to start, especially when he can't really go anywhere, because this whole setup sounds like it could be a kid who was very comfortable with dying one way or the other.

 

But think of those poor cops who won't get to shoot anyone if there's all these social workers running around diffusing volatile situations non-violently?

 

Any time we want to point out where Marx is wrong on a theoretical level, I'm up for it, since people still for some reason think LTV is compelling in today's world.

But in this particular case it's an example of finding a way to be comfortable with the industry of firearm production and consumption. I've also seen a suggestion it stops minorities in America being oppressed. I don't what it is about guns that makes Americans so profoundly idiotic, but it's one topic in which all pro-gun people can put aside their political fashion and be uniformly quite stupid on.

 

See, I think I can see right through your posting style here. You've made some assertations and vague insults, but in neither of your posts have you actually made points backed up by, well, anything. Do you actually have the ability to make reasoned arguments, or have you just become so convinced of your own intelligence that you see no need to even try? I'd be more than happy to talk about the various countries that have directly benefitted through civil disobedience and an armed populace, but I really don't want to spend the time getting all my facts together if it'll just be your usual "hur dur dum muricans" schtick.

 

I mean, I think the answer's self-evident but I suppose I am assuming a basic awareness of the world.

The Legatum Institute ranks nations based on a number of factors that they aggregate into an overall prosperity score.

It should be of no surprise to anyone that 4 out of the top 5 nations are the ones that Gøsta Esping-Andersen ranks as social democracies. Here are the top 10 in aggregate order:

1. Denmark (0.264)
2. Norway (0.262)
3. Switzerland (0.299)
4. Sweden (0.275)
5. Finland (0.269)
6. Netherlands (0.285)
7. New Zealand (not provided)
8. Germany (0.289)
9. Luxembourg (0.318)
10. Austria (0.280)

These indices cover things like freedom of association and the press; transparency; faith in institutions; income and economic equality, and so on. I have also added their GINI coefficient score in brackets. A 0.00 is total income equality; 1.00 is total inequality. The US has a whopping 0.40 score.

Now, comparing that list above to countries with requirements to demonstrate need to own a firearm and to pass various checks and tests to obtain them, as well as to legally comply with storage requirements, every country bar Switzerland has full gun control. Switzerland has a partial permit system.

There's only one conclusion to draw from this - countries that govern well, in the interests of their citizens, enjoy both gun control; low crime; low inequality, and high trust in their civic institutions. Suggesting that civil disobedience or an armed population is beneficial is ridiculous and untenable. Every index supports gun control and a strong safety net as the top 10 above are mixture of three distinct types of democracy per Esping-Ansersen:

Social democracies: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland
Christian/conservative* democracies: Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria
Liberal democracies: Netherlands, New Zealand

(* we mean properly conservative here, not US conservative which is radical right per William F Buckley's intended paradigm shift)

And, since the US is a liberal democracy there's no excuse for failing on this front.

 

That may be so... if you only decide to look at things at a surface level. Sure, it could be that these countries are all just really great places with idyllic circumstances. Hell, they probably are good places to live. Or, for a moment, consider that maybe they are in this position through the exploitation of indigenous peoples? I mean, it's no coincidence that the majority of the countries you listed are in a similar geographic area, and most of them took part in a colonial empire with positions of privilege. They didn't have to fight for their independence, because they were the oppressors. Why would they need an armed populace when they already had all the power? Your view of this issue is not only very 21st century, but it's also very Eurocentric. It's a very similar line of thinking to racists who say "I earned everything I have" when their ancestors were plantation owners.

 

If this was the logic, shouldn't the list be dominated by the colonial empires? Spain, the UK, France are all absent.

Not to mention, several of these literally fought for their independence in the 20th century against foreign forces. There was a whole big thing about it.

 

I mean Finland literally repelled the imperialist Soviet Union but ssssh. Oh and the Swedish empire controlling those BIPOC Baltic States in the 17th century? SO MUCH WHITE SUPREMACIST RACISM!!1!

Not to mention NZ is probably the world's strongest practitioner of indigenous reconciliation...

I've seen butter in the summer sun hold together more firmly than Outsourced's argument.

 

I mean... it is. The Dutch Empire is present, New Zealand was a British colony that took huge amounts of land from the native Māori, Austria had its own huge empire before WWI and were in a very good position following WWII, etc. All of the countries have either benefitted directly from their positions geographically and societally. They also all remained small and ended up losing their empires in the 19th or 20th centuries. So you have a list of countries with:

1. Small landmasses
2. Small populations
3. Ties with world superpowers

Some of them, for a period of upwards of six years, and then they were all able to go back to basically business as usual except for Germany, which ended up doing pretty well for itself afterwards. When I talk about fighting against oppressors, I mean deep, long term, systemic and systematic oppression. Like when Indonesia won its independence after a four year war with the Dutch right after WWII.

Really don't think I'd be tooting that particular horn considering that Finland and Sweden are almost entirely ethnically homogenous countries with recent histories of racism, islamophobia, and antisemitism.

 

Wait, so Indonesia was a long term fight taking 4 years, but World War II, where countries were fighting longer than that, is not a long-term fight?

And again, if the argument is being the oppressor did it, then it should be the countries with the strongest empires on there.

 

Jesus it's /r/politics, right here on the JCC.

Yes, the modern Netherlands is entirely rich and liberal and diverse because it had the Dutch East India company. Little known fact, because it's not true - once Batavia was renamed Jakarta, the Netherlands went completely bankrupt; detatched itself physically from Europe, and went into exile for 5 years during which time it drifted over to see Antigua. When it came back it was still suspiciously hosting the rijstaffel, suggesting some sort of covert empire has been retained.

And of course, I've already discussed NZ.

But there's just a lot of nonsense here which suggests a lack of informed conviction and mostly just derivative platitudes forming the basis for an ideology. For example, calling Sweden "almost entirely ethnically homogenous"... I know this is rubbish, but to prove the point I went to Google and searched for "Demographics of Sweden":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden

Opening paragraph:

"The total resident population of Sweden was 10,377,781 in October 2020.[1] The population exceeded 10 million for the first time on Friday, 20 January 2017.[2][3] The three largest cities are Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. Sweden's population has become much more ethnically, religiously and linguistically diverse over the past 70 years as a result of immigration. Every fourth (24.9%) resident in the country has a foreign background and every third (32.3%) has at least one parent born abroad. The most common foreign ancestry is Finnish.[4]"

I hate to dip into the prequels, but ...

 

Ah yes, the far off lands of... Finland, which is almost 90% ethically Finnish and also on the list you posted. It's almost like white people who generally share the same beliefs are going to be more accepted than Muslims. Wild.

 

I know a lot of people like you, Outsourced, for whom their political convictions run as deep as a puddle and for whom ideology is a lot like wearing a Supreme t-shirt - it's a fashion statement designed to make you look a certain way, a favourable way, to others. It's therefore about saying platitudes, often derivative ones, to fit in. Your ideology is a lot like a Dan Brown novel, in other words. Flashy, pretentious, but with no real depth.

You have access to Google. This is not a question, it's a statement of fact evidenced by your posting here. This access makes your lazy, half-baked commentary even more indefensible. Not least of which because the US has taken less refugees in total than Sweden, despite significant population differences.

I'm seeing a magical synergy between your username and the calibre of American work that lead to the need to outsource in the first place too. A beautiful blue colar ouroborous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden#Contemporary_immigration

"Since the early 1970s, immigration to Sweden has been mostly due to refugee migration and family reunification from countries in the Middle East and Latin America.[35] According to Eurostat, in 2010, there were 1.33 million foreign-born residents in Sweden, corresponding to 14.3% of the total population. Of these, 859,000 (64.3%) were born outside the EU and 477,000 (35.7%) were born in another EU Member State.[36][37] By comparison, the Swedish civil registry reports, for 2018, that nearly 1.96 million residents are foreign-born, a 47% increase from 2010. There are 8.27 million Swedish-born residents, giving a total population of 10.23 million, and a 19.1% foreign-born population.[38]"

"There are no official statistics on ethnicity, but according to Statistics Sweden, around two million (19.6%) inhabitants in Sweden are born in another country. Of those, more than half are Swedish citizens. [20] The most common countries of origin were Syria (1.82%), Finland (1.45%), Iraq (1.41%), Poland (0.91%), Iran (0.76%) and Somalia (0.67%).[21] The average age in Sweden is 41.1 years"

here's the refugee demographic breakdown, 1984-2014:



Serbia and Montenegro: 118 669
Iraq: 98 211
Syria: 65 616
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 58 166
Somalia: 55 123
Iran: 50 571
Other countries: 134 479
Unknown: 43 350

Imagine being this ****ing obtuse just to pretend you're not another insecure nationalistic "patriot' like the right wing.

You're literally trying to downplay that successful states exist without LARP'ing about a revolution when there is no factual basis for this. I can't fathom what it must be like to be this much of an ideological casual.

Sit this one out. I'm starting to feel bad on your behalf.