2016 Election Thread

[drjim]

 

What the heck is realistic? I think that point is couched within the let's do nothing argument.

 

There's been plenty of plausible solutions that although wouldn't eradicate gun violence, would make it more difficult for potential mass-murderers from accruing an arsenal.   Any added difficulty potentially saves lives.

 

It's going to take a process - one legal and one cultural.  From background checks, to closing loop holes, to placing sensible restrictions on semi-automatics and magazine sizes, to restrictions on quantity as well.  And as you've suggested liability for the gun manufacturers.  There's also possible solutions through technology (like guns that can only be fired by the actual purchaser).

 

The only thing that keeps any of these solutions from being realistic is the recalcitrance of gun owners and their lobby. 

 

I'm sorry, all of those solutions you mentioned just won't do much. They would all be fine as far as I'm concerned, but I can understand why people are underwhelmed. The extreme gun violence is just such a small percent of gun violence victims. Not saying those victims don't mean anything, but there is a cost to a society with new laws - unintended consequences, increased black market, etc. Is that a good societal tradeoff? Might be, but I'm not as certain as I had been before.

 

And while many people here don't understand the desire to own guns, many, many, many people in this country do enjoy owning them. Expecting that to shift is not especially realistic and probably pretty insultingly elitist.

 

To me, the key to tackling gun deaths starts with domestic violence and suicides.

[Hrbowski]

 

Just as no amount of treatment is going to help an alcoholic until they identify the problem themselves, until the other half of the populace stops digging in their heels and recognizes this as an actual problem, no solution will ever be attainable.

 

Having lost most of my faith in humanity, I sincerely doubt we are capable of any real solution. However, background checks could be a step in the right direction if the right would stop squealing about them infringing their rights as free citizens of the United States. Rather than attempt to paint a beautiful picture like Ruben's "Allegory of Peace and War," I'll be real: nothing we can do will ever completely expunge crime and shootings from the face of the earth, but the main thing is we continue to do our best to move forward. If we came up with a solution that lowered the percentages by just a small number, made our country just a tiny bit safer to live in, I would count that down as a tiny step in the right direction.

Um, there are background checks, and in fact it was Ronald Reagan who was one of the biggest pushers for the Brady Bill, so you are jumping to conclusions without looking at the facts.

[drjim]

And I'm not even really a gun guy at all, and wouldn't shed a tear if extreme measures were taken of registration and buyback, but I'm just underwhelmed by these solutions.

[DaveW]

 

Um, there are background checks, and in fact it was Ronald Reagan who was one of the biggest pushers for the Brady Bill, so you are jumping to conclusions without looking at the facts.

Um, there is a huge loop hole called the gun show loop hole and numerous private sales of guns that skate around the background checks. So, basically, those don't work at all. If you are a felon you can easily buy a gun without getting a background check from a gun show or from some dude out of the trunk of his car and the seller can't get in any trouble.

 

Yes, Reagan, literally one GOP guy actually EVENTUALLY support some form of Gun Control. However like everything else when it came to Reagan it was 110% political, ah yes, Reagan, the man who loved American's so much that he actively worked against getting the Iranian hostage crisis American's released back to America some 90 days earlier...so that he could have the "win" when he had his inauguration.  Always kind of amazing how he didn't get more **** (or impeached) for that nonsense.

[DaveW]

 

 

And I'm not even really a gun guy at all, and wouldn't shed a tear if extreme measures were taken of registration and buyback, but I'm just underwhelmed by these solutions.

Things take time, if it decreases mass shootings 5% over 1 year, and 10% over 5 years that is a great start.

 

It took airlines a long time to become as safe as they are today, 30+ years of hard word, and lots of solutions/fixes. That's how we need to view gun control. Nothing is going to "fix" the problem tomorrow, but you gotta start somewhere, then ideally in 30-40 years the numbers can be cut by 50%+ overall.

[formerly33]

 

Um, there are background checks, and in fact it was Ronald Reagan who was one of the biggest pushers for the Brady Bill, so you are jumping to conclusions without looking at the facts.

You seem unaware of the "gun show loophole."

 

And I'm not sure what difference it makes if it was Ronald Reagan or John Doe as long as it happened. But that's not the point, is it?

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm sorry, all of those solutions you mentioned just won't do much. They would all be fine as far as I'm concerned, but I can understand why people are underwhelmed. 

1) You're not sorry. 2) Any amount that such measures are effective - HOWEVER MINIMAL - saves lives. 

 

If the time in between bullets, reloads and gun switches is increased it saves lives. 

If one gun does not get in the hands of someone who should not have them it saves lives.

 

The only reason you are (or anyone is) underwhelmed is because you're being intentionally obtuse about how important even the smallest difference makes.   We don't give up the good for the perfect.  We need not solve all gun violence in order to take measures that actually save lives.  

[TheLeviathan]

Yes the solutions are underwhelming because meaningful solutions aren't possible.

 

You're at one point complaining of unrealistic solutions and another complaining of too many non-meaningful ones.

 

The problem is that even rational solutions (like yours or waiting periods or intense background checks) are shot down instantly by one side. We have to beat the gun culture until rationality wins out. It is despicable and irrational to believe first graders should die so you can own an arsenal.

[Squirrel]

Um, there is a huge loop hole called the gun show loop hole and numerous private sales of guns that skate around the background checks. So, basically, those don't work at all. If you are a felon you can easily buy a gun without getting a background check from a gun show or from some dude out of the trunk of his car and the seller can't get in any trouble.

There's also the loophole of different states having different regulations. That's a huge problem in Chicago when a majority of guns involved in criminal activity comes from out of state.

[DaveW]

 

There's also the loophole of different states having different regulations. That's a huge problem in Chicago when a majority of guns involved in criminal activity comes from out of state.

Yup, appalling really.

[Hrbowski]

 

You seem unaware of the "gun show loophole."

 

And I'm not sure what difference it makes if it was Ronald Reagan or John Doe as long as it happened. But that's not the point, is it?

The gun show loophole supposedly doesn't exist anymore, but just a thought, how many of those guns, if possible, could be traced back to crime? Probably a very, very small amount.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The gun show loophole supposedly doesn't exist anymore, but just a thought, how many of those guns, if possible, could be traced back to crime? Probably a very, very small amount.

However small, it matters.  Quit trivializing small gains - when those gains are, you know, human lives.  It's a despicable argument that's being made here.

[Hrbowski]

 

There's also the loophole of different states having different regulations. That's a huge problem in Chicago when a majority of guns involved in criminal activity comes from out of state.

Which brings up a thought. Why don't we follow Trump's advice and build a wall along the border to prevent gun walking? Even though it isn't promoted by the government anymore, it still happens, with guns coming from Mexico to America and vice versa. Those guns are involved in crime a lot more than gun show's weapons.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Those guns are involved in crime a lot more than gun show's weapons.

Oh okay.  We'll take your word on that one.

[drjim]

 

1) You're not sorry. 2) Any amount that such measures are effective - HOWEVER MINIMAL - saves lives. 

 

If the time in between bullets, reloads and gun switches is increased it saves lives. 

If one gun does not get in the hands of someone who should not have them it saves lives.

 

The only reason you are (or anyone is) underwhelmed is because you're being intentionally obtuse about how important even the smallest difference makes.   We don't give up the good for the perfect.  We need not solve all gun violence in order to take measures that actually save lives.  

 

I'm not being obtuse, I'm thinking about the cost (beyond just financial) and the unintended consequences that will arise. I'm not sure it is wise to have the standard that anything that can save even a few lives is worth implementing without considering everything that comes from said policy.

 

I suppose I can live with an incremental approach, and there are certainly differences across states that result in differing outcomes. But I'm not convinced it is this clear (on these specific proposals).

[DaveW]

 

Those guns are involved in crime a lot more than gun show's weapons.

That's actually false.

 

Another false hood is "oh criminals just steal guns" when in fact only 10% of guns used in a crime were "stolen" the majority of which were either purchased legally, or in a straw sale.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not being obtuse, I'm thinking about the cost (beyond just financial) and the unintended consequences that will arise. I'm not sure it is wise to have the standard that anything that can save even a few lives is worth implementing without considering everything that comes from said policy.

 

I suppose I can live with an incremental approach, and there are certainly differences across states that result in differing outcomes. But I'm not convinced it is this clear (on these specific proposals).

You're right to be looking for real solutions.

 

But there is only one side, on this issue, stopping that. They are preventing anything meaningful from happening.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm not being obtuse, I'm thinking about the cost (beyond just financial) and the unintended consequences that will arise. I'm not sure it is wise to have the standard that anything that can save even a few lives is worth implementing without considering everything that comes from said policy.

 

I suppose I can live with an incremental approach, and there are certainly differences across states that result in differing outcomes. But I'm not convinced it is this clear (on these specific proposals).

What unintended consequences could possibly outweigh saving even one life? You're going to have to be specific if you're going to convince me of your sincerity here. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

You're right to be looking for real solutions.

I think the quest for "real" solutions is just another way of kicking the can down the road and doing nothing.  

 

There's real possibility that all we can do is approach the problem with incremental regulations/laws, and play the long game on shifting the gun culture.  That's probably all we got.  I'm certainly not holding my breath for an epiphany. 

[Squirrel]

 

Which brings up a thought. Why don't we follow Trump's advice and build a wall along the border to prevent gun walking? Even though it isn't promoted by the government anymore, it still happens, with guns coming from Mexico to America and vice versa. Those guns are involved in crime a lot more than gun show's weapons.

Yes, Illinois needs to erect a wall between us and Indiana and Missouri; yes, indeed! Brilliant!

[drjim]

 

You're right to be looking for real solutions.

But there is only one side, on this issue, stopping that. They are preventing anything meaningful from happening.

 

I agree that one side is stopping anything meaningful.

 

The problem might be that the side pushing for a solution is just not ambitious and/or strategic enough. The small things are easily pushed back against and can be stated to be a stalking horse for confiscation down the road (fairly or not). The current methods aren't working and continually repeating the same things in the hope that more people will finally get smart and see the light isn't going to work. (And as an aside, is probably the best explanation of why the Dems have gotten crushed in the past two midterms).

 

I would personally push the goalposts of demands much further, co-opt the law abiding language, and then allow the actual small things wanted now to seem like a reasonable compromise. Then after a couple of years, rinse and repeat, continually chipping away.

[formerly33]

 

The gun show loophole supposedly doesn't exist anymore, 

So much so that when Jeb Bush attempted to explain that "The so-called 'gun show loophole' ... doesn't exist," he ended up confusedly resorting to the confession that yes, it does exist, but it should because "people ought to have the right to [sell guns] without being impaired by the federal government." Which brings us right back around to the beginning.

 

The nonexistent aspect of the issue lies only in the fact that many guns offered at gun shows come from federally licensed dealers. However, a federal license isn't a prerequisite to selling guns at gun shows, and therein our problem remains pertinent.

[Craig Arko]

Yes, Illinois need to erect a wall between us and Indiana and Missouri; yes, indeed. Brilliant.

And shoot anybody trying to cross.

[Squirrel]

 

And shoot anybody trying to cross.

Well, those without the proper visas and/or passports.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think the quest for "real" solutions is just another way of kicking the can down the road and doing nothing.  

 

There's real possibility that all we can do is approach the problem with incremental regulations/laws, and play the long game on shifting the gun culture.  That's probably all we got.  I'm certainly not holding my breath for an epiphany. 

 

I think we have to keep in mind that many of the things thought achievable now, are rather inconsequential.  They may, however, be necessary on the way towards meaningful solutions.  As I said in the other thread, let's not fool ourselves that what we can do is all that impactful.  We won't start making a true impact until we defeat the gun culture, but to do that it may require putting a few chinks in the armor first.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree that one side is stopping anything meaningful.

 

The problem might be that the side pushing for a solution is just not ambitious and/or strategic enough. The small things are easily pushed back against and can be stated to be a stalking horse for confiscation down the road (fairly or not). The current methods aren't working and continually repeating the same things in the hope that more people will finally get smart and see the light isn't going to work. (And as an aside, is probably the best explanation of why the Dems have gotten crushed in the past two midterms).

 

I would personally push the goalposts of demands much further, co-opt the law abiding language, and then allow the actual small things wanted now to seem like a reasonable compromise. Then after a couple of years, rinse and repeat, continually chipping away.

 

Right, but when something that is too ambitious is stated, then you call it "unrealistic".  I know where I want to get to (lower the proliferation of guns) is pretty unrealistic today, but let's not kid ourselves that co-opting language or moving the goalposts will help.  A classroom full of 6 year olds got slaughtered and even the mere suggestion that maybe we might possibly pass some legislation to help curb gun violence and the NRA and it's lackeys were out in full force.

 

No, they've won the narrative for a long time.  They have people actually believing the 2nd amendment allows you to be the Punisher.  That (as Chi points out) it's the only freedom we have an unadulterated right to.  They have people foaming at the mouth to attack even the most trivial or meaningless legislation against guns for fear that it will be a slippery slope from there.

 

No, it continues to be my belief that we need to aggressively mock, ridicule, and systematically undercut that culture in the same way we did cigarettes so that in a generation or so we can flip the tables on them.  But right now we have people here that are basically saying "you can't make an omelet without a few broken eggs", where in this case those broken eggs are bullet-ridden 6 year olds.  And reject, out of hand, the idea of a background check for a gun equivalent to the one required to drive a car or work with the elderly.

 

In other words, what we're dealing with is nothing short of lunacy and obsession and it's going to take awhile to convince the next generation the other way.

[twinsnorth49]

This is where the sacrifice has to be made. If there were 10 of these mass school shootings a year I'd probably be willing to agree with you but something this rare as tragic as it is has to be put in the proper perspective. Just like auto accidents or plane crashes we have to weigh the good with the bad. Maybe you don't think the good amounts to as much as I think it does, but we could start banning a lot of things if we focus on the worst things that ever happen as a result.

I'm glad I live in a country where if 16 1st graders were shot to death the first priority would be to do everything possible to prevent it from ever happening again. If that means a whole lot of people are restricted in the number of firearms they can own, or the types of firearms they can purchase, then that's what would happen and that's what should happen.

 

I don't mean this as a slight but your view is exactly what the rest of the Western world sees as what's wrong with your country. Your sense of priorities and the sacrifices your willing to make in the name of some warped sense of freedom completely baffles me.

[DaveW]

Supreme Court justice Scalia passes away at 79, not a big fan, but I still give a lot of respect to anyone who has enough of a background to be a Supreme Court Judge.

 

This is going to be very interesting in terms of the election as well....

[Squirrel]

 

Supreme Court justice Scalia passes away at 79, not a big fan, but I still give a lot of respect to anyone who has enough of a background to be a Supreme Court Judge.

This is going to be very interesting in terms of the election as well....

I just posted a separate thread topic on this. Does Obama get a nomination through the Senate before the elections? If not ... yeah ... MAJOR election issue, as I've always said.

[DaveW]

I just posted a separate thread topic on this. Does Obama get a nomination through the Senate before the elections? If not ... yeah ... MAJOR election issue, as I've always said.

Depends on who he nominates: moderate? Maybe.

 

Liberal: no way.