U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

1101113151643

Comments

  • amyja89amyja89 Oxford, England
    309 days of 2017 so far, and 307 US mass shootings. I'm truly baffled.
  • "Now is not the time to discuss gun control"

    Excuse me, but ... MY ASS.  This is horrible, and we need to make some changes, because obviously the way things are now doesn't work.

    A two year old was killed today.  What is it going to take?
    20 kids died at Sandy Hook, no one did anything...this kid won't mean anything to the gun lobby.
  • "Now is not the time to discuss gun control"

    Excuse me, but ... MY ASS.  This is horrible, and we need to make some changes, because obviously the way things are now doesn't work.

    A two year old was killed today.  What is it going to take?
    20 kids died at Sandy Hook, no one did anything...this kid won't mean anything to the gun lobby.
    I know you're right ... that's why I'm so sad and angry about this.

    As The Onion so correctly put it: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.

     :'( 
    CretanBullBourbonQueen
  • White, ex military, Christian dude. 
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    edited November 2017
    I'd love to think there is a number of dead children that would be too many. Unfortunately it seems there is no price too high for many people when it comes to getting what they want and "winning" as long as someone else is paying.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Flukes said:
    I'd love to think there is a number of dead children that would be too many. Unfortunately it seems there is no price too high for many people when it comes to getting what they want and "winning" as long as someone else is paying.
    Well it doesn't help when your argument is "anyone who disagrees with anything I want wants dead children" that will kill any rational discussion pretty quickly. 
    Brawn
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    Flukes said:
    I'd love to think there is a number of dead children that would be too many. Unfortunately it seems there is no price too high for many people when it comes to getting what they want and "winning" as long as someone else is paying.
    Well it doesn't help when your argument is "anyone who disagrees with anything I want wants dead children" that will kill any rational discussion pretty quickly. 
    Perhaps not as fast as stating the only thing that would change your support for Trump and the GOP is if you didn't get what you want.
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    edited November 2017
    Flukes said:
    I'd love to think there is a number of dead children that would be too many. Unfortunately it seems there is no price too high for many people when it comes to getting what they want and "winning" as long as someone else is paying.
    Well it doesn't help when your argument is "anyone who disagrees with anything I want wants dead children" that will kill any rational discussion pretty quickly. 
    And by all means, put a number on how many would be too many.

    You can pretend this is what I meant all you want if it fuels some bizarre persecution complex.
  • "Now is not the time to discuss gun control"

    Excuse me, but ... MY ASS.  This is horrible, and we need to make some changes, because obviously the way things are now doesn't work.

    A two year old was killed today.  What is it going to take?
    20 kids died at Sandy Hook, no one did anything...this kid won't mean anything to the gun lobby.
    Sandyhook, heck even having their own fellow congressmen/women shot at dosent change things. If you get shot at (and some actually shot) and that dosent change your viewpoint, nothing will. While I do think we need stricter gun control, including tracking of sold weapons (keeping databases) and stricter laws on whom can buy guns (if you have been convicted of a violent crime/felony it should be more difficult, as well as if you have been or currently are being treated for a mental disorder). The biggest issue is that many of these guns have already been sold, so it would be getting current gun owners behind these new laws/regulations. Most of the people I know, don’t want to take away guns, but rather get a better tracking system and better regulation of what type (assault rifles are a touchy point) and make it “more difficult” to get the guns. If you’re willing to go through the system you can have the guns, but if we had a system that linked these guns to owners and we started charging irresponsible sellers/owners with the crimes their weapons cause (if negligence can be proven) then maybe we would start seeing some turnaround. 
    gguenotApril_May_JuneFlukesPhoebes89CretanBullDaveyMac
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Mass shootings don't make me feel anything anymore, except perhaps wonder that I don't feel anything. In time that'll go too...
    gguenot
  • The GOP wants the US to be Afghanistan . . . all citizens armed to the teeth, and political power in the hands of the theocrats (Christians).
    BourbonQueenCretanBull
  • KingKobra said:
    "Now is not the time to discuss gun control"

    Excuse me, but ... MY ASS.  This is horrible, and we need to make some changes, because obviously the way things are now doesn't work.

    A two year old was killed today.  What is it going to take?
    20 kids died at Sandy Hook, no one did anything...this kid won't mean anything to the gun lobby.
    Sandyhook, heck even having their own fellow congressmen/women shot at dosent change things. If you get shot at (and some actually shot) and that dosent change your viewpoint, nothing will. While I do think we need stricter gun control, including tracking of sold weapons (keeping databases) and stricter laws on whom can buy guns (if you have been convicted of a violent crime/felony it should be more difficult, as well as if you have been or currently are being treated for a mental disorder). The biggest issue is that many of these guns have already been sold, so it would be getting current gun owners behind these new laws/regulations. Most of the people I know, don’t want to take away guns, but rather get a better tracking system and better regulation of what type (assault rifles are a touchy point) and make it “more difficult” to get the guns. If you’re willing to go through the system you can have the guns, but if we had a system that linked these guns to owners and we started charging irresponsible sellers/owners with the crimes their weapons cause (if negligence can be proven) then maybe we would start seeing some turnaround. 

    Yep.  I'm not advocating an outright gun ban, but ... it seems to me that some common sense restrictions would be good.
    I mean, the guy who committed the Pulse shooting was on the FBI watchlist, and had been interviewed by them several times for crying out loud.  Someone like that shouldn't have been able to just go buy a gun.  I don't think that's too outrageous a line of thinking considering what we've been dealing with.

    This isn't a matter of "anyone who doesn't agree with what I want wants dead children" - that's just not true.  It's a matter of people (of all ages) are dieing and nothing is being done about it.  It's a matter of people should be able to go to church, or to the movies, or to a concert, or a freaking WalMart safely.

    I mean, they haven't even been able to come up with an 'official story' about what happened last month in Las Vegas, now this happens.  I'm concerned and upset at how normalized these shootings have become.  Something has to be done, because none of this is ok.
    Flukes
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    gguenot said:
    White, ex military, Christian dude. 
    So “lone wolf with mental health issues”. 
    gguenotPhoebes89GredalBeeBourbonQueenCretanBullcdrive
  • Dee said:
    gguenot said:
    White, ex military, Christian dude. 
    So “lone wolf with mental health issues”. 
    The real story is that he was a really nice guy
    Dee
  • I support licensing of firearms like we do with automobiles. If you sell it, the sale has to be registered. If you sell it without recording the sale, then some blowback happens to you if something goes wrong. Importantly gives us the data on folks who decide to rapidly accumulate firearms, and to check with people who may accumulate new violent convictions or mental illness diagnoses.

    I know gun rights folks are allergic to databases, but data can help us to look for solutions here and there isn’t really a rational argument against them.
    KingKobragguenotApril_May_June
  • There's no question the US would be a much safer without guns all over the place.
    gguenotCretanBullApril_May_June
  • From Canada's version of The Onion...it says it all really...

    https://www.thebeaverton.com/2015/10/mass-shooting-in-usa-kills/

    gguenot
  • From Canada's version of The Onion...it says it all really...

    https://www.thebeaverton.com/2015/10/mass-shooting-in-usa-kills/

    Yep.    :(
    A very sad, but true assessment of the situation here.
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    "Mass shooting " is a deceiving term though.  I believe if more than 2 people are shot it is called a mass shooting, which is kind of ridiculous.  

    We definitely need stricter gun laws.  I shouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and walk out an hour later with an AR.  I think the background checks need to be much more in-depth and there needs to be a lot more to rule someone out from owning a gun.

    Additionally, we need to make licensing systems so that you have to undergo an educational course in order to obtain a license.  People only get upset when a "mass shooting" occurs, but don't care that hundreds of kids die each year because their parents didn't secure their gun.

    The problem is the left wants to make everyone think that anyone can buy an automatic weapon (you can't) and that certain types of weapons are far more dangerous than others.  Meanwhile, the right wants to cry about the constitution and say that everyone in America should own a gun.  Middle ground is the answer yet our politicians can't reach it on anything. 
  • ^ 4 or more people
    Thomas
  • Can someone validate - ive heard Japan had one gun death during a recent year.
  • Japan's Police Hunt For Things To Do . It was in 2015, apparently.
  • tom_g said:
    Can someone validate - ive heard Japan had one gun death during a recent year.
    Crime in general is low in Japan and violent crime is extremely low (I think at or near lowest in the world).
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited November 2017
    Thomas said:
    "Mass shooting " is a deceiving term though.  I believe if more than 2 people are shot it is called a mass shooting, which is kind of ridiculous.  

    We definitely need stricter gun laws.  I shouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and walk out an hour later with an AR.  I think the background checks need to be much more in-depth and there needs to be a lot more to rule someone out from owning a gun.

    Additionally, we need to make licensing systems so that you have to undergo an educational course in order to obtain a license.  People only get upset when a "mass shooting" occurs, but don't care that hundreds of kids die each year because their parents didn't secure their gun.

    The problem is the left wants to make everyone think that anyone can buy an automatic weapon (you can't) and that certain types of weapons are far more dangerous than others.  Meanwhile, the right wants to cry about the constitution and say that everyone in America should own a gun.  Middle ground is the answer yet our politicians can't reach it on anything. 
    I get upset about that.

    My wife is a pediatrician and part of her "standard script" is to ask if there are any guns in the house, and if there are to make sure they are properly secured. A lot of people get kind of pissy or defensive with her when she asks them ... like if their guns are indeed properly stored and safe from the kids, why are they being such an a-hole about it? And if she reminds just one person to make a change in how they secure their guns, it's worth it. She doesn't give a shit if they own a gun or not, she just doesn't want their kid to accidentally shoot themselves in the face. It's not like people get testy when she asks about other things that are possibly hazardous to a kids health. I think it has to do with the constant "us vs. them" message that the NRA and conservative politicians have been pushing, even though no politicians on the other side are really pushing a "confiscate all guns" agenda. 
    KingKobraCretanBullgguenotPhoebes89DaveyMacThomas
  • Thomas said:
    ...
    The problem is the left wants to make everyone think that anyone can buy an automatic weapon (you can't) and that certain types of weapons are far more dangerous than others...
    Right, because Congress did the responsible thing and passed a law banning bump-stocks after ‘Vegas...

    Oh wait, of course they didn’t so everyone can essentially buy an automatic weapon.
    Phoebes89
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    LordBy said:
    Thomas said:
    ...
    The problem is the left wants to make everyone think that anyone can buy an automatic weapon (you can't) and that certain types of weapons are far more dangerous than others...
    Right, because Congress did the responsible thing and passed a law banning bump-stocks after ‘Vegas...

    Oh wait, of course they didn’t so everyone can essentially buy an automatic weapon.
    They did the responsible thing and chose not to do so. "responsibility" as a concept has nothing to do with passing legislation 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited November 2017
    Thomas said:
    "Mass shooting " is a deceiving term though.  I believe if more than 2 people are shot it is called a mass shooting, which is kind of ridiculous.  

    We definitely need stricter gun laws.  I shouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and walk out an hour later with an AR.  I think the background checks need to be much more in-depth and there needs to be a lot more to rule someone out from owning a gun.

    Additionally, we need to make licensing systems so that you have to undergo an educational course in order to obtain a license.  People only get upset when a "mass shooting" occurs, but don't care that hundreds of kids die each year because their parents didn't secure their gun.

    The problem is the left wants to make everyone think that anyone can buy an automatic weapon (you can't) and that certain types of weapons are far more dangerous than others.  Meanwhile, the right wants to cry about the constitution and say that everyone in America should own a gun.  Middle ground is the answer yet our politicians can't reach it on anything. 
    like what? 

    how long should it take to purchase a gun? if you're legally able to buy one it should be an instant process. 

    "middle ground is not the answer" passing new laws simply moves the middle ground closer to a why don't you tell me one compromise anti-gun folks have made legislatively that they have honored. Or any compromise legislation offered period. their view of "compromise" is "well we can't ban guns today so we'll take a registry and do it later" I'll bet if senate democrats agreed to nationwide concealed carry the bumpstock ban would've passed unanimously, THAT would be compromise, they're not into compromising towards a middle ground. 

    Brawn
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    Thomas said:

    The problem is the left wants to make everyone think that anyone can buy an automatic weapon (you can't) and that certain types of weapons are far more dangerous than others.  Meanwhile, the right wants to cry about the constitution and say that everyone in America should own a gun.  Middle ground is the answer yet our politicians can't reach it on anything. 
    Is your position that certain types of weapons are not more dangerous than others? If so I'm interested to know your reasons and why believing some weapons are more dangerous than others is a problem.
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    Thomas said:
    "Mass shooting " is a deceiving term though.  I believe if more than 2 people are shot it is called a mass shooting, which is kind of ridiculous.  

    We definitely need stricter gun laws.  I shouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and walk out an hour later with an AR.  I think the background checks need to be much more in-depth and there needs to be a lot more to rule someone out from owning a gun.

    Additionally, we need to make licensing systems so that you have to undergo an educational course in order to obtain a license.  People only get upset when a "mass shooting" occurs, but don't care that hundreds of kids die each year because their parents didn't secure their gun.

    The problem is the left wants to make everyone think that anyone can buy an automatic weapon (you can't) and that certain types of weapons are far more dangerous than others.  Meanwhile, the right wants to cry about the constitution and say that everyone in America should own a gun.  Middle ground is the answer yet our politicians can't reach it on anything. 
    like what? 

    how long should it take to purchase a gun? if you're legally able to buy one it should be an instant process. 

    "middle ground is not the answer" passing new laws simply moves the middle ground closer to a why don't you tell me one compromise anti-gun folks have made legislatively that they have honored. Or any compromise legislation offered period. their view of "compromise" is "well we can't ban guns today so we'll take a registry and do it later" I'll bet if senate democrats agreed to nationwide concealed carry the bumpstock ban would've passed unanimously, THAT would be compromise, they're not into compromising towards a middle ground. 

    Is your position that gun violence is not a problem that needs to be solved or just that the government has no standing when it comes to solving it?

     If the whole idea is to democratize force so that every citizen is solely responsible for their own safety (and those they choose to protect) I can see the logic, but I wouldn't want to live in that society. 

    It appears you're only interested in a compromise you can "win". A small concession that's widely popular (bump stock ban) in exchange for a massive change in public policy in line with your own personal interest? Suddenly states' rights and reducing the reach of government don't matter any more if what's imposed is something you want?
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited November 2017
    Thomas said:
    "Mass shooting " is a deceiving term though.  I believe if more than 2 people are shot it is called a mass shooting, which is kind of ridiculous.  

    We definitely need stricter gun laws.  I shouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and walk out an hour later with an AR.  I think the background checks need to be much more in-depth and there needs to be a lot more to rule someone out from owning a gun.

    Additionally, we need to make licensing systems so that you have to undergo an educational course in order to obtain a license.  People only get upset when a "mass shooting" occurs, but don't care that hundreds of kids die each year because their parents didn't secure their gun.

    The problem is the left wants to make everyone think that anyone can buy an automatic weapon (you can't) and that certain types of weapons are far more dangerous than others.  Meanwhile, the right wants to cry about the constitution and say that everyone in America should own a gun.  Middle ground is the answer yet our politicians can't reach it on anything. 
    like what? 

    how long should it take to purchase a gun? if you're legally able to buy one it should be an instant process. 

    "middle ground is not the answer" passing new laws simply moves the middle ground closer to a why don't you tell me one compromise anti-gun folks have made legislatively that they have honored. Or any compromise legislation offered period. their view of "compromise" is "well we can't ban guns today so we'll take a registry and do it later" I'll bet if senate democrats agreed to nationwide concealed carry the bumpstock ban would've passed unanimously, THAT would be compromise, they're not into compromising towards a middle ground. 

    This guy assaulted his wife and kid, that should be a big fat red flag that pops up anytime he tried to buy a gun. Clearly it wasn't for some reason. I honestly don't give a flying fuck whether it gets fixed through legislation or through a comprehensive overhaul of the background check system within the bounds of current legislation, but the fact is this guy shouldn't have been able to legally purchase a gun and he did, multiple times. Something is broken and it needs fixing NOW.

    We need a comprehensive database that anyone who sells guns has easy access to, and it needs be such that if you type in the name/social/whatever of a guy who beat his wife, he is instantly denied. No waiting period, not potential for data not getting transferred from one database to another, no excuse. It would even have the benefit of having instant approval if you clear the background check.

    They can tick up their proposed corporate tax rate 1% to pay for it for all I care, just get it done.
    FlukesPhoebes89CretanBull
This discussion has been closed.