Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (2 Viewers)

[barfo]

Obviously not. The data is incredibly clear in the case of cigarettes, as well as COVID. Both of which kill far more than guns in the US, and at FAR higher rates, without any utility at all.

Well, the post-sex cigarette has some utility.

And covid did marginally reduce the percentage of idiots in the country.

That kind of consistent and reliable supporting evidence simply does not exist in the gun debate. Nore do the incentives for lawmakers and the wealthy align the same way.

I think the tobacco lobby and the gun lobby are pretty similar(ly evil), actually.

Regarding seat belts, it's incredibly clear that you should not be allowed to drive with an unsecured load. If you are in an accident, or even break quickly, your unsecured becomes a projectile. You, without a seatbelt, become a threat to those around you.

Sure, that's incredibly clear now, 60 years after they became law. Before that time, I'm quite sure there were people arguing passionately that seat belts could never work, that they weren't the solution, driver education was the solution, etc.

We have already seen. We have more gun control than at any time in our history and those restrictions haven't prevented violent crime rates or gun crime from increasing. It's very clearly ineffective.

It's like drinking a thimbleful of light beer and declaring 'well, I guess alcohol has no effect on me!' We have very, very few gun restrictions in this country, certainly not enough to prove that more gun control won't work.

To my knowledge there is no mechanism with which we can realistically restrict access to guns nationwide more strongly than they are currently, at least not within the next few decades. In fact, it appears there is a better than even chance that those restrictions will be found unconstitutional by the supreme court.

By what mechanism do you think greater national restrictions can happen?

Public opinion. When enough of the population is tired of the status quo, and starts voting that way. Yes, it might take a while. But things move gradually, then suddenly. Even I might live to see it. You surely will.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I think the tobacco lobby and the gun lobby are pretty similar(ly evil), actually.

Doesn't really matter. The gun lobby isn't the strength behind the push against gun restrictions. There isn't much money going toward it at all. Less than $15million per year.

The strength of those opposed to gun control would be the constitution and culture. There is no such thing for cigarettes.

Sure, that's incredibly clear now, 60 years after they became law. Before that time, I'm quite sure there were people arguing passionately that seat belts could never work, that they weren't the solution, driver education was the solution, etc.

Lol, no there were no large public fights against the government mandating new cars include seatbelts. There is a reason Volvo gave away the right to the patent on the 3 point harness.

It was very clearly needed.

It's like drinking a thimbleful of light beer and declaring 'well, I guess alcohol has no effect on me!' We have very, very few gun restrictions in this country, certainly not enough to prove that more gun control won't work.

Disagree. Oregon has required background checks on every gun sale for nearly a decade. Including private party sales.

Violent crime and murder rates, including gun crime have skyrocketed in that time.

So much for the argument for universal background checks...

Public opinion. When enough of the population is tired of the status quo, and starts voting that way. Yes, it might take a while. But things move gradually, then suddenly. Even I might live to see it. You surely will.

barfo

There are 3 mechanisms to get this done (change the 2nd Amendment). Two of them would require around 20 of the 37 states who support permitless open carry (many if which have loosened their gun control laws recently) to change their position 180 degrees.

And the other way would require the supreme court to change it's position 180 degrees, and the supreme court is likely going to be conservative controlled for longer than a couple decades.

I sincerely hope we've made significant gains in access to education and healthcare long before that.

 

[barfo]

Doesn't really matter. The gun lobby isn't the strength behind the push against gun restrictions. There isn't much money going toward it at all. Less than $15million per year.

You can buy a vote for much less than $15M, as has been proven over and over. And of course that's just the official total, there's no telling how much dark money is applied to the cause.

Lol, no there were no large public fights against the government mandating new cars include seatbelts. There is a reason Volvo gave away the right to the patent on the 3 point harness.

It was very clearly needed.

That doesn't mean everyone accepted that as true. Maybe you weren't around at the time, but there was actually quite a bit of resistance to wearing seat belts from the 'personal freedom' crowd, and it took many years to wear them down.

Disagree. Oregon has required background checks on every gun sale for nearly a decade. Including private party sales.

Violent crime and murder rates, including gun crime have skyrocketed in that time.

So much for the argument for universal background checks...

Right, that isn't nearly enough.

There are 3 mechanisms to get this done (change the 2nd Amendment). Two of them would require around 20 of the 37 states who support permitless open carry (many if which have loosened their gun control laws recently) to change their position 180 degrees.

And the other way would require the supreme court to change it's position 180 degrees, and the supreme court is likely going to be conservative controlled for longer than a couple decades.

I sincerely hope we've made significant gains in access to education and healthcare long before that.

We both sincerely hope that, but the barriers to doing that are at least as high as the barriers that you believe are insurmountable for gun control.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

You can buy a vote for much less than $15M, as has been proven over and over. And of course that's just the official total, there's no telling how much dark money is applied to the cause.

Right, but firearms lobbying doesn't even register. I understand you truly want firearms to be this huge horrible lobby, and I'm sure they would be if the NRA could muster it. But it's not. There is no massive corporate will to protect the firearms industry. It doesn't even register. There are probably over 100 businesses you've never heard of in Oregon alone that could each outspend the firearm lobby.

Leading lobbying industries in the United States in 2022, by total lobbying spending

That doesn't mean everyone accepted that as true. Maybe you weren't around at the time, but there was actually quite a bit of resistance to wearing seat belts from the 'personal freedom' crowd, and it took many years to wear them down.

Yes, you heard a lot of people complain about having to buckle up or getting a ticket for not buckling up. This is not close to the same. There was no constitutional protection for refusing to buckle up. There was no financial hardship placed on people in order to buckle up, and there was no downside to buckling up.

Right, that isn't nearly enough.

Exactly my point. You'd have to virtually outlaw guns in the USA. And that's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

Not to mention, this would require greater restrictions than even Europe has, because there are already so many guns available and guns can last hundreds of years when taken care of.

We both sincerely hope that, but the barriers to doing that are at least as high as the barriers that you believe are insurmountable for gun control.

barfo

Not even close. All we have to do is fund education and healthcare. And we can literally print the money to do it. Actually, it's even easier than that. We don't even need to physically print it.

Funny thing is, we'll actually save money by doing so, and the better educated will actually pay more into taxes. There is literally no down side, except insurance middle men will have to find more productive jobs (and if you've looked at our demographics, you'll know this would be a huge benefit as our workforce is going to be hurting for the next 20-40 years).

Everybody wants their kids to have a better education and access to healthcare when they need/want it. All we have to do is make it available. So much simpler than getting conservatives on board to restrict guns as much as you admit above will have be done to make any impact at all.

 

[barfo]

Not even close. All we have to do is fund education and healthcare. And we can literally print the money to do it. Actually, it's even easier than that. We don't even need to physically print it.

Funny thing is, we'll actually save money by doing so, and the better educated will actually pay more into taxes. There is literally no down side, except insurance middle men will have to find more productive jobs (and if you've looked at our demographics, you'll know this would be a huge benefit as our workforce is going to be hurting for the next 20-40 years).

Everybody wants their kids to have a better education and access to healthcare when they need/want it. All we have to do is make it available. So much simpler than getting conservatives on board to restrict guns as much as you admit above will have be done to make any impact at all.

Oookay. So if it's so simple, why isn't it already done? And why are there essentially zero chances of it getting done anytime soon?

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Oookay. So if it's so simple, why isn't it already done? And why are there essentially zero chances of it getting done anytime soon?

barfo

My contention has been it's because we've allowed ourselves to be distracted by red herrings like gun control, border control, religious and cultural differences, etc.

We're not focusing on the important things which we could actually institute with what amounts to a wave of a hand comparatively (of course, we'll have to make sure there is a direction and a coherent plan, but that's any policy).

If we educate and care for our population we don't have to worry about treating them like children. People will generally take care of their own business if we allow them to do so.

People who prove they can't do that can be restricted by law. But in general, a policy of empowering the population and protecting them from the abuse of corporations (gangs) will solve nearly all of our problems, or at least improve them over what we have now.

 

[barfo]

My contention has been it's because we've allowed ourselves to be distracted by red herrings like gun control, border control, religious and cultural differences, etc.

We're not focusing on the important things which we could actually institute with what amounts to a wave of a hand comparatively (of course, we'll have to make sure there is a direction and a coherent plan, but that's any policy).

If we educate and care for our population we don't have to worry about treating them children. People will generally take care of their own business if we allow them to do so.

People who prove they can't do that can be restricted by law. But in general, a policy of empowering the population and protecting them from the abuse of corporations will solve nearly all of our problems, or at least improve them over what we have now.

So basically, there isn't the political will to do what you want. Which is the same situation as with gun control, also. Given the political will, either can be done. Without it, neither will ever happen.

barfo

 

[Chris Craig]

So basically, there isn't the political will to do what you want. Which is the same situation as with gun control, also. Given the political will, either can be done. Without it, neither will ever happen.

barfo

Exactly. It's willingness. So, something can be done. Unfortunately, reelection and money are more important to republicans in the Congress and Senate.

 

[Phatguysrule]

So basically, there isn't the political will to do what you want. Which is the same situation as with gun control, also. Given the political will, either can be done. Without it, neither will ever happen.

barfo

People are being deliberately manipulated into focusing on unimportant red herrings in order to distract them from the changes that could be most easily implemented and would do the most good.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Exactly. It's willingness. So, something can be done. Unfortunately, reelection and money are more important to republicans in the Congress and Senate.

One direction is just will. It has fewer barriers than the other, and that one happens to help the general population more by clawing back power that has been taken by the elites (this is the only barrier).

The other option restricts the general population more by giving more power to the elites, which would require half of the country to agree to change their position 180 degrees and give up rights they have cherished for generations.

That option also requires a constitutional amendment. Which is incredible difficult and requires 3/4 of states to support it.

Or requires that we overturn half a dozen supreme court rulings on the individual right to firearms.

One is a far easier sell than the other.

Do you want free services that will help every person in your family, or do you want to become a criminal?

 

[barfo]

One direction is just will. It has fewer barriers than the other, and that one happens to help the general population more by clawing back power that has been taken by the elites (this is the only barrier).

The other option restricts the general population more by giving more power to the elites, which would require half of the country to agree to change their position 180 degrees and give up rights the have cherished for generations.

One is a far easier sell than the other.

Do you want free services that will help every person in your family, or do you want to become a criminal?

Doesn't matter what you and I want. Matters what the voters at large want. Right now they want lots and lots of guns and shitty healthcare.
You say one is an easier sell than the other, but I don't see any evidence for that actually being true.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[Chris Craig]

Marge trying to spin it again. I'm sure that's a gang tattoo there on his chest too.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Doesn't matter what you and I want. Matters what the voters at large want. Right now they want lots and lots of guns and shitty healthcare.
You say one is an easier sell than the other, but I don't see any evidence for that actually being true.

barfo

Except, it's not Just a sales job both ways. It's just a sales job on education and healthcare

For the kind of gun control you're talking about it is a TOUGH sales job (good luck convincing the Trumpers), as well as a nearly impossible constitutional amendment process. As well as a nearly impossible and infinitely expensive physical removal and exchange process that will result in our prison population likely quadrupling.

We have literally never seen any restriction (like this would require) work on anything close to a similar scale.

It's just such a monumental undertaking and has historically shown to be such an absolutely inefficient and ineffective solution... This is literally like trying to put the cat back in the bag. Or trying to close Pandoras box. It's already too late. The guns are already here, and they will be here for at least a hundred years.

Another angle is how much money the cartels stand to make on gun running. The black market will absolutely explode with fully automatic assault rifles (they are far easier to make than semi auto, and if you have to break the law anyway... )

It'll be insane.

 

[barfo]

No, it's not Just a sales job both ways. It's just a sales job on education and healthcare

For the kind of gun control you're talking about it is a TOUGH sales job (good luck convincing the Trumpers)

Hmm, yes, Trumpers are SO much more enthusiastic about improving education and healthcare.

, as well as a nearly impossible constitutional amendment process. As well as a nearly impossible and infinitely expensive physical removal and exchange process that will result in our prison population likely quadrupling.

It's only impossible because people don't want currently overwhelmingly want it. Same as healthcare and education.
The constitution is not impossible to amend - you just have to have agreement it's necessary.
Or, you don't have to amend it, you just need the supreme court to reverse their corrupt ruling that 'well-regulated militia' has no meaning whatsoever.
But then I guess the supreme court never reverses rulings from the past...

We have literally never seen any restriction (like this would require) work on anything close to a similar scale.

It's just such a monumental undertaking and has historically shown to be such an absolutely inefficient and ineffective solution... This is literally like trying to put the cat back in the bag. Or trying to close Pandoras box. It's already too late. The guns are already here, and they will be here for at least a hundred years.

Another angle is how much money the cartels stand to make on gun running. The black market will absolutely explode with fully automatic assault rifles.

It'll be insane.

Somewhere there is a Spock-with-a-beard Phatguysrule that is arguing that universal healthcare can never work, that it's such a monumental undertaking to change the current system, that there are millions of people and thousands of companies who feed off the current system and would resist changes with a 'from my cold dead hands' fervor.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Hmm, yes, Trumpers are SO much more enthusiastic about improving education and healthcare.

The affordable care act is popular with Trumpers until you call it Obamacare. This has been shown over and over.

They are for it, they just don't know they are.

It's only impossible because people don't want currently overwhelmingly want it. Same as healthcare and education.
The constitution is not impossible to amend - you just have to have agreement it's necessary.
Or, you don't have to amend it, you just need the supreme court to reverse their corrupt ruling that 'well-regulated militia' has no meaning whatsoever.
But then I guess the supreme court never reverses rulings from the past...

Yes, and in 40 years when we get a democratic majority they might be corrupt enough to throw out the prior 3 or 4 supreme court rulings on the 2nd amendment. Not likely though.

They will probably roll back the last one, but that's about it.

There is no interpretation of well regulated militia that will override "shall not be infringed".

And in order to get the change you've already conceded would be required, it would have to.

Somewhere there is a Spock-with-a-beard Phatguysrule that is arguing that universal healthcare can never work, that it's such a monumental undertaking to change the current system, that there are millions of people and thousands of companies who feed off the current system and would resist changes with a 'from my cold dead hands' fervor.

barfo

That may be, but you're trying to compare a couple million healthcare workers (who could go get jobs in education or in the trades) to 72 million gun owners.

These things are not on the same scale.

 

[riverman]

The affordable care act is popular with Trumpers until you call it Obamacare. This has been shown over and over.

They are for it, they just don't know they are.


Yes, and in 40 years when we get a democratic majority they might be corrupt enough to throw out the prior 3 or 4 supreme court rulings on the 2nd amendment. Not likely though.

They will probably roll back the last one, but that's about it.

There is no interpretation of well regulated militia that will override "shall not be infringed".

And in order to get the change you've already conceded would be required, it would have to.



That may be, but you're trying to compare a couple million healthcare workers (who could go get jobs in education or in the trades) to 72 million gun owners. It's an enormous industry.

These things are not on the same scale.

you're grossly underestimating the amount of people who work in health care....and the amount of caregivers and insurance agents and nurses, radiologists, dentists, trainers, specialists of all sorts of fields including pschologists.. etc there are out there..if you're going to complain about comparisons...please try not to exaggerate on that level. The economy generated by health care workers is substantial and found in every small town in the country.
A quick search on the census site says that in the medical field there are 9.8 million workers...those are the specialists, not the venders, laundry services, ambulance drivers, custodians, etc..

 

[Phatguysrule]

you're grossly underestimating the amount of people who work in health care....and the amount of caregivers and insurance agents and nurses, radiologists, dentists, trainers, specialists of all sorts of fields including pschologists.. etc there are out there..if you're going to complain about comparisons...please try not to exaggerate on that level. The economy generated by health care workers is substantial and found in every small town in the country.
A quick search on the census site says that in the medical field there are 9.8 million workers...those are the specialists, not the venders, laundry services, ambulance drivers, custodians, etc..

All of those people in healthcare would still be needed. In fact, we'd need more, as more people would be getting care. The two million who would need to find another industry are just the middle men and women who wouldn't be needed and don't have the education or expertise to actually treat patients.

 

[riverman]

All of those people in healthcare would still be needed. In fact, we'd need more, as more people would be getting care. The two million who would need to find another industry are just the middle men and women who wouldn't be needed and don't have the education or expertise to actually treat patients.

caregivers for disabled people don't treat them...they transfer them, feed them, bathe them etc....they are in huge demand because it's hard work and they do get training in transfers, etc...but they are not doctors or nurses in many cases

 

[Phatguysrule]

caregivers for disabled people don't treat them...they transfer them, feed them, bathe them etc....they are in huge demand because it's hard work and they do get training in transfers, etc...but they are not doctors or nurses in many cases

Yep. We'd still need them. I just don't think many insurance sales people or insurance adjusters, or medical billers would be interested in being caregivers.

But hey, if they are interested in doing that, even better.

 

[barfo]

That may be, but you're trying to compare a couple million healthcare workers (who could go get jobs in education or in the trades) to 72 million gun owners.

These things are not on the same scale.

Yes, but not in the way you meant it. Try telling millions of people they need to go get jobs in another field and get back to me about how receptive they are to the idea.

Gun owners are obviously pretty passionate about guns, but relatively few people depend on guns to pay the rent.

If you want to believe that gun control is impossible, but that everyone will easily agree to reform healthcare and education, that is your right.

But the either-or scenario we are discussing isn't valid. It's not the case that we can either do gun reform or healthcare reform, but not both.

People aren't failing to improve the healthcare system because they are too busy talking about gun control. People are failing to improve healthcare because it is politically very very difficult.

We can do one, both, or neither. Likely neither, for the next several years. You are surely correct that improvement in health and education would help reduce gun violence. But I don't see any reason to think that talking about gun control is somehow preventing us from doing anything else.

barfo

 

[Chris Craig]

Hmm, yes, Trumpers are SO much more enthusiastic about improving education and healthcare.



It's only impossible because people don't want currently overwhelmingly want it. Same as healthcare and education.
The constitution is not impossible to amend - you just have to have agreement it's necessary.
Or, you don't have to amend it, you just need the supreme court to reverse their corrupt ruling that 'well-regulated militia' has no meaning whatsoever.
But then I guess the supreme court never reverses rulings from the past...



Somewhere there is a Spock-with-a-beard Phatguysrule that is arguing that universal healthcare can never work, that it's such a monumental undertaking to change the current system, that there are millions of people and thousands of companies who feed off the current system and would resist changes with a 'from my cold dead hands' fervor.

barfo

Phatguysrule:



Barfo:

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yes, but not in the way you meant it. Try telling millions of people they need to go get jobs in another field and get back to me about how receptive they are to the idea.

Gun owners are obviously pretty passionate about guns, but relatively few people depend on guns to pay the rent.

If you want to believe that gun control is impossible, but that everyone will easily agree to reform healthcare and education, that is your right.

But the either-or scenario we are discussing isn't valid. It's not the case that we can either do gun reform or healthcare reform, but not both.

People aren't failing to improve the healthcare system because they are too busy talking about gun control. People are failing to improve healthcare because it is politically very very difficult.

We can do one, both, or neither. Likely neither, for the next several years. You are surely correct that improvement in health and education would help reduce gun violence. But I don't see any reason to think that talking about gun control is somehow preventing us from doing anything else.

barfo

General discussions about gun control aren't preventing anything else, I completely agree. But the political efforts toward gun control are preventing other action.

An echo chamber about gun control (or anything else) without looking at the real and tangeable obstacles or considering other alternatives is almost certainly not helpful.

There is only so much political capital. So when our leadership is focusing on solutions which are incredibly unlikely to be implemented effectively because of structural obstacles and have never been proven effective even in the absence of structural obstacles, it is extremely wasteful and harmful. It becomes simply a tool for distraction.

It doesn't matter if 2 million people are 100% opposed. If only 10% of 72 million people are 100% opposed that is a much larger obstacle.

Then you look at the built-in structural obstacles like the second amendment and multiple supreme court rulings protecting the rights of individuals to use guns and there is simply no comparison to the difficulty.

Having our media and leadership constantly pushing red herrings distracts the population from focusing on more realistic solutions.

This is what we complain about the right wing doing all the time. Convincing Republicans to vote in leaders against their own best interest.

That's what the left and media is doing with gun control. Keeping people ao worked up about it that they don't focus on real solutions.

 

[andalusian]

General discussions about gun control aren't preventing anything else, I completely agree. But the political efforts toward gun control are preventing other action.

I 100% disagree with this assessment. This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes change. It will not be quick and there are many that will continue to suffer because the supreme court decided that the constitution only means what it says for some of the words but not others, but it will happen. Maybe not this decade or the one after it, but all these kids that are afraid of going to school because some nutjob that should not have access to guns can have them because the proponents of the 2nd amendment are unwilling to "regulate" will remember and sooner or later will get the voting power.

This country has a gun problem, it is simple to see - and while other things can help - you do not look for the coin under the light because it's easy, you look for where you really dropped it because that's where it will be.

For the record, some nutjob apparently decided to shoot at kids playing baseball 4 miles from our home last night. Luckily he managed to miss everyone and everything, but this shit is so common now that gun control needs to be discussed all the time until a real solution is found.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I 100% disagree with this assessment. This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes change. It will not be quick and there are many that will continue to suffer because the supreme court decided that the constitution only means what it says for some of the words but not others, but it will happen. Maybe not this decade or the one after it, but all these kids that are afraid of going to school because some nutjob that should not have access to guns can have them because the proponents of the 2nd amendment are unwilling to "regulate" will remember and sooner or later will get the voting power.

This country has a gun problem, it is simple to see - and while other things can help - you do not look for the coin under the light because it's easy, you look for where you really dropped it because that's where it will be.

For the record, some nutjob apparently decided to shoot at kids playing baseball 4 miles from our home last night. Luckily he managed to miss everyone and everything, but this shit is so common now that gun control needs to be discussed all the time until a real solution is found.

There are already laws that should prevent nut jobs from legally getting guns.

The 2nd amendment doesn't prevent restrictions on dangerous people at all.

If this conversation prevents us from improving access to education and healthcare for the next 20 years then it has caused far more damage than any gun control could ever solve.

And it clearly has done so, from my perspective. By hardening many among gun rights supporters against leaders who would have been far less bad.

How many more gun loving Florida votes would Gore have gotten if they weren't concerned about his stance on gun control? How many more gun loving rust belt votes would Hillary have had?

How much better could our access to education and healthcare be right now if those two elections had gone the other way? And those are just national elections.

That is wasted political capital. In fact, harmful political policy.

There are countries with similarly high of household gun ownership rates as the US without the violence problems (but they have FAR better social safety nets). There are countries with with far lower household gun ownership rates with far higher rates of violence and murder (they have worse social safety nets than the US).

We have a problem with unhappy and unhealthy people. Those kinds of people are more violent. The well-being of middle and lower class population is the only thing that tracks across the board.

 

[andalusian]

The us has the same percentage of the population with mental problems as many other countries, yet we have mass shootings every day and they don't.

Access to guns and proper regulations for keeping and training with guns are severely lacking in this country especially when you look at it on the federal level. Even places that try to regulate guns better are vulnerable to people going and bringing guns from nearby states with lesser regulations.

Ignoring the absurd ways people can get guns and are not required to maintain them and keep them registered and pass ongoing fitness tests to having them is absurd.

Gun regulations in this country, to me, are a joke. It's that simple and that's why we should continue to bring it up over and over again while these horrible things continue to happen

 

[Phatguysrule]

The us has the same percentage of the population with mental problems as many other countries, yet we have mass shootings every day and they don't.

Access to guns and proper regulations for keeping and training with guns are severely lacking in this country especially when you look at it on the federal level. Even places that try to regulate guns better are vulnerable to people going and bringing guns from nearby states with lesser regulations.

Ignoring the absurd ways people can get guns and are not required to maintain them and keep them registered and pass ongoing fitness tests to having them is absurd.

Gun regulations in this country, to me, are a joke. It's that simple and that's why we should continue to bring it up over and over again while these horrible things continue to happen

I didn't say we have more mental health problems though. I said people are unhealthy and unhappy. Our middle and lower classes are desperate and under more stress in higher numbers than most other developed countries.

Poor and desperate people make poor and desperate decisions, which puts them in dangerous situations.

That's why we have so much violent crime, regardless of guns.

The fact that we have similar number of mentally unwell people isn't as significant as the fact thst our mentally unwell people don't have access to the care or social support to keep them from becoming violent in higher numbers.

I'm not suggesting we stop talking about gun control. I'm suggesting we stop wasting political capital on policies which have been shown to be marginally effective at best.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Spoiler: Content warning: Violence & sensitive pictures

 

[barfo]

General discussions about gun control aren't preventing anything else, I completely agree. But the political efforts toward gun control are preventing other action.

Disagree. There are very few people who care about gun control and nothing else. Surely no more than people who care about healthcare or education and nothing else. It's just not true that somehow people can't have more than one political position.

There is only so much political capital. So when our leadership is focusing on solutions which are incredibly unlikely to be implemented effectively because of structural obstacles and have never been proven effective even in the absence of structural obstacles, it is extremely wasteful and harmful. It becomes simply a tool for distraction.

What percentage of their time do you think 'our leadership' spends on gun control? I'd guess less than 1%.

It doesn't matter if 2 million people are 100% opposed. If only 10% of 72 million people are 100% opposed that is a much larger obstacle.

It does matter if 2 million people are 100% opposed. A very angry vocal minority can and frequently does torpedo policy initiatives. Especially if they have money and political power. In fact that's exactly why you are claiming that gun control can't work - because a minority of people are very angrily opposed.

Having our media and leadership constantly pushing red herrings distracts the population from focusing on more realistic solutions.

This is what we complain about the right wing doing all the time. Convincing Republicans to vote in leaders against their own best interest.

That's what the left and media is doing with gun control. Keeping people ao worked up about it that they don't focus on real solutions.

Again, I don't know of too many citizens, or too many politicians, who are so consumed by gun control advocacy that they can't think about any other topics.

barfo