Politics Gunman opens fire at White House Correspondents Dinner (4 Viewers)

[Phatguysrule]

Everybody is. It’s the only way to solve this problem right? More guns is the answer….. I thought we all agreed on this.

Literally nobody in this forum has taken that stance in at least the last several years I've been paying attention to this debate.

The position has been that we have so many restrictions already that increasing restrictions on law abiding citizens now results in further and further diminishing returns. To the point that more restrictions on law abiding citizens as a political position has become counterproductive.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Any educated person with common sense knows this is the ONLY way to fix this. More guns is the answer.

Let me know when you want to engage in honest dialogue and I'd be happy to discuss your concerns.

 

[CORipCity]

Imagine if there were other countries on planet earth with policies that could demonstrate what works and doesn’t work vis a vis gun violence (or anything else).

Guess we’ll never know!

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[PCmor7]

Literally nobody in this forum has taken that stance in at least the last several years I've been paying attention to this debate.

The position has been that we have so many restrictions already that increasing restrictions on law abiding citizens now results in further and further diminishing returns. To the point that more restrictions on law abiding citizens as a political position has become counterproductive.

I think he's being facetious.

 

[THE HCP]

Let me know when you want to engage in honest dialogue and I'd be happy to discuss your concerns.

There is no such thing as honest dialogue about guns. Not even dialogue at all to be honest. I’ll say one last time, I’ve seen people killed in front of me by the hand of guns and there is nothing more to talk about. There is no place for them in society, flat out.

 

[Phatguysrule]

There is no such thing as honest dialogue about guns. Not even dialogue at all to be honest. I’ll say one last time, I’ve seen people killed in front of me by the hand of guns and there is nothing more to talk about. There is no place for them in society, flat out.

I understand you're emotional about this topic. I don't fault you for that.

We should not make public policy based on emotion, IMO.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I think he's being facetious.

Looked like an invite to discussion. I'm always interested in these kinds of debates regarding emotional positions any time somebody wants to go there.

As soon as it became clear he didn't actually want a discussion I stated my position and dropped it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Imagine if there were other countries on planet earth with policies that could demonstrate what works and doesn’t work vis a vis gun violence (or anything else).

Guess we’ll never know!

This is true. There are countries who enacted more strict gun control.

About about the same time the assault weapons ban in the United States expired due to being hugely unpopular and generally ineffective.

Both the UK and Australia enacted sweeping gun control.

While Australia showed about the same drop in violent crime and murder rates the following 30 years as the United States (a time when the United States was expanding access to guns, and after ending the assault weapons ban), The UK showed virtually no reduction in violent crime or murder rates.

So gun restrictions don't actually appear to make much of a reliable difference when compared to the same areas before restrictions.

Rather, the much greater impact on violent crime and murder rates tends to be access to education and health care. Countries who have a better Ginny coefficient tend to have lower violent crime and murder rates.

And making those changes are far less expensive (while being far more effective at reducing violent crime and murder rates), both in dollars, and in political capital, than any further gun restrictions.

The reductions in violent crime and murder rates after the increased spending for COVID have been far greater than anything any gun control has ever shown.

The attacks on Trump are simply a result of his divisive actions and rhetoric.

Hell, guns are virtually illegal in Japan and one of their most popular former Prime Ministers was assassinated with homemade gun.

You're simply not going to meaningfully impact attacks on political figures or emotional targets by increasing restrictions on law abiding citizens. That has never worked.

 

[CORipCity]

This is true. There are countries who enacted more strict gun control.

About about the same time the assault weapons ban in the United States expired due to being hugely unpopular and generally ineffective.

Both the UK and Australia enacted sweeping gun control.

While Australia showed about the same drop in violent crime and murder rates the following 30 years as the United States (a time when the United States was expanding access to guns, and after ending the assault weapons ban), The UK showed virtually no reduction in violent crime or murder rates.

So gun restrictions don't actually appear to make much of a reliable difference when compared to the same areas before restrictions.

Rather, the much greater impact on violent crime and murder rates tends to be access to education and health care. Countries who have a better Ginny coefficient tend to have lower violent crime and murder rates.

And making those changes are far less expensive (while being far more effective at reducing violent crime and murder rates), both in dollars, and in political capital, than any further gun restrictions.

The reductions in violent crime and murder rates after the increased spending for COVID have been far greater than anything any gun control has ever shown.

The attacks on Trump are simply a result of his divisive actions and rhetoric.

Hell, guns are virtually illegal in Japan and one of their most popular former Prime Ministers was assassinated with homemade gun.

You're simply not going to meaningfully impact attacks on political figures or emotional targets by increasing restrictions on law abiding citizens. That has never worked.

Your response was largely a strawman, and your confinement to these at-the-margins assault weapons bans is a dishonest argument. No, merely banning specific types of guns doesn’t always fix the problem, particularly when decades of flooding our society with all other kinds of guns and ammunition for a bloodthirsty American society has preceded it. That was never meant to be a panacea, and citing one incident of gun violence in Japan as evidence that gun restrictions there don’t work is also incredibly dishonest. It doesn’t really sound like you’re someone who likes to engage in honest rhetoric about guns.

That said, I agree that a much stronger social safety net, Medicare, for all, and better mental health services, including making housing a human right, would certainly reduce gun violence.

But omitting any kind of gun legislation from that formula is stupid. “Restrictions on law abiding gun owners”? I don’t even know what that means. Everyone’s a “law-abiding gun owner” until they’re not. Australia instituted a sweeping gun ban in the 1990s that worked. America is the gun outlier, and it’s because of access to guns. Period.

 

[PCmor7]

Looked like an invite to discussion. I'm always interested in these kinds of debates regarding emotional positions any time somebody wants to go there.

As soon as it became clear he didn't actually want a discussion I stated my position and dropped it.

I scanned down but I didn't notice that you already had concluded what I posted.

Apologies.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Your response was largely a strawman, and your confinement to these at-the-margins assault weapons bans is a dishonest argument. No, merely banning specific types of guns doesn’t always fix the problem, particularly when decades of flooding our society with all other kinds of guns and ammunition for a bloodthirsty American society has preceded it. That was never meant to be a panacea, and citing one incident of gun violence in Japan as evidence that gun restrictions there don’t work is also incredibly dishonest. It doesn’t really sound like you’re someone who likes to engage in honest rhetoric about guns.

That said, I agree that a much stronger social safety net, Medicare, for all, and better mental health services, including making housing a human right, would certainly reduce gun violence.

But omitting any kind of gun legislation from that formula is stupid. “Restrictions on law abiding gun owners”? I don’t even know what that means. Everyone’s a “law-abiding gun owner” until they’re not. Australia instituted a sweeping gun ban in the 1990s that worked. America is the gun outlier, and it’s because of access to guns. Period.

Australia's sweeping gun ban "worked" for reducing violent crime and murder rates about as well as the United States expanding access to guns and ending the assault weapons ban, and over the same time frame.

In other words, did it really work? Or did Western Civilization tend to be less violent in those great economic times?

The UK had a very similar law at the same time. Which hardly reduced violent crime and murder rates at all, but they also already had greater access to social services than the US or Australia, so wouldn't be as likely to see the same gains.

The Japan example wasn't an example of typical violent crime or murder. It was an example that even if you could eliminate legal gun ownership from the equation (we can't) you can't expect it to eliminate this kind of a threat to public officials.

I never suggested we should eliminate the possibility of any kind of legislation. I specifically said further restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

I'm absolutely 100% for exchanging current legislation that doesn't work for legislation that could work. Even for legislation that the right would be more likely to accept.

The vast majority of gun crime occurs at the hands of known criminals.

Giving law abiding gun owners the tools and incentive to prevent those criminals from obtaining guns could be more effective than current gun laws. This is just my personal theory, and I've laid it out in the cold dead hands thread, and would be willing to discuss it again in that thread.

The solution to reducing frequency of the kind of assault this thread is about is to lay off the hateful and divisive rhetoric and increase access to quality social services and education.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I scanned down but I didn't notice that you already had concluded what I posted.

Apologies.

No problem at all. Thanks for attempting to diffuse a potential misunderstanding early.