Politics Gunman opens fire at White House Correspondents Dinner (3 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.

 

[CORipCity]

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.

Australia's gun death rate is currently about .09 deaths per 100,000 population.

Canada's is about .74.

Italy .17. Switzerland .14. Sweden .5.

Even Bolivia, not exactly a progressive social utopia, is at .06.

The U.S. is at 4.47. 50X that of Australia.

The United States is only comparable to gun-rampant, near-failed-state countries like Brazil and Mexico.

This isn't an honest debate, just like another poster made clear. Right, center-right, moderates, and even the Center-Left refuse to speak plainly about this: We all know guns are the problem, and restricting guns is the most logical, direct solution to preventing gun violence. That's why even the NRA, CPAC, and other conservative conventions ban guns at their events. They know what the problem is. But milquetoast moderate Democrats pretend to agree that guns aren't the real problem, or at least shouldn't be addressed to the detriment of "lAw-AbiDiNg GuN oWnErs."

We just don't value the lives of, say, elementary school children in this country more than we value the Right/Middle/Center-Left's rights to shoot whatever they want, whenever they want, with a six-pack of Budweister in the back of their Chevy Supermax.

And it all started with the lives we do, and do not value. That's why the origins of the 2nd Amendment are rooted in slave-catcher patrols, and keeping white slave-owners protected from unruly Africans. And it's why the only modern Republican agreement to police guns came after Reagan saw the terrifying visage of black men in "militant" garb carrying guns in Oakland for the Black Panthers.

If you want to continue the legacy of white supremacy and continue to support either toothless legislation (such as piecemeal assault weapons bans) or no legislation at all (the current Right/Center-Right/Center/Center-Left proposition), then at least own the true impetus behind this world-view: White Supremacy and total disregard for the lives of the poor and vulnerable.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Australia's gun death rate is currently about .09 deaths per 100,000 population.

Canada's is about .74.

Italy .17. Switzerland .14. Sweden .5.

Even Bolivia, not exactly a progressive social utopia, is at .06.

The U.S. is at 4.47. 50X that of Australia.

The United States is only comparable to gun-rampant, near-failed-state countries like Brazil and Mexico.

This isn't an honest debate, just like another poster made clear. Right, center-right, moderates, and even the Center-Left refuse to speak plainly about this: We all know guns are the problem, and restricting guns is the most logical, direct solution to preventing gun violence. That's why even the NRA, CPAC, and other conservative conventions ban guns at their events. They know what the problem is. But milquetoast moderate Democrats pretend to agree that guns aren't the real problem, or at least shouldn't be addressed to the detriment of "lAw-AbiDiNg GuN oWnErs."

We just don't value the lives of, say, elementary school children in this country more than we value the Right/Middle/Center-Left's rights to shoot whatever they want, whenever they want, with a six-pack of Budweister in the back of their Chevy Supermax.

And it all started with the lives we do, and do not value. That's why the origins of the 2nd Amendment are rooted in slave-catcher patrols, and keeping white slave-owners protected from unruly Africans. And it's why the only modern Republican agreement to police guns came after Reagan saw the terrifying visage of black men in "militant" garb carrying guns in Oakland for the Black Panthers.

If you want to continue the legacy of white supremacy and continue to support either toothless legislation (such as piecemeal assault weapons bans) or no legislation at all (the current Right/Center-Right/Center/Center-Left proposition), then at least own the true impetus behind this world-view: White Supremacy and total disregard for the lives of the poor and vulnerable.

Well yes, obviously if you remove guns you are going to have less gun crime.

But if the rate of violent crime and murder aren't impacted (compared to prior) then what have you actually solved?

That is what happened in the UK.

Australia saw about the same decline in violent crime and murder rates as the United States over the same time frame.

You are trying to put me in a classification as either supporting "no legislation", or "only supporting assault weapons bans". Which I'm on the record as being opposed to both.

You can't have an honest conversation that way.

Gun control has always been racist. As you alluded to by referencing Reagan v Black Panthers.

The Second Amendment mentions nothing about race. And even if that was their intention, The Constitution has been amended to negate that perceived intention, and now race can no longer be a consideration.

The United States social policies are closer to Mexico and Brazil as well. As well as Russia, which has gun ownership rates about on par with the UK, yet violent crime and murder rays four times higher than even the US.

It is very clear that our attention should be focused on social solutions, not further restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

You are focusing on gun deaths. I am focusing on violent crime and murder rates. Because I don't think a gun death is worse than someone getting bludgeoned to death with bats and hammers (or fists). Or run over by vehicles, killed by arson, poison, or bomb.

You are starting from a position of gun=bad and trying to justify it with numbers.

I'm just concerned with the amount of violence and murder. I'm looking at the most effective way to limit the frequency of violence and murder.

One is actually trying to prevent deaths, the other is just trying to make guns look bad.

 

[CORipCity]

Well yes, obviously if you remove guns you are going to have less gun crime.

But if the rate of violent crime and murder aren't impacted (compared to prior) then what have you actually solved?

That is what happened in the UK.

Australia saw about the same decline in violent crime and murder rates as the United States over the same time frame.

You are trying to put me in a classification as either supporting "no legislation", or "only supporting assault weapons bans". Which I'm on the record as being opposed to both.

You can't have an honest conversation that way.

Gun control has always been racist. As you alluded to by referencing Reagan v Black Panthers.

No, "gun control" is not racist, Ronald Reagan and the Right is/was racist.

And, the use of guns to control people has always been racist. That's essentially the foundational principle of our nation. Ask the First Nation peoples (oh wait, you can't, we killed them all) and the runaway slaves (oh wait, you also can't, we shot and/or hanged them all, and/or sicked dogs on them all.

The Second Amendment mentions nothing about race. And even if that was their intention, The Constitution has been amended to negate that perceived intention, and now race can no longer be a consideration.

Right, we can't mention race, we can just engineer sneaky ways to create the racist effects of laws by hewing our laws to only penalize those who share common characteristics or forced behaviors along racial lines (see: black codes and vagrancy laws immediately following slavery). The 2nd Amendment was a compromise amendment that was staunchly supported and explicitly adhere to by white, southern, slaveowners who wanted to protect their "property" by keeping them in line. This isn't a disputed fact.

The United States social policies are closer to Mexico and Brazil as well. As well as Russia, which has gun ownership rates about on par with the UK, yet violent crime and murder rays four times higher than even the US.

I don't think we have a good idea how many guns there are in Russia, much less the # of gun deaths. But comparing a democratic (for now) society like the U.S. with a totalitarian state isn't exactly the apples-to-apples comparison you think it is. Meanwhile, Australia, Western Europe, the U.K., Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and just about every other developed nation in the world has a fraction of the gun deaths we do. And that's directly due to the lax gun laws in America. Again, this isn't a controversial point.

It is very clear that our attention should be focused on social solutions, not further restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

Adam Lanza was a law-abiding gun owner. Stephen Paddock was a law-abiding citizen. Omar Mateen was granted a license in Florida to carry a firearm as a security guard.
Stop using the "further restrict law abiding citizens" canard to claim we can't prevent mass-murder. It's insulting to people of ordinary intelligence.

You are focusing on gun deaths. I am focusing on violent crime and murder rates. Because I don't think a gun death is worse than someone getting bludgeoned to death with bats and hammers (or fists). Or run over by vehicles, killed by arson, poison, or bomb.

Firearm deaths are the #1 --- NUMBER ONE -- cause of death among American children. THAT'S why I'm focusing on gun deaths. We regulated automobiles for the same reason; we could tell that the use of automobiles was linked to a rising death rate among Americans. We didn't say "it'd be a shame to restrict the collarbones of law-abiding American drivers with seatbelts." We just enacted rules and laws to save lives, because we apparently valued the lives of American drivers.

Seems you don't value the lives of American children.

You are starting from a position of gun=bad and trying to justify it with numbers.

No, I'm starting from the position of seeing that guns are the #1 cause of death of children, and I'm starting from the position of being a father, and hating the idea of dead kids.

I'm just concerned with the amount of violence and murder. I'm looking at the most effective way to limit the frequency of violence and murder.

Yep, and right now, especially for children, that's gun control. And in terms of death by violent crime, a gun is the # 1 tool used. Any metric used to diagnose whether and how we should reduce violent crime is not serious unless it seriously addresses guns.