Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On February 17 2018 05:10 Nebuchad wrote: It's really important to continue to frame this as a politician problem rather than a topic of debates and discussions, and I wish more people understood that. So much effort is spent talking to people like Danglars or superstat as if they were ever going to give in or be convinced of anything, or worse, as if what was needed for some non-insane gun control was to convince people like them. It just takes a few days of deafness and inaction and we're back in the cycle of nothing until the next one. We have limited windows and we should use them to have the conversations that matter.
so which conversation is it that you want to have? I mean, I get where you're coming from I think; I'm just not sure what you actually expect/want to happen from a conversation.
The only conversation that matters is the one about how politicians get to ignore the will of a large majority of the country, the role of money and legalized bribery in shaping those opinions vs the will of the people.
None of the other conversations lead to an improved situation and having them dilutes the strength of the message.
I disagree: politicians respond to collective will; which is not the summation of just each individual's opinion; but that summation weighted by how much each individual cares about and will in fact change their vote based upon their opinion. a small number of people who will vote based on an issue have far more effect than a large group of people who won't change their vote. it's the dynamics of special interest groups in general; for which there is no good solution. none of the conversations lead to an improved situation, period. not the one you propose, nor any others. because we've had this song and danc ebefore, many times, we know how it goes, we know how it ends. conversations don't change it. it will change, but due to system effects, which due to being chaotic we can't predict. also, whatever we say here really won't matter to the situation because we're unimportant.
Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
On February 17 2018 06:33 Nebuchad wrote: Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
I find your response confusing; since my assertion was that they do respond to collective will, and explained why it differed from how you were assessing it. I accounted for the probable reasoning, which could apply just as well as an explanation for the point you're seeking if you call what they're doing not responding to collective will. it also fails to account for my other points.
On February 17 2018 06:33 Nebuchad wrote: Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
I find your response confusing; since my assertion was that they do respond to collective will, and explained why it differed from how you were assessing it. I accounted for the probable reasoning, which could apply just as well as an explanation for the point you're seeking if you call what they're doing not responding to collective will. it also fails to account for my other points.
Your assertion is incorrect, not sure how that was confusing. There is no definition of following the collective will that leads you to position against policies supported by over 90% of Americans (extended background checks, net neutrality...)
On February 17 2018 06:33 Nebuchad wrote: Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
I find your response confusing; since my assertion was that they do respond to collective will, and explained why it differed from how you were assessing it. I accounted for the probable reasoning, which could apply just as well as an explanation for the point you're seeking if you call what they're doing not responding to collective will. it also fails to account for my other points.
Your assertion is incorrect, not sure how that was confusing. There is no definition of following the collective will that leads you to position against policies supported by over 90% of Americans (extended background checks, net neutrality...)
It is confusing cuz you didn't directly assert my own assertion was wrong; but seemed to be talking past it without regard to it. If you ignore my arguments entirely and pretend they aren't there, it's hard to tell what you're point is.
there is such a definition for collective will, at least for some such cases, since I provided one, and one that has a very plausible basis at that. Do you wish to address it?
On February 17 2018 06:33 Nebuchad wrote: Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
I find your response confusing; since my assertion was that they do respond to collective will, and explained why it differed from how you were assessing it. I accounted for the probable reasoning, which could apply just as well as an explanation for the point you're seeking if you call what they're doing not responding to collective will. it also fails to account for my other points.
Your assertion is incorrect, not sure how that was confusing. There is no definition of following the collective will that leads you to position against policies supported by over 90% of Americans (extended background checks, net neutrality...)
It is confusing cuz you didn't directly assert my own assertion was wrong; but seemed to be talking past it without regard to it. If you ignore my arguments entirely and pretend they aren't there, it's hard to tell what you're point is.
there is such a definition for collective will, at least for some such cases, since I provided one, and one that has a very plausible basis at that. Do you wish to address it?
On February 17 2018 06:33 Nebuchad wrote: Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
I find your response confusing; since my assertion was that they do respond to collective will, and explained why it differed from how you were assessing it. I accounted for the probable reasoning, which could apply just as well as an explanation for the point you're seeking if you call what they're doing not responding to collective will. it also fails to account for my other points.
Your assertion is incorrect, not sure how that was confusing. There is no definition of following the collective will that leads you to position against policies supported by over 90% of Americans (extended background checks, net neutrality...)
It is confusing cuz you didn't directly assert my own assertion was wrong; but seemed to be talking past it without regard to it. If you ignore my arguments entirely and pretend they aren't there, it's hard to tell what you're point is.
there is such a definition for collective will, at least for some such cases, since I provided one, and one that has a very plausible basis at that. Do you wish to address it?
Not really, no.
Ok, I'll assume you don't actually want to discuss the topic then, since you are refusing to do so, and merely wish to pontificate upon it.
On February 17 2018 06:33 Nebuchad wrote: Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
I find your response confusing; since my assertion was that they do respond to collective will, and explained why it differed from how you were assessing it. I accounted for the probable reasoning, which could apply just as well as an explanation for the point you're seeking if you call what they're doing not responding to collective will. it also fails to account for my other points.
Your assertion is incorrect, not sure how that was confusing. There is no definition of following the collective will that leads you to position against policies supported by over 90% of Americans (extended background checks, net neutrality...)
It is confusing cuz you didn't directly assert my own assertion was wrong; but seemed to be talking past it without regard to it. If you ignore my arguments entirely and pretend they aren't there, it's hard to tell what you're point is.
there is such a definition for collective will, at least for some such cases, since I provided one, and one that has a very plausible basis at that. Do you wish to address it?
Not really, no.
Ok, I'll assume you don't actually want to discuss the topic then, since you are refusing to do so, and merely wish to pontificate upon it.
If enough people pontificate loudly, maybe the politicians will notice, since they're following the collective will. Join me.
On February 17 2018 06:33 Nebuchad wrote: Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
I find your response confusing; since my assertion was that they do respond to collective will, and explained why it differed from how you were assessing it. I accounted for the probable reasoning, which could apply just as well as an explanation for the point you're seeking if you call what they're doing not responding to collective will. it also fails to account for my other points.
Your assertion is incorrect, not sure how that was confusing. There is no definition of following the collective will that leads you to position against policies supported by over 90% of Americans (extended background checks, net neutrality...)
It is confusing cuz you didn't directly assert my own assertion was wrong; but seemed to be talking past it without regard to it. If you ignore my arguments entirely and pretend they aren't there, it's hard to tell what you're point is.
there is such a definition for collective will, at least for some such cases, since I provided one, and one that has a very plausible basis at that. Do you wish to address it?
Not really, no.
Ok, I'll assume you don't actually want to discuss the topic then, since you are refusing to do so, and merely wish to pontificate upon it.
If enough people pontificate loudly, maybe the politicians will notice, since they're following the collective will. Join me.
I already pontificate loudly and frequently. and pontification doesn't change the collective will in and of itself, unless it changes actual votes.
On February 17 2018 06:33 Nebuchad wrote: Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
I find your response confusing; since my assertion was that they do respond to collective will, and explained why it differed from how you were assessing it. I accounted for the probable reasoning, which could apply just as well as an explanation for the point you're seeking if you call what they're doing not responding to collective will. it also fails to account for my other points.
Your assertion is incorrect, not sure how that was confusing. There is no definition of following the collective will that leads you to position against policies supported by over 90% of Americans (extended background checks, net neutrality...)
It is confusing cuz you didn't directly assert my own assertion was wrong; but seemed to be talking past it without regard to it. If you ignore my arguments entirely and pretend they aren't there, it's hard to tell what you're point is.
there is such a definition for collective will, at least for some such cases, since I provided one, and one that has a very plausible basis at that. Do you wish to address it?
Not really, no.
Ok, I'll assume you don't actually want to discuss the topic then, since you are refusing to do so, and merely wish to pontificate upon it.
If enough people pontificate loudly, maybe the politicians will notice, since they're following the collective will. Join me.
I already pontificate loudly and frequently. and pontification doesn't change the collective will in and of itself, unless it changes actual votes.
So perhaps we should take all this energy that we have to give and instead of talking about why Chicago's gun laws fail, or why republicans know dick about Switzerland, or why more guns don't lead to less gun violence, or why the fact that criminals break the law isn't a great argument against having laws, or why there is no research on gun control in a country where research on gun control is banned, or why security is a superstition, we should instead channel it into the message that 93% is higher than 7%. You seem to think they'd listen, and if they do, hey, that's awesome. When they don't, we can go back to what should be done about it.
On February 17 2018 06:33 Nebuchad wrote: Politicians should respond to collective will. The fact that they don't and the reasons why they don't would be amongst the central points of the useful conversation.
I find your response confusing; since my assertion was that they do respond to collective will, and explained why it differed from how you were assessing it. I accounted for the probable reasoning, which could apply just as well as an explanation for the point you're seeking if you call what they're doing not responding to collective will. it also fails to account for my other points.
Your assertion is incorrect, not sure how that was confusing. There is no definition of following the collective will that leads you to position against policies supported by over 90% of Americans (extended background checks, net neutrality...)
It is confusing cuz you didn't directly assert my own assertion was wrong; but seemed to be talking past it without regard to it. If you ignore my arguments entirely and pretend they aren't there, it's hard to tell what you're point is.
there is such a definition for collective will, at least for some such cases, since I provided one, and one that has a very plausible basis at that. Do you wish to address it?
Not really, no.
Ok, I'll assume you don't actually want to discuss the topic then, since you are refusing to do so, and merely wish to pontificate upon it.
If enough people pontificate loudly, maybe the politicians will notice, since they're following the collective will. Join me.
I already pontificate loudly and frequently. and pontification doesn't change the collective will in and of itself, unless it changes actual votes.
So perhaps we should take all this energy that we have to give and instead of talking about why Chicago's gun laws fail, or why republicans know dick about Switzerland, or why more guns don't lead to less gun violence, or why the fact that criminals break the law isn't a great argument against having laws, or why there is no research on gun control in a country where research on gun control is banned, or why security is a superstition, we should instead channel it into the message that 93% is higher than 7%. You seem to think they'd listen, and if they do, hey, that's awesome. When they don't, we can go back to what should be done about it.
Turn in this light to the Second Amendment, which reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Historians have long debated whether the Second Amendment provides any protection, at all, for the individual right to own guns. There are reasonable arguments both ways.
For most of the 20th century, the firm consensus among federal judges — Republican or Democratic — was that it did not provide that protection.
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that it did. The justices were badly divided. Four members of the court agreed with the longstanding consensus. The majority opinion, joined by five justices, ruled that the Second Amendment does create an individual right of gun ownership. But the opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was modest and cautious.
Justice Scalia’s opinion did not come close to embracing the arguments made by those who invoke the Second Amendment as an all-purpose weapon against democratic efforts to prevent the murder of high-school kids. On the contrary, his opinion is full of permission slips for federal, state and local governments to act.
In a crucial sentence, Justice Scalia wrote, “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Justice Scalia also emphasized that the Second Amendment is restricted to weapons “in common use at the time.” He added that the Constitution leaves government with many tools for combating the problem of handgun violence, including regulation.
After the court’s decision, lower courts have upheld numerous restrictions on the sale and ownership of guns. On dozens of occasions, the justices have declined to review such rulings, suggesting that they accept Justice Scalia’s permission slips.
It is true that the precise meaning of the Second Amendment has yet to be settled. But no one can doubt the central point: There is a profound disconnect between the actual meaning of the Second Amendment, as it is understood by courts, and political uses of the Second Amendment, as it is invoked in federal and state legislatures, and as a basis for attacking politicians who are thinking in good faith about how best to save lives.
On February 17 2018 05:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 17 2018 04:45 superstartran wrote:
On February 17 2018 03:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There's nothing unique about USA compared to the rich world other than gun controls, or lack thereof. It was you who wrote:
On February 17 2018 02:48 superstartran wrote:
The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. predominantly in urban neighborhoods and predominantly among blacks.
But hey man, going with your logic that must mean blacks are violent people right? See, this is why you can't just throw out statistics on a whim without controlling for populations.
with the direct implication that the "unique" situation of USA is that blacks are responsible for the high gun violence in USA. There is no way other way to take it. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.
So currently your train of thought is: USA is in a unique situation in regard to its high gun crime. USA is unique not because of it's unique lack of effective gun controls. USA is unique becuase its population is not homogenous. Gun crime occur predominantly among blacks.
Then "But hey man, going with your logic that must mean blacks are violent people right?"
You claim to be asking for controlling for ethnic population, wealth, but quite honestly I don't see what ethnic population has to do with anything unless you are saying that ethnic population (whatever that means in this context) is responsible for your perception that gun controls are ineffective in USA. Do different ethnic groups have different abilities to purchase guns?
But hey man, going with your logic white people simply more predisposed towards school shootings and Vegas shootings right?
But Rofl don't take this out of statement out of context. The point I was making is that if you don't control for things such as ethnic population, wealth, and various other different factors you can make any assumption you want. It's a statistical fact that whites on average commit far more school shootings and Vegas shootings in the United States than any other ethnic group in the United States. Going by the logic you guys are using, that would make white people predisposed towards shooting school children and concertgoers , when you and I know both know that's a load of horse shit, and that there are way more factors then simple numbers.
So basically you came around and agreed that all those statistics trying to cross compare a homogeneous country vs a heterogeneous country is basically bullshit. Ok. Glad we are in agreement.
Also it's incredibly disingenuous to believe that the United States and Japan are basically the same countries with the same culture.
You know, just typing something doesn't make it true. At no point did I particularily agree with you on anything. Though truly, there does seem to be a preponderence of white people who like to shoot at school children and concertgoers in USA. It is interesting that for whatever reason you decided to hone in on ethnicity and urban centres. I live in London which has a large non-white population. I would say of the top of my head London is 60% white. It is both urban and has parts of mostly black population. There was a large gun crime problem, mostly with handguns as opposed to rifles, but effective gun legislation reduced the murder rate significantly. So, in your desperate search for reasons as to why USA is unique, you cast around casting claiming that both ethnicity is and isn't a factor. Well done.
Lastly at no point did I equate American culture with Japanese culture. But interestingly you didn't bring up culture as a reason as to why there are so many school shootings in USA, when it is obvious that the school shooting gun culture in USA IS a cultural problem. Perhaps that should be food for thought for you, but I fear it is wasted on a person who just simply makes up what someone else has written. It appears to be a common theme with you and so I fear, that rather sadly, discussion with you is largely pointless.
So you're saying that blacks in urban centers and the Mississippi delta area are of literally equal social/economic status as those in London? Because that's what you're getting at. Which would be pathetically laughable at best.
The United States has a much more unique culture than many other countries because of the rapid development of the country. If you seriously think that the U.K., Australia, and other European countries have similar populations/geographic sizes/other confounding factors such as the United States I'm not really sure what to tell you. Just because gun control laws appear to work in the U.K. and Australia does not mean they will work in the United States, which is why I always laugh when people try to say "XYZ country has less deaths, how come the U.S. isn't doing the same thing."
It's just like how I probably wouldn't be handing out guns to every single person like Switzerland does. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, and yes they have relatively strict gun requirements/laws also. Yet they also have almost zero fire arm related crimes, despite the fact that they have such a high number of firearms in their country. That being said, what works in Switzerland will not necessarily work in another country like say Brazil because of the cultural and socioeconomic problems that are in that country.
Point? Every single situation is unique, and you can't just cross compare countries and say "Well xyz country makes similar money, how come you can't just copy them." Because if you're going to do that, I'm merely just going to point to Switzerland pretty much every single time.
so your stance is: usa is different so all data is meaningless. there is no local data that supports claims that lack of gun control is a real issue. even with gun control you arent going to eliminate crime so dont take my freedoms away! just out of curiosity why do you think we have laws on drugs? we cant get rid of drugs anyway
On February 17 2018 06:08 superstartran wrote:... Just because gun control laws appear to work in the U.K. and Australia does not mean they will work in the United States, which is why I always laugh when people try to say "XYZ country has less deaths, how come the U.S. isn't doing the same thing."
Laughing at people for trying to reduce gun-related deaths is in pretty poor taste, don't you think?
Also, the potential existence of confounding variables is not an excuse to immediately and completely ignore a result without further investigation.
On February 17 2018 06:08 superstartran wrote:... Just because gun control laws appear to work in the U.K. and Australia does not mean they will work in the United States, which is why I always laugh when people try to say "XYZ country has less deaths, how come the U.S. isn't doing the same thing."
Laughing at people for trying to reduce gun-related deaths is in pretty poor taste, don't you think?
Also, the potential existence of confounding variables is not an excuse to immediately and completely ignore a result without further investigation.
And more people not even understanding what I'm saying and trying to shame me for standing up for firearm rights.
Did I say that you shouldn't have more strict gun regulations in the United States? No. What I'm saying is that you cannot cross compare countries and say that their regulations will work in the United States, because the U.S. actually has a very unique demographic (both ethnic and socioeconomic) versus many other 1st world countries. This is a statistical fact.
My point is that you cannot just take another country's solution and try to say do that U.S., you'll curb gun violence.
And before we keep up the shame game, I really do hate to be insensitive, but mass shootings account for about 1% of firearm related deaths, and fire arm related deaths aren't even in the top 10 if we're excluding suicide. More people every year in the U.S. die from the flu.
So let's not make this out to be a fucking epidemic in the U.S.
On February 17 2018 06:08 superstartran wrote:... Just because gun control laws appear to work in the U.K. and Australia does not mean they will work in the United States, which is why I always laugh when people try to say "XYZ country has less deaths, how come the U.S. isn't doing the same thing."
Laughing at people for trying to reduce gun-related deaths is in pretty poor taste, don't you think?
Also, the potential existence of confounding variables is not an excuse to immediately and completely ignore a result without further investigation.
And more people not even understanding what I'm saying and trying to shame me for standing up for firearm rights.
Did I say that you shouldn't have more strict gun regulations in the United States? No. What I'm saying is that you cannot cross compare countries and say that their regulations will work in the United States, because the U.S. actually has a very unique demographic (both ethnic and socioeconomic) versus many other 1st world countries. This is a statistical fact.
My point is that you cannot just take another country's solution and try to say do that U.S., you'll curb gun violence.
And before we keep up the shame game, I really do hate to be insensitive, but mass shootings account for about 1% of firearm related deaths, and fire arm related deaths aren't even in the top 10 if we're excluding suicide. More people every year in the U.S. die from the flu.
So let's not make this out to be a fucking epidemic in the U.S.
youre being shamed for rejecting every basis out there for stricter gun control but you provide no alternatives of your own that actually make sense. in other words, you want nothing to change.
also with that last segment you have basically admitted to everyone here exactly what we thought was a concern in america. not enough people are dying in mass shootings or related firearm deaths for gun nuts to actually give a shit lol. youre saying more people need to be sacrificed for the current gun situation to be considered a serious problem. that is absolutely pathetic
Why would we not count suicide deaths on the score for guns? People who survive suicide attempts very often get help. People who attempt suicide by gun generally don't survive. These are preventable deaths. These are people who would have survived in other first world countries.
On February 17 2018 06:08 superstartran wrote:... Just because gun control laws appear to work in the U.K. and Australia does not mean they will work in the United States, which is why I always laugh when people try to say "XYZ country has less deaths, how come the U.S. isn't doing the same thing."
Laughing at people for trying to reduce gun-related deaths is in pretty poor taste, don't you think?
Also, the potential existence of confounding variables is not an excuse to immediately and completely ignore a result without further investigation.
And more people not even understanding what I'm saying and trying to shame me for standing up for firearm rights.
Did I say that you shouldn't have more strict gun regulations in the United States? No. What I'm saying is that you cannot cross compare countries and say that their regulations will work in the United States, because the U.S. actually has a very unique demographic (both ethnic and socioeconomic) versus many other 1st world countries. This is a statistical fact.
My point is that you cannot just take another country's solution and try to say do that U.S., you'll curb gun violence.
And before we keep up the shame game, I really do hate to be insensitive, but mass shootings account for about 1% of firearm related deaths, and fire arm related deaths aren't even in the top 10 if we're excluding suicide. More people every year in the U.S. die from the flu.
So let's not make this out to be a fucking epidemic in the U.S.
youre being shamed for rejecting every basis out there for stricter gun control but you provide no alternatives of your own that actually make sense. in other words, you want nothing to change.
also you have basically admitted to everyone here exactly what we thought was a concern in america. not enough people are dying in mass shootings or related firearm deaths for gun nuts to actually give a shit lol. youre saying more people need to be sacrificed for the current gun situation to be considered a serious problem. that is absolutely pathetic
1) I've already laid out what restrictions I think are appropriate. Banning of bumpfire stocks, stronger restrictions on semi automatic long rifles (either in the form of taxes or stronger state regulations), expanded background checks which would include things like cross reference multiple databases for criminal history, mental illness, terror watchlist, etc.
2) It's a statistical fact that mass shootings account for 1% of non-suicide firearm related deaths. Firearm related deaths (when excluding suicide) account for a little over 10,000 deaths a year, which means it's not even close to being in the top 10 of number of deaths. I'm merely pointing out that you guys are completely sensationalizing this whole issue as though every single day American schools are being shot up and people are dying left and right because of the lack of gun control, which is the furthest thing from the truth.
But do keep arguing from emotion and not using any statistical facts to support your arguments.
On February 17 2018 14:37 KwarK wrote: Why would we not count suicide deaths on the score for guns? People who survive suicide attempts very often get help. People who attempt suicide by gun generally don't survive. These are preventable deaths. These are people who would have survived in other first world countries.
That I'd agree with; if the other side actually was using suicides as a major reason why we should be restricting firearms further, I think the vast majority of moderates on the other side would actually be on board with that. It's reasonable to say that restricting firearm access could and very likely would prevent suicides, which is slowly becoming a major issue in the United States. I'd argue that you'd need to do other things too otherwise people would find other ways to commit suicide, however it is definitely one way to curb it back severely.
The real issue is that instead of arguing with reasonable points, you have people who PM me saying I have the blood of children on my hands. And then people wonder why I will vote for the NRA despite their hardline stance on many things I may not necessarily agree with.
On February 17 2018 14:26 superstartran wrote:Did I say that you shouldn't have more strict gun regulations in the United States? No. What I'm saying is that you cannot cross compare countries and say that their regulations will work in the United States, because the U.S. actually has a very unique demographic (both ethnic and socioeconomic) versus many other 1st world countries. This is a statistical fact.
Your statement is technically correct but not useful.
I cannot say that other countries' regulations will certainly work in the United States.
I can say that experience in other countries makes it MORE LIKELY those or similar regulations will have a beneficial effect.
100% confidence is not a reasonable threshold for making decisions.
EDIT:
The real issue is that instead of arguing with reasonable points, you have people who PM me saying I have the blood of children on my hands. And then people wonder why I will vote for the NRA despite their hardline stance on many things I may not necessarily agree with.
No. The "real issue" is what and when firearms are permitted to be owned and carried, and the consequences which follow from that. Arguments on the Internet are not real issues, even if they are about real issues.
EPT
