Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[Evan]

Dayton shooter was a big fan of DSA and other far left groups. He wanted Bernie or Warren to win. Police haven't said if his motive what political or not, and they're still investigating. Evidently he'd been kicked out of school once before for having a kill list.

The current political climate we're in with all of this extremism is creating an absolute powder keg. If people don't think irresponsible politicians are contributing to that climate then they need to wake up.

Obviously not all of these shootings are political or have a political motive, but increasing polarization and disaffected youths in our society are a toxic mix. We don't effectively treat mental illness, either. And there are incredibly nasty places like 8 chan that cheer these losers on and act as if it's a video game. There's no one reason for the "why" and there never will be. But there's a lot of contributing factors, and that includes irresponsible politicians and their reckless rhetoric.

 

[Evan]

You added the word special, did you do that to waste our time?
Why make that statement in the first place?
I’ve got one for you, water is wet...

Are you still on this? Special = unique. Are you saying you still don't understand? Someone else will have to try. I've already done so in as many different ways as I know how. Special simply means unique or superior in this context. You seem convinced I was using some secret meaning or something, and that's simply not the case at all.

 

[Evan]

Perhaps rhetorically but is the ultimate responsibility of the one that does the killing. The left loves events like these. They don't give a rats money maker about the lost lives. They care more about the issue.

Of course it is. Please quote the part of my post where I said otherwise. I also didn't say it was Trump's fault, or that he's responsible for it happening.

What I said, was that his rhetoric (and he's not the only guilty politician here) has been found to incite and encourage some of these losers. He's been warned by members of Congress to tone it down before.

I also didn't say Trump wanted this to happen. I think Trump is a selfish narcissist, but I don't think he's wanting innocent people to get murdered by mass shooters. I don't think that at all. Trump isn't some mastermind or evil monster. He's a self-absorbed pol who isn't willing to acknowledge that his rhetoric has incited or encouraged some of these white supremacist groups. He thinks it's all harmless stuff.

The ultimate responsibility will always be on the evil piece of excrement that commited one of these unspeakable acts. But, if you don't think leaders can incite, or unintentionally encourage others to act violently, then you're ignoring the past 100 years of human history dating all the way from WWII to the War on Terror. Trump thinks he's just firing up his base or walking a tight rope around the true lunatics.

Unfortunately, some of these people don't need a whole lot to get set off or justify their grotesque actions. And, as I said in my original posts and just now, Trump's not the only one. But he's damn sure one of the major contributors, and he's got a bully pulpet no one else has. He needs to use it and push hard to tone things down.

And, yes, Obama did undermine the police at times, and he was also guilty of using some incendiary rhetoric. But he's not the President, and he's not the one doing it right now.

 

[Evan]

Yes the background system is broken, but that doesn’t mean it can’t and shouldn’t be fixed.

Many of the mass shootings wouldn’t have been helped by this type of law, but some of your other types of shootings would be.

What Kory is trying to explain is that background checks are already pretty universal outside of face to face personal sales (which some states are now regulating as well). I can promise you that the vast majority of gun owners do a fairly good job of self-policing when it comes to personal sales. No one wants to sell a gun to a mass shooter, and I bet you most people doing infrequent personal sales are more likely to reject doing business with someone who seems off than most retail gun stores will.

But if someone passes a background check, then what? No one possesses the ability to read someone's mind. And with 350 million guns in our country, if someone is hellbent on committing a mass shooting like this they won't be stopped very easily.

It's actually sad that gun control groups distract people into believing that gun legislation will stop these mass shooters. If I believed for one second that any of the gun control proposals I've seen bandied about would prevent a shooting I'd tell you. There's a lot of things we can do with mental health and in a number of other areas, but at its core this is a societal and cultural issue. Legislation is rarely able to make quick headway against issues so complex unless it's based off of well-researched policy.

I definitely support increasing funds to study mass shooters. And I think it should involve not just mental health professionals, law enforcement, legislators, scientists, ministers, etc. It should also involve people who have significant experience with firearms and that understand our current firearms laws and culture. They can provide unique insight and also prevent the knee-jerk of just passing random gun control to make it seem like something is being done.

 

[gangstonc]

What Kory is trying to explain is that background checks are already pretty universal outside of face to face personal sales (which some states are now regulating as well). I can promise you that the vast majority of gun owners do a fairly good job of self-policing when it comes to personal sales. No one wants to sell a gun to a mass shooter, and I bet you most people doing infrequent personal sales are more likely to reject doing business with someone who seems off than most retail gun stores will.

But if someone passes a background check, then what? No one possesses the ability to read someone's mind. And with 350 million guns in our country, if someone is hellbent on committing a mass shooting like this they won't be stopped very easily.

It's actually sad that gun control groups distract people into believing that gun legislation will stop these mass shooters. If I believed for one second that any of the gun control proposals I've seen bandied about would prevent a shooting I'd tell you. There's a lot of things we can do with mental health and in a number of other areas, but at its core this is a societal and cultural issue. Legislation is rarely able to make quick headway against issues so complex unless it's based off of well-researched policy.

I definitely support increasing funds to study mass shooters. And I think it should involve not just mental health professionals, law enforcement, legislators, scientists, ministers, etc. It should also involve people who have significant experience with firearms and that understand our current firearms laws and culture. They can provide unique insight and also prevent the knee-jerk of just passing random gun control to make it seem like something is being done.

Every other country in the world has video games and mental health issues.

 

[gangstonc]

I don’t know if he’s right or not, but this is a serious statement considering who it is from.

 

[KoD]

Well let's not forget the Dickey Amendment of 1996 lobbied by the NRA .. which finally as of 2018 has been "reworded" to clarify that the CDC can study gun violence with a broader scope.

 

[KoD]

A rare infographic that defies political ideology

 

[gangstonc]

This dude is going all in!

 

[KoD]

I've personally seen four gun shot victims over the past two days at Huntsville Hospital this weekend. More often than not this stuff isn't in the news or the public eye. Gun violence is outrageous, but even beyond that, car accidents are another ridiculously frequent occurrence and cause of severe trauma and death. More needs to be done to address these preventable situations. It's one thing to work a code on a 82 year old with advanced heart disease and COPD. It's another to cut open a 19 year old teenagers chest and try to manually stop the bleeding from the bullet wounds. It's even harder to try and support the family members after they're told their loved one is dead before they graduated college.
I don't pretend to know what the right answers are, but an unlimited supply of guns isn't working out too well. At the bare minimum we should be forcing extensive evidence based, peer reviewed unbiased research on gun violence, homicide, driving, motor vehicle collisions and education regarding all of that. Just as well, we need to have basic life support including CPR and tourniquet use required for anyone in highschool and/or college (basing which or both on the results of scientific studies).

 

[gangstonc]

To be certain, the difference between a car accident and a death in a shooting is the violence. It’s one thing to lose someone to a tragic accident. It’s altogether different to lose them to needless violence.

 

[Evan]

Every other country in the world has video games and mental health issues.

Every other country in the world has video games and mental health issues.

Yet gun homicides are MASSIVELY down from the 1970s-1990s even though the number of guns has also skyrocketed.

I've posted the piece before. It's from 538. Mass shootings are a terrible way to make policy to combat gun violence. They're a very tiny amount of overall gun violence, but they shock our conscience like nothing else.

Why is it that gun violence overall has been dramatically and I mean DRAMATICALLY reduced (even as our country has a much higher population) yet mass shootings have exploded in frequency? Why is it that so many mass shootings have happened since 2012?

I think it's easy to say mass shooting = person used a gun therefore we should further restrict or ban guns or their accessories. It's much harder to explain why more guns haven't led to any increase in overall gun violence or gun deaths (in fact, as I said before, there's been a massive decrease). Violence in general -- not just gun violence -- is down sharply. But mass shootings are way up.

Do I think massive gun control and confiscation could stop some mass shootings? Sure. But good luck doing so with 350+ million guns. We're not in Australia or New Zealand. And there's plenty of people in this country who will fight any attempts to ban or restrict guns. You'll stop some mass shootings probably, but you'll also get civil unrest and eoe) people thinking it is the 1860s again.

I'm just trying to approach this rationally. It's a small number of people that commit mass shootings. It's a small number of people who commit gun violence in general. Exponentially less of those people than there are guns. Seems like that should be the focus -- particularly because it's a much more manageable number -- than 350 million+ guns.

It's just like how I've always said we're not going to deport 11-12 million illegal aliens. I think some people would love to try, but even Trump knows it's a total non-starter.

This is why I think focusing on gun control as a way to prevent mass shootings is a distraction. It's not a feasible strategy, the scale of the problem (# of guns) is gigantic, and there's a much narrower focus that would bear much better results.

 

[Evan]

For those irritated that I invoked Trump, read this Washington Examiner Op-ed.

Trump has a duty and a responsibility here. But I fully expect him to come out for a gun grab tomorrow (or a magazine capacity ban or something similar) because Trump's always been a New Yorker at heart and that's never going to change. He doesn't like guns, and likes things he can take executive action on. He may use the same ridiculous bump stock EO logic to rein in magazine size, rifle imports, AR pistols, etc.

I will be shocked if Trump doesn't cave on guns tomorrow. Few want to actually consider why all these young men are doing this. They just want some kind of superficial action that doesn't even address why they're so driven to hate and murder.

 

[Kory]

To be certain, the difference between a car accident and a death in a shooting is the violence. It’s one thing to lose someone to a tragic accident. It’s altogether different to lose them to needless violence.

This is a very odd statement. A life lost is a life lost. I’m not going to find any solace in losing a family member to a fiery crash versus a shooting. I am so very glad to have NEVER experienced either.

But let’s break down the stats, the majority of car fatalities per the CDC are due to driving while intoxicated, distracted driving, or excessive speed. Those are all intentional and require someone to make a conscious decision to disregard someone else’s life and safety. Totally needless and preventable.

 

[gangstonc]

This is a very odd statement. A life lost is a life lost. I’m not going to find any solace in losing a family member to a fiery crash versus a shooting. I am so very glad to have NEVER experienced either.

But let’s break down the stats, the majority of car fatalities per the CDC are due to driving while intoxicated, distracted driving, or excessive speed. Those are all intentional and require someone to make a conscious decision to disregard someone else’s life and safety. Totally needless and preventable.

But the car wrecks are not evil, and we can survive in the US day-to-day without cars.

 

[Kory]

But the car wrecks are not evil, and we can survive in the US day-to-day without cars.

I’m not going to argue semantics of what is evil and what isn’t. Vast majority of car wreck fatalities are preventable and the actions leading to them are preventable. Someone had the intent to speed or drink and drive knowing it a 2 ton piece of metal can easily kill.

 

[gangstonc]

I’m not going to argue semantics of what is evil and what isn’t. Vast majority of car wreck fatalities are preventable and the actions leading to them are preventable. Someone had the intent to speed or drink and drive knowing it a 2 ton piece of metal can easily kill.

I don’t think we need to argue that a mass shooter is evil.

Plus, there are already more restrictions for driving than there are for gun ownership.

I’m all for spending time and resources making our roads safer (better infrastructure and public transportation options is one way), and I don’t really see how that affects gun control, which is its own argument.

 

[Kory]

Plus, there are already more restrictions for driving than there are for gun ownership.

Can we get some back up of this statement or we just mouthing off talking points ?

 

[gangstonc]

Can we get some back up of this statement or we just mouthing off talking points ?

The last gun I bought, I wrote my name and info down and walked out of Cabela’s five minutes later.

The last car I drove i had to get a permit by taking a written test, practice for a year, then take another written test, then take a driving test.

It was much more difficult to be allowed to drive. I had no idea this could be considered a talking point.

I’d like for a safety class and test to be mandatory before being allowed to own a weapon.

 

[Kory]

The last gun I bought, I wrote my name and info down and walked out of Cabela’s five minutes later.

The last car I drove i had to get a permit by taking a written test, practice for a year, then take another written test, then take a driving test.

It was much more difficult to be allowed to drive. I had no idea this could be considered a talking point.

I’d like for a safety class and test to be mandatory before being allowed to own a weapon.

Who is going to pay for those classes? Are poor disadvantaged people going to have their rights restricted because they can’t afford classes? What about those who can’t read and take said tests? Once you start putting tests and permits and whatnot on enumerated rights, it becomes a slippery slope.

Sort of why we banned poll taxes and literacy tests for voting.