Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the
That would be a right
Killer who shot Kirk
person that firebombed Shapiro
Church shooters
I put the trans shooters on the left
All of them were mentally disturbed but when you keep calling Trump voters Nazis and SS and gustapo . It seems the lefties get provoked easier
Ok, so you don't want to define lately and go with all shootings/violence?
List them all. Let's tally them up and see who gets provoked easier. We'll even scratch off the snowflakes that stormed the Capitol to hang Mike Pence.
% of homicides involving guns is ~79%. 55% of those victimized are black.
However even if we take out all of those homicides we are still much higher than the next highest country.
It does seem like guns have a high impact on our homicide rate, but what the solution is I’m not sure. There are ways of addressing this issue that don’t seem constitutional but would be very effective.
There are also other things we can do like increase funding for police or police surveillance.
It seems that most in this country are happy with the status quo or they at least don’t care enough to do something to change it and make it an issue worth it for politicians to campaign on.
Than the next highest OECD country*
It does seem like guns have a high impact on our homicide rate, but what the solution is I’m not sure. There are ways of addressing this issue that don’t seem constitutional but would be very effective.
There are also other things we can do like increase funding for police or police surveillance.
Oh word, is that how other nations solved this problem? Because the US funds the **** out of the police. You think Uvalde PD just.... needs more cash?
It seems that most in this country are happy with the status quo or they at least don’t care enough to do something to change it and make it an issue worth it for politicians to campaign on.
You're being transparently dishonest; candidates campaign on changing the gun laws all the time.
% of homicides involving guns is ~79%. 55% of those victimized are black.However even if we take out all of those homicides we are still much higher than the next highest country.It does seem like guns have a high impact on our homicide rate, but what the solution is I’m not sure. There are ways of addressing this issue that don’t seem constitutional but would be very effective
It is only the right wing that is happy with the status quo in the US.
Basically 90% of people in the US want all sales of guns to go through government validation of the buyer. Right now in gun shows or sales of guns within a family no verification is necessary. And so there is no way to stop ex-criminals or people who are not sane from attaining guns.
There are other issues where over 70% of the country wants changes (like not allowing the sale of semi automatic rifles that can be operated almost like machine guns, gun laws regarding locks or safes for guns so families with children won't have the child fire a loaded gun, etc.)
The problem is that all gun laws that can be passed in congress need at least 60 senators (out of 100) to vote for it. In my lifetime there has basically only been 2 years where democrats held a majority in the House, 60 Senators and the Presidency and that was in 2010 to 2012 (well it was less than 2 years because it took months for 1 Democratic Senator to get approved after a close vote and then another Democratic Senator died with 6 months or so to go). And they had exactly 60. I'm guessing it was WV Senator Manchin who made gun control laws an impossibility.
It is a frustrating time where we have people under 21 years of age able to get their hands on guns and semi automatic rifles and kill children in schools and the people in power who can make changes to the situation refuse and then send their prayers to the families of the lost children.
Oh word, is that how other nations solved this problem? Because the US funds the **** out of the police. You think Uvalde PD just.... needs more cash?
You're being transparently dishonest; candidates campaign on changing the gun laws all the time.
The US has more crime, so their need to fun police is even higher than that of other countries with less crime. That the US spends more on police than the next closest country doesn’t indicate that spending even more on police wouldn’t be helpful. It’s just bad reasoning.
This is especially true because we have evidence of what happens when we spend more on police (the crime bill, NYC under Giuliani) and we see that crime goes down when that happens. We also see what happens when cities start spending less on police.
Most homicide crime is not mass shootings, so even if more police spending doesn’t help with mass shootings, that isn’t evidence that increasing police spending won’t bring down the overall homicide rate..
As for your last point, have you ever heard of someone losing a race because they were not strong enough on gun control? Or is it more likely that the opposite is true, that they lose a race because of their stance in favor of gun control? If anything gun control is a bad issue for Democrats that hurts them with the voters they actually need.
It is only the right wing that is happy with the status quo in the US. Basically 90% of people in the US want all sales of guns to go through government validation of the buyer. Right now in gun shows or sales of guns within a family no verification is necessary. And so there is no way to stop ex-criminals or people who are not sane from attaining guns.There are other issues
As I said above, there are ways of decreasing gun crime that could gain a consensus that don’t involve gun control.
Also, I don’t really like polls that ask a litany of policy questions to people and then give them a yes/no/unsure option. It’s hard to know through those polls what the strength of belief is and whether it amounts to a true political zeitgeist. If I was asked a question offhandedly in a poll, prior to any investigation I might answer one way and then posterior to investigation I might answer another way. So I don’t think getting people to answer 90% on a poll question is as significant as people think it is.
This depends on the methodology of the poll of course.
It is only the right wing that is happy with the status quo in the US. Basically 90% of people in the US want all sales of guns to go through government validation of the buyer. Right now in gun shows or sales of guns within a family no verification is necessary. And so there is no way to stop ex-criminals or people who are not sane from attaining guns.There are other issues
Well if its 90 % that means at least a good % of Republicans want it as well
I bet 80% would support banning the high capacity magazines, background checks and gun training . Heck the NRA used to be all about gun safety . I remember one guy debating Kirk and used the argument that you need a license to drive a car why not a gun and he acknowledged that he could be onboard for that a firm second amendment guy .
Well if its 90 % that means at least a good % of Republicans want it as well I bet 80% would support banning the high capacity magazines, background checks and gun training . Heck the NRA used to be all about gun safety . I remember one guy debating Kirk and used the argument that you need a license to drive a car why not a gun and he acknowledged that he could be onboard for
Lol.
- 80% of the country does not support banning high-capacity magazines.
- Show a clip of a Kirk in favor of licensure for gun owners.
Second Amendment guys shutdown that argument very quickly by letting you know you that you have no constitutional right to drive a vehicle but you do for gun ownership, so applying for a license to own a gun is an infringement of the Second Amendment.
The US has more crime, so their need to fun police is even higher than that of other countries with less crime. That the US spends more on police than the next closest country doesn’t indicate that spending even more on police wouldn’t be helpful. It’s just bad reasoning.This is especially true because we have evidence of what happens when we spend more on pol
Again, if this was true, and police spending reduced crime, American cities would all have vastly less crime than Europe. You wouldn't be pointing to NYC under Rudy, you'd be pointing to the low crime rates across the US. That isn't the case.
Most homicide crime is not mass shootings, so even if more police spending doesn’t help with mass shootings, that isn’t evidence that increasing police spending won’t bring down the overall homicide rate.
Police spending clearly isn't helping with overall homicides (see above), but also, we were specifically talking about gun crime, which you seem to agree isn't improved by giving the cops more money!
As for your last point, have you ever heard of someone losing a race because they were not strong enough on gun control? Or is it more likely that the opposite is true, that they lose a race because of their stance in favor of gun control? If anything gun control is a bad issue for Democrats that hurts them with the voters they actually need.
What's likely is that America has a minoritarian government that's owned lock. stock, and barrel by the gun lobby. It's sort of incontrovertible that the overwhelming majority of US voters want much more gun control than the government is providing (polls are quite clear on this). Mr. Rick's number of 70% being in favor is probably an underestimate.
Lol.- 80% of the country does not support banning high-capacity magazines.- Show a clip of a Kirk in favor of licensure for gun owners.Second Amendment guys shutdown that argument very quickly by letting you know you that you have no constitutional right to drive a vehicle but you do for gun ownership, so applying for a license to own a gun is an infringement of the Second Amen
He didn’t say license said gun safety training
Personally I support a gun license that requires gun safety training
Again, if this was true, and police spending reduced crime, American cities would all have vastly less crime than Europe. You wouldn't be pointing to NYC under Rudy, you'd be pointing to the low crime rates across the US. That isn't the case.
Wrong. If the background rate of crime is lower in European cities, then the rate of police spending necessary to bring down crime levels to lower levels than European cities will be much higher than European cities. This is a base-rate fallacy you’re committing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rat...
Police spending clearly isn't helping with overall homicides (see above), but also, we were specifically talking about gun crime, which you seem to agree isn't improved by giving the cops more money!
false. I said it may be true that mass shooting crime isn’t helped by more police spending, but since it is a very low percentage of overall gun crime this doesn’t actually address whether or not increased police spending will lower gun crime.
That’s assuming that this is true, to be charitable. I actually think your argument that this is the case is really stupid.
What's likely is that America has a minoritarian government that's owned lock. stock, and barrel by the gun lobby. It's sort of incontrovertible that the overwhelming majority of US voters want much more gun control than the government is providing (polls are quite clear on this). Mr. Rick's number of 70% being in favor is probably an underestimate.
I responded to Mr Rick, which you didn’t address, and this doesn’t address my point either.
Mr Rick’s point is actually contrary to yours, because Mr Rick’s point is that even if you had 59 senators in favor of gun laws, it still wouldn’t happen. That seems to indicate that you don’t need people to be bought wholly by the gun lobby at all. In fact you would need a good deal of consensus to be able to pass federal gun laws.
Seeing as the entirety of the democratic party seems to support more gun laws, that’s further evidence that people are not bought and paid for.
Like I said as well, people can just answer yes to a question on a poll without actually indicating strong or stable feelings about it. They may just be hearing the suggestion for the first time and evaluating based off a very shallow understanding of the issue.
% of homicides involving guns is ~79%. 55% of those victimized are black.However even if we take out all of those homicides we are still much higher than the next highest country.It does seem like guns have a high impact on our homicide rate, but what the solution is I’m not sure. There are ways of addressing this issue that don’t seem constitutional but would be very effective
those who could have the kind of influence to change anything beyond the status quo instead just vote with their wallets and move to safer neighborhoods and are thus widely insulated from the problem - in fact, the 1MM premium on their real estate to live in such a neighborhood would be gone if they fixed it so they are actually strongly disincentivized against change
those who could have the kind of influence to change anything beyond the status quo instead just vote with their wallets and move to safer neighborhoods and are thus widely insulated from the problem - in fact, the 1MM premium on their real estate to live in such a neighborhood would be gone if they fixed it so they are actually strongly disincentivized against change
Many liberals also move to safer neighborhoods and have indeed voted for gun control. The problem is criminals are not completely stupid and understand that different states have different gun laws. It has been known for a couple decades that banning handguns in Illinois doesn’t help if one state over they can buy a hand gun the same day with minimal or no background check.
Many liberals also move to safer neighborhoods and have indeed voted for gun control. The problem is criminals are not completely stupid and understand that different states have different gun laws. It has been known for a couple decades that banning handguns in Illinois doesn’t help if one state over they can buy a hand gun the same day with minimal or no background check.
agreed, the only thing we get from individual state legislation is insane amounts of paperwork for lawful gun owners
was thinking of bringing a shotgun on my xc road trip but noped out of it once i realized the dozen or so permits i would have to apply to receive in order to do so legally
That would be a right
Killer who shot Kirk
person that firebombed Shapiro
Church shooters
I put the trans shooters on the left
All of them were mentally disturbed but when you keep calling Trump voters Nazis and SS and gustapo . It seems the lefties get provoked easier
If you're going to automatically put all Church shooters on the left, you need to put all school shooters on the right.
Then how does the math go?
Which it just isn't. The US and UK have similar rates of property crime and non-lethal crimes.
So your theory is that A. Americans are so uniquely hyperviolent that even with massively higher police spending (which you say reduces crime) we're *still* seeing an order of magnitude and B. American's aren't particularly disposed to doing other kinds of crimes. It's an absurd, nonsensical mess.
Mr Rick’s point is actually contrary to yours, because Mr Rick’s point is that even if you had 59 senators in favor of gun laws, it still wouldn’t happen. That seems to indicate that you don’t need people to be bought wholly by the gun lobby at all. In fact you would need a good deal of consensus to be able to pass federal gun laws.
As I said, we have a minoritarian government. Finding 59 Senators in favor of gun control isn't going to happen even with popular support because the Senate is wildly tilted toward rural states. 5/9 SCOTUS Justices we appointed by GOP Presidents who lost the popular vote. And on top of that, corporate lobbying groups have an enormous amount of power.
Like I said as well, people can just answer yes to a question on a poll without actually indicating strong or stable feelings about it. They may just be hearing the suggestion for the first time and evaluating based off a very shallow understanding of the issue.
And now you're just shamelessly bullshitting; the simplest explanation for why people say they want more gun control when polled is because they want more gun control, not because they have unstable feels or they're just now encountering the concept of gun control for the first time.
You’re a level 0 political thinker and it shows. These are like basic problems in polling that I talked about.
Non-Accounting for Intensity of Opinion
Related to the issue of non-opinion is the issue of opinion intensity. As Asher notes above, often people will respond to a question about which they have no genuine attitude or opinion – even if given a “no opinion” option.
The earliest of modern day pollsters recognized this problem and argued for some way to address it. Daniel Katz wrote a chapter in a 1944 book by Hadley Cantril and Associates, Gauging Public Opinion, that “to interpret poll results adequately it is necessary to know whether an expressed attitude represents a superficially held view which may be discarded the next moment or whether it reflects a cherished conviction which will change only under unusual pressure.” He argued that it was crucial to determine “whether or not an individual with a given opinion holds that opinion strongly enough to take the trouble to go out and vote for it or fight for it.”
While philosophically it may be difficult to determine the cut-off point between a superficially held view and a cherished conviction, practically all pollsters have asked some version of this follow-up to an expressed policy preference: “Do you support/oppose that strongly or not strongly?”
Most polls, however, do not include such a measure of intensity. In part, I believe, that’s because most pollsters want to maximize the percentage of people with apparently “cherished convictions.” But in part, I believe, most pollsters and reporters simply don’t know what to do with the intensity measures. Even when they are included, the “strongly” and “not strongly” percentages are usually combined into one summed number, which is then reported as the percentage with that opinion.
There are other ways to measure intensity, such as how important is the issue to the person (on, say, a scale of 1 to 10), or whether the issue is so important the person would vote against a political candidate with a contrary view. Still, the summed percentage is typically used as the benchmark measure of opinion, despite the fact that it includes both the superficially and strongly held views.
Also, if I’m correct and spending more on law enforcement leads to lower crime rate, then if the US has a higher background rate of crime if they have similar rates of property crime and non-violent crime as the UK then that is perfectly consistent with the US having higher background rates. Do you see why?
The US has more crime, so their need to fund police is even higher than that of other countries with less crime. That the US spends more on police than the next closest country doesn’t indicate that spending even more on police wouldn’t be helpful. It’s just bad reasoning.This is especially true because we have evidence of what happens when we spend more on po
Ever think on why the US gets more crime then other "civilized countries" ?
Maybe just put more money in social programs like the other instead of giving more money to repressive means like the police?
ah nvm, socialism is the worst form of evil in the US for most american, i forgot, my bad.
Ever think on why the US gets more crime then other "civilized countries" ?
Maybe just put more money in social programs like the other instead of giving more money to repressive means like the police?
ah nvm, socialism is the worst form of evil in the US for most american, i forgot, my bad.
I’m open to both.
If people just care about crime though, hiring, training, and funding more police is a possible solution. It’s also something that can be done at the local level, which adding more social services tends not to be done at the local level.
It’s just not an either/or. We can have more cops or better trained cops and still add more social services and more gun control.
I’m open to both.If people just care about crime though, hiring, training, and funding more police is a possible solution. It’s also something that can be done at the local level, which adding more social services tends not to be done at the local level.It’s just not an either/or. We can have more cops or better trained cops and still add more social services
fair enough.
but just adding repressive means to a population that cant have much opportunities to get out of poverty wont solve anything.
fair enough.
but just adding repressive means to a population that cant have much opportunities to get out of poverty wont solve anything.
100% I’m not disagreeing with this.
I’ve been watching this debate play out for my entire life. I’ve been on the side of the debate screaming about gun control and how common sense solutions just aren’t happening.
At this point I’m just so jaded, and I just want people to stop killing each other and making life so hard for law abiding citizens, which is the vast, vast majority of people even in the places where gun violence is so prevalent.
Also lower crime neighborhoods make things better for businesses, which makes things better for locals. It’s a win-win.
Another day, another mass shooting..
