Master US Political Discussion Thread

[Unleash the Echidnas]

Feels like a metaphor for the entire country.

 

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/lauren-boebert-jesus-ar-15s_n_62aa02e3e4b06169ca93a9a4/amp

 

This is the strangest form of victim blaming I've ever seen...

[RobL2415]

17 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/lauren-boebert-jesus-ar-15s_n_62aa02e3e4b06169ca93a9a4/amp

 

This is the strangest form of victim blaming I've ever seen...

So, what's funny about saying Jesus would have lived if he had a gun, is that then Jesus would not be the savior of the world. If he doesn't die on the cross, we would never be guaranteed eternal salvation, never be able to be forgiven for our sins. She would not be able to call herself a Christian.

 

FWIW, anyone who professes their faith in Jesus, loves him and believes that he is the Son of God, no matter how much they have sinned, is a Christian.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

1 hour ago, RobL2415 said:

So, what's funny about saying Jesus would have lived if he had a gun, is that then Jesus would not be the savior of the world. If he doesn't die on the cross, we would never be guaranteed eternal salvation, never be able to be forgiven for our sins. She would not be able to call herself a Christian.

 

FWIW, anyone who professes their faith in Jesus, loves him and believes that he is the Son of God, no matter how much they have sinned, is a Christian.

I'm not going to launch into a tangent about the problematic theology of Jesus sacrifice being necessary in light of contradictory claims about God, but you really did bring up a good point.
 

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

House Democrat introduces bill to impose 1000% tax on AR-15’s, ‘assault weapons’ (msn.com)

So we're back to racist methods of pushing gun control now. Oh, except we can't call it racism...we have to call it "disparate impact" because of political correctness. All this kind of law will do is serve to keep the poor (which we all know falls along racial lines) from having the tools to protect themselves by exercising their constitutionally protected rights. This is not the way, and I'm disgusted by the folks who are stupid enough to think this is going to solve anything. 

[RobL2415]

4 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

House Democrat introduces bill to impose 1000% tax on AR-15’s, ‘assault weapons’ (msn.com)

So we're back to racist methods of pushing gun control now. Oh, except we can't call it racism...we have to call it "disparate impact" because of political correctness. All this kind of law will do is serve to keep the poor (which we all know falls along racial lines) from having the tools to protect themselves by exercising their constitutionally protected rights. This is not the way, and I'm disgusted by the folks who are stupid enough to think this is going to solve anything. 

Just regulate AR-15s as machine guns. Make them get a tax stamp.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

14 hours ago, RobL2415 said:

Just regulate AR-15s as machine guns. Make them get a tax stamp.

That's not how that works. Machineguns, as defined by law, require a tax stamp to transfer, but it's been unlawful to manufacture a machinegun for almost 40 years. Every transferable machinegun was made before a certain year when they ceased to allow them to be registered. Even if the government chose to go that route, it still falls victim to the same racially disparate impact problem that all financial gun control does. All tax stamps do is turn certain firearm owners into tax criminals for not doing paperwork, it really accomplishes nothing. There are basically no firearms that are illegal to own...only ones that you have to pay taxes on. Prohibitively expensive, but not impossible.

[Unleash the Echidnas]

Since we're on the topic of gun care, it seems logical to segue to health control.

 

Spoiler

If the hospital is anything like the ones I've lived next to, it probably does charge too much.

 

[LeChat]

23 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

...This is not the way, and I'm disgusted by the folks who are stupid enough to think this is going to solve anything...

It seems, to me, the rest of the world seems to have done well, since they don't have the same high number of gun/homicide/fatalities as the U.S.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

2 hours ago, LeChat said:

It seems, to me, the rest of the world seems to have done well, since they don't have the same high number of gun/homicide/fatalities as the U.S.

There is absolutely no way to compare the US to the rest of the world, we have exponentially more firearms in the hands of far greater a percentage of the population in a country with vastly different laws and law enforcement. Ignoring that makes a world of difference, but it also makes anyone who does it look like an idiot.

 

Japan is an example nobody talks about, it's almost always Canada, England, or Australia. Do you want to know why the Japanese have been so thoroughly disarmed? It's because of roughly four hundred years of their government having acted to do so, including several decades of doing so after being pushed to during the US occupation. Speaking of England, they've likewise had substantial gun control for hundreds of years. Canada likewise has had about two centuries of time to enforce tight control of firearms.

 

We can back and forth over this ad nauseum, but I'm probably going to drop it here soon. The gross misrepresentation of data by one side in the public discourse (and that's assuming all of these people actually have done any research, it often seems they haven't) has made arguing numbers out of context the norm. I'd encourage anyone who wants to form an educated opinion on the topic in any direction to go beyond the surface level abstractions, and to really look into the historical context for gun laws and the sociopolitical context for gun control measures. 

[RobL2415]

On 6/17/2022 at 1:23 PM, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

I'm disgusted by the folks who are stupid enough to think this is going to solve anything.

As I said in WAYMCO, you don't think that firearms safety training and competency exams would at least prevent many accidental gun deaths? Do you not want gun owners to be disciplined?

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

9 minutes ago, RobL2415 said:

As I said in WAYMCO, you don't think that firearms safety training and competency exams would at least prevent many accidental gun deaths? Do you not want gun owners to be disciplined?

I think that we should as a country stiffen penalties for unsafe storage or handling and return to shall-issue carry licensure, but I don't support mandating what you're suggesting. I do think it's a good idea, full stop, for people to train. I want quick and decisive action with judicious shot placement, and more importantly I want people to know when they can, and furthermore when they should, shoot. 

[RobL2415]

1 minute ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

it's a good idea, full stop, for people to train.

Then if you think it's a good idea, why is your solution only punitive? Why not also take preventative measures? I can guess that a majority of gun owners in constitutional carry states will see a "recommendation" to take a safety course as "optional". 

[Sally]

On 6/17/2022 at 10:23 AM, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

House Democrat introduces bill to impose 1000% tax on AR-15’s, ‘assault weapons’ (msn.com)

So we're back to racist methods of pushing gun control now. Oh, except we can't call it racism...we have to call it "disparate impact" because of political correctness. All this kind of law will do is serve to keep the poor (which we all know falls along racial lines) from having the tools to protect themselves by exercising their constitutionally protected rights. This is not the way, and I'm disgusted by the folks who are stupid enough to think this is going to solve anything. 

Racist?  You've got to be kidding.  The overwhelming majority of mass-murder shooters have been white, and poverty has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed need for assault weapons to protect oneself.  

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

5 minutes ago, Sally said:

Racist?  You've got to be kidding.  The overwhelming majority of mass-murder shooters have been white, and poverty has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed need for assault weapons to protect oneself.  

I'm not talking about mass shooters, I'm talking about gun control. Go read a history book, maybe you'll learn something.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

3 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

I'm not talking about mass shooters, I'm talking about gun control. Go read a history book, maybe you'll learn something.

If anyone wants a good place to start...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2022/01/16/gun-control-is-just-as-racist-as-drug-control/%3famp

[RobL2415]

17 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

If anyone wants a good place to start...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2022/01/16/gun-control-is-just-as-racist-as-drug-control/%3famp

While drugs can be dangerous if misused, they don't lead to gun violence very often. And this is coming from someone who firmly believes that all drugs should be legal.

[Tetus]

1 hour ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

I'm not talking about mass shooters, I'm talking about gun control. Go read a history book, maybe you'll learn something.

Any statistics, peer-reviewed studies or actual evidence of any kind in support of your points yet, or is this just more bloviating? Asking for a friend.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

1 hour ago, RobL2415 said:

While drugs can be dangerous if misused, they don't lead to gun violence very often. And this is coming from someone who firmly believes that all drugs should be legal.

Go read what you replied to, it's looking like you probably stopped after the title.

[Tetus]

2 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Any to back up yours? I've pointed to readily available information online, of you're too lazy or stupid to read it then that's your problem.

Cool.

 

But yes, I have posted links to actual studies, not speculative articles written by shills looking to promote a political agenda. As a matter of fact, I posted them yesterday in reply to you making these same arguments in another thread, and asked if you had any competing evidence of similar quality, but I hadn't heard back yet.

  

On 6/17/2022 at 5:41 PM, Epic Tetus said:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

 

I found these in about 5 minutes. Please share your extensive evidence that owning guns makes people safer, or maybe some of the peer-reviewed studies that show that gun control laws don't impact gun violence rates.

 

Note that flaccid attempts to claim that even though data clearly shows that places with stricter gun control have fewer gun injuries and deaths, the two numbers aren't related will need to be backed up by some statistical evidence that supports that idea, or just admit that you have no interest in rationality, reason, or evidence when it comes to this topic, and that you won't be moved from your position. Then we can stop discussing it, as you've made yourself clear.

I think you'll find that acting as though you're the smartest person in the room is easier to pull off when you have literally any evidence of any kind at all in your favor. 'Cause right now, you're just being really disingenuous and repetitive, and then when you get challenged, you resort to insults and insisting that only dum-dums could possibly not see how smart brained your ideas are.

 

If you want to understand why its impossible to take you seriously on this topic, read some of the replies people have made to you. If you don't want to understand, then at least have the self-awareness to not accuse the people engaging with you of bringing laziness or stupidity into the conversation.

[Still]

9 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

If anyone wants a good place to start...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2022/01/16/gun-control-is-just-as-racist-as-drug-control/%3famp

It's true that there's a racist element to some gun control laws in the US: right-wing hero Reagan couldn't instigate gun control fast enough when the Black Panthers got armed. There's some stuff about this in recent episodes of Behind the Bastards. In fact, 2A really only exists to protect the rights of right-wing white people to own guns, if you're a leftist and/or a minority, especially if you're a member of an organized group (or the government pretends like you are), you can't rely on it to save your ass.

 

All that being said, Reason.com is Koch-funded garbage that I'd trust about as far as I can throw David Koch's rotting corpse.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

9 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

But yes, I have posted links to actual studies, not speculative articles written by shills looking to promote a political agenda. As a matter of fact, I posted them yesterday in reply to you making these same arguments in another thread, and asked if you had any competing evidence of similar quality, but I hadn't heard back yet.

You know, I'm going to swallow my pride and admit to something here. I didn't see the post you made that contained all of those the other day, and as such I wrongly accused you of not having done so. My apologies for losing track of that between the 3 or so threads I've been engaged with. You definitely did post citations, I was factually mistaken in claiming that. For that much I do sincerely apologize.

[Unleash the Echidnas]

12 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

'Cause right now, you're just being really disingenuous and repetitive, and then when you get challenged, you resort to insults and insisting that only dum-dums could possibly not see how smart brained your ideas are.

There was also the plea to look more deeply in order to reach similar conclusions. Which I'm confused by, since I'm unsure how placing the United States in context—while some countries have a few times more peacetime gun deaths per capita than the United States most have one to two orders of magnitude less—makes its relatively high level of gun violence less concerning. As a more active example, yeah, the current artillery slugfest in the Donbas kills about as many Ukranian soldiers a day as guns kill people people use guns to kill people a day in the United States. For most of the past eight years of Russia's war mean per capita risk has been an order of magnitude lower in the Ukraine than in the United States, though.

 

Makes it hard for me to get away from the ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens vibe.

[daveb]

Not a surprise, but in case anyone had any doubt, the Texas GOP has officially endorsed the big lie that Biden did not win the presidency. They have also officially made it clear they are anti-LGBT. I wonder which other states will follow suit. Is Florida next? At least they are making it totally clear and anyone who still supports them should know what they are supporting.

[Unleash the Echidnas]

But that would mean lower profits for the world's most expensive health care system.

 

Universal healthcare as pandemic preparedness: The lives and costs that could have been saved during the COVID-19 pandemic

Quote

Incorporating the demography of the uninsured with age-specific COVID-19 and nonpandemic mortality, we estimated that a single-payer universal healthcare system would have saved about 212,000 lives in 2020 alone. We also calculated that US$105.6 billion of medical expenses associated with COVID-19 hospitalization could have been averted by a single-payer universal healthcare system over the course of the pandemic. These economic benefits are in addition to US$438 billion expected to be saved by single-payer universal healthcare during a nonpandemic year.

 

[Acing It]

Just saw this on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61915237

I find this unbelievable, the video included. Over here they would call the politician in the video something beginning with T and ending with T. The argument of needing guns to defend yourself, the way he makes the argument only stands in a society where enough nutcases have guns to be scared enough. How sad. 

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

2 hours ago, Acing It said:

Just saw this on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61915237

I find this unbelievable, the video included. Over here they would call the politician in the video something beginning with T and ending with T. The argument of needing guns to defend yourself, the way he makes the argument only stands in a society where enough nutcases have guns to be scared enough. How sad. 

The ruling is in line with the constitution, specifically the prohibition against the government infringing upon the right to bear arms that the Second Amendment prohibits them from infringing. The right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the constitution, it already exists without it. The amendment only prohibits the government from infringing it.

[RobL2415]

2 hours ago, Acing It said:

Just saw this on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61915237

I find this unbelievable, the video included. Over here they would call the politician in the video something beginning with T and ending with T. The argument of needing guns to defend yourself, the way he makes the argument only stands in a society where enough nutcases have guns to be scared enough. How sad. 

I think this is an easy take to have, considering the country that you live in.

 

From what I understand, the right self-defense barely exists in the UK.

[Acing It]

18 hours ago, RobL2415 said:

I think this is an easy take to have, considering the country that you live in.

 

From what I understand, the right self-defense barely exists in the UK.

Because it's not really needed, nor in Switzerland. That was my point though, that it's sad that some believe it's needed in the US.

[Acing It]

19 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

The right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the constitution, it already exists without it.

That's interesting. Where did that come from then? 

That's part of my point as well, though. Many other countries seem to get by without the culture around fire arms and related that exists in the US. From my perspective at least, the constitution and the second (?) amendment seem more like a hindrance than a help in that it gives those who are keen to have lots of firearms ammunition (pun intended 😄) to argue to keep them and to maintain the culture that already exists. However useful the constitution and the second amendment were at the time when they were conceived, laws, even constitutions, should be allowed to be reviewed and revised when they are outdated, but that's en entire other hornet's nest I put my foot into already 😄.

There are a lot of weapons among the population here as well, and increasingly so apparently because of the situation with Ukraine, but there isn't the culture like there is in the US. Culture is very, very hard to change and any lasting change often happens organically over a significant amount of time.