US Politics Thread

[Murat B.]

My problem with this gun debate, aside from the loss of innocent lives of course, is the dishonesty of the far left. They want to save lives they say. But it is a well established statistical fact that the overwhelming majority of the gun violence in the US is committed by hand guns. We are talking 8 to 1. But the far left will say something like " We are not after the handguns , we want to get rid of these high powered assault weapons. The second amendment is safe ! " Well, didn't you just say you want to save lives? You could save way more lives by banning hand guns ! This attitude by SOME on the left leads me to believe they are more interested in the popularity of the crime than actual gun violence that takes place every single day in the country. Not blaming all on the left. They know who they are.

 

[calitennis127]

Mass shootings are only one measure of the stat though? Murder in general, using firearms is statistically high compared to comparative western civilizations. I lived in the UK when they had the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres and they made changes to gun ownership rules each time. The same happened in Oz with the Port Arthur massacre. The same is happening in New Zealand...

You can't legislate totally for nutcases - where there is a will there is a way, but you can remove the opportunistic element by removing wide-scale gun ownership. They did a documentary on it on Oz - about buying guns in the US... and it seemed easier than buying a beer. I'm not sure how true that was, but it seemed gun ownership was ingrained in large chunks of the American psyche.

Right, but the parts of the country that vote Republican and have high gun ownership have as low a gun homicide crime rate as any place on earth.

Why should rural Indiana or rural Alabama or Montana take the blame for the weekend shootings in Chicago and Baltimore?

Look at this chart:

I think the most honest thing to say would be that the white left has created such a depraved, wicked society in the United States that there are some people, particularly in urban areas, who should not be allowed to have guns. That is an argument I am open to hearing.

 

[calitennis127]

And since then there are a lot more guns and a lot more people. Anyways I don't think any one factor is to blame for the epidemic but part of the problem is those who act like the conditions today are similar to the days of the Constitution. There are amendments for a reason.

If advanced technology were the main reason for these shootings, they would have started happening a lot sooner. The period 1950 to 1990 was not an age of farming and muskets in the USA.

 

[calitennis127]

That is true for most countries in the world, but first the population density is much lower -- thus violence of any kind is statistically smaller - and extreme poverty is also way less present.

Okay but why should Republicans whose counties have next to no violence whatsoever take the blame for the violent crime in urban areas?

Point is that this (mass shootings) is an urban phenomenon mostly (if not always) committed by urban people. Since urban population is much larger, you simply cannot analyze it from any other viewpoint.

Yes, you can. No one is willing to speak honestly about the demographics of crime except when it comes to talking about the white male identity of some mass shooters. But if you point to the violent crime rate of any other group it is consider ipso facto racism.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm not religious at all but blaming organized religion for "causing the most harm" is lazy thinking. Of course it is all a matter of POV but I believe people are wired to be intolerant of differences, different race, nationality, religion, etc. And then there are also those who want to seize as much power as they can and in order to influence the large group/nation to help in their bid for power it has to be in the name of something such as religion, national interests, exterminating a group of different people, etc.

There were plenty of wars before Christ even with a lot smaller worldwide population. People will always find some reason to kill one another.

So you have a human race that is notoriously prone for violence, intolerance, and all the other things you're mentioning that existed long before religion...and you add to it the most toxic, intolerant and violent of books/institutions/ideologies and make it 10 times worse? Basically giving humans a righteous reason to kill one another? It's pretty obvious this has fed into human being's bloodlust.

So no, it's not lazy thinking. A psychopath would kill you with a knife, but he'd have a much easier time to cause damage if you give him a firearm. Human beings might be predisposed to kill each other... but you give them a literal God sent reason to do it and the result is the last 2000+ years.

 

[brokenshoelace]

No, it's based on historical record.

How many people did Mao kill?
How many people did Stalin kill?
How many people did Pol Pot kill?

Buddy, I could list a million dictators (figure of speech) who killed on ideological grounds for power and to retain power over the course of history.

People are tribal... and extremists take it another level. They'll find a cause. Patriotism, Politics, Race, Religion... it doesn't matter. Even sport for fuck's sake... where you'll have fans maiming or even killing each other in extreme cases.

See my response to Darth. Humans are guilty of everything you're saying and more. So how the fuck is religion in any way a good idea when it gives them all the more reasons to do it?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Mass shootings do happen in other countries - not on the scale of the US obviously and that's probably to do with lack of access to military level weapons. You don't need to convince me of the strange relationship the United States has with guns - they'd be better off having reduced or no access... but that genie was let out of the bottle when they wrote the constitution... it would be pretty difficult to roll it back.

If the populace of other countries had the same access to weapons as US Citizens then I suspect there wouldn't be a whole lot of difference in mass shooting stats pro-rata.

Literally every country that implemented gun control saw a huge reduction in firearm related deaths. Look no further than Australia, where you currently live.

So what are we discussing here really?

 

[brokenshoelace]

People like Broken are historically ignorant. They know next to nothing while having immense egos. In that sense, he is very much a white American leftist. He would have no problem assimilating. He might be the most American person on these boards in that sense.

Just to be clear, I received my Masters in arts - medieval studies 3 years ago and am currently working on my Doctorate of Philosophy in History. But yeah, OK.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So don't act like you're original or above Americans. You are simply following the lead of the American left. You are a DC follower, as demonstrated by your gleeful linking to Washington Post links.

I don't care about being "original." Originality is something you're interested in, hence your contrarian and insanely dumb opinions. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to claim I'm above Americans... However, you are a country in which half the voters went with a incompetent reality star who's a self proclaimed sexual predator, and the other half went with...Hilary Clinton. That's the best two candidates you were able to muster. A country that's notoriously self absorbed, ignorant, bigoted, racist, and so insecure about its masculinity that it jerks off to the military twice a day...A country responsible for some of the most heinous war crimes in recent history...and when you're not the ones doing the war crimes, you're secretly or not so secretly funding someone who is.

So do I think I'm above Americans? Again, no. Just above many Americans, and pretty much any Trump supporter. There's a reason you guys have become a worldwide laughing stock.

You know why? Because you are an uncultured idiot who thinks he's cultured. You're so uncultured that you think all of American conservatism is summed up by "Fox News." In other words, you are an ignorant tool and a slave to the AMERICAN media nexus of the New York Times and Washington Post that dominates the international news cycle.

Just to be clear, I graduated with a double major, a masters degree and am currently working on my PHD. I'm not saying that makes me cultured, but I'm saying it's pretty fucking ironic for you to claim that I'm not... You, a Donald Trump supporter.

Actually Broken I have won virtually every argument with you and everyone else on this board. I won the age debate convincingly. I pointed out the flaws of both Federer and Nadal that were exposed down the road. I totally owned you on the issue of Djokovic-on-grass. In fact, I have stomped on you so many times that I almost feel bad about it. If I "disappear," it's because I am doing other things or getting involved with some other preoccupation. It's not because I have any fear whatsoever of debating your ignorant ass.

You know only 1/1000th of what you think you know. You are pompous ignoramus of the highest magnitude.

Yes you did every argument. Such as JR Smith being the best player in the league, Randy Foye being better than Steph Curry, Rugby being a sport for pussies, France never having elite world class winners at the highest level, Rafael Nadal's lack of talent, Nalbandian being as good a mover as Nadal, Stefan Edberg having "more potent" ground strokes than Nadal, Nalbandian being the most talented player of all time... you've won all of those.

And if I indeed know 1/1000th of what I think I know, that still makes me more knowledgeable than many of your ignorant ass compatriots who can't locate their own country on a map.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Lol.....you fucking idiot. Outside of urban areas America's overall gun violence rate is barely higher than Japan. But since you are so ignorant about the USA and a complete slave to the AMERICAN New York Times and Washington Post, you don't know that. Here's a little data for your dumbass (just so you know, you are more American than I am; I assure you that you'd fit in much better in white Democratic areas in the U.S. than I do):

"In 2014, the most recent year that a county-level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders. 69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country.

The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 2% of counties contain 28% of the population and 51% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. But even within those counties the murders are very heavily concentrated in small areas."

So let's translate that for your ignorant ass: the rural areas that vote for Trump and have high gun ownership have hardly anymore murders than Japan. Think about that and absorb it.



54% of American counties (almost all rural and Trump-supporting) actually had 0. Count them....0, 0, 0. That's it. 0 gun related deaths in a whole fucking year. Less than Japan.




I actually wish I had more time and opportunity to read the Bible and study Biblical history instead of following the news and arguing with culturally illiterate slaves to the AMERICAN New York Times-Washington Post media church like yourself.

Ah yes, classic Cali: "if you take out the thousands of gun related murders, we actually haven't had that many."

Fantastic point.

No wonder the one person on these forums who's met you in person had a lot to say about the kind of moron you are.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just to be clear, while Japan had 3 gun related deaths in 2017, more than 30,000 US citizens are killed by guns every year...and yet Cali still tried to find a way to frame that. Amazing.

 

[Moxie]

Right, but the parts of the country that vote Republican and have high gun ownership have as low a gun homicide crime rate as any place on earth.

Why should rural Indiana or rural Alabama or Montana take the blame for the weekend shootings in Chicago and Baltimore?

Look at this chart:

I think the most honest thing to say would be that the white left has created such a depraved, wicked society in the United States that there are some people, particularly in urban areas, who should not be allowed to have guns. That is an argument I am open to hearing.

For the record, this Crime Prevention Research Center is headed by a guy with a serious pro-gun bias. He's written books called "More Guns, Less Crime," and "The Bias against Guns." He's obviously an intelligent and accomplished person, but his claims about concealed weapons lower crime rates has been considered by others in his field to real flaws in methodology.

 

[Moxie]

My problem with this gun debate, aside from the loss of innocent lives of course, is the dishonesty of the far left. They want to save lives they say. But it is a well established statistical fact that the overwhelming majority of the gun violence in the US is committed by hand guns. We are talking 8 to 1. But the far left will say something like " We are not after the handguns , we want to get rid of these high powered assault weapons. The second amendment is safe ! " Well, didn't you just say you want to save lives? You could save way more lives by banning hand guns ! This attitude by SOME on the left leads me to believe they are more interested in the popularity of the crime than actual gun violence that takes place every single day in the country. Not blaming all on the left. They know who they are.

You are absolutely right that handguns kill more people in the US than assault rifles, albeit not at once. I know you said "far left" people, and not all of them, at that, ignore the handguns issue. Still, I'm not sure that's true...I was listening to a program this morning making that exact point, but no matter. I think the more cogent point is that a majority of people in this country poll generally favorably towards reasonable gun control laws, waiting periods, background checks, a national database so that people who are deemed to have mental health issues, or have crime records, in one state don't get missed when they try to buy a gun in another one.

Most people in the US who have guns are responsible gun owners, and most people, including on the left, believe this. The problem is not that most people are not asking for more regulation, the problem is the lack of political will to effect it. Which, IMO, has to do with politicians being afraid of the gun lobby, on both sides of the aisle. Sure, there are already guns everywhere in this country, and they fall into the hands of criminals. Sure, there are people with no prior record who obtain guns legally and then shoot up a bunch of people. But that is no excuse for not taking any action in the face of the multiple thousands of gun deaths per annum in the US. Our problem with guns and violence is a multi-headed hydra and it has a long history. But that's no excuse for our lawmakers throwing up their hands and saying nothing more can be done other than offering "thoughts and prayers."

 

[mrzz]

Okay but why should Republicans whose counties have next to no violence whatsoever take the blame for the violent crime in urban areas?



Yes, you can. No one is willing to speak honestly about the demographics of crime except when it comes to talking about the white male identity of some mass shooters. But if you point to the violent crime rate of any other group it is consider ipso facto racism.

Answer to the first question is "they should not".

But, for the second part, I recognize that there is a lot of political bias in this, but my point is that low population density rural areas (specially those with no extreme poverty as it is the case in the US) are not statistically representative -- in fact they are not socially representative in the sense that you cannot generalize anything that "works" in such areas to other more complex (or more problematic) regions.

Just to leave clear, my personal position is that the aim is to have a completely gun free society -- but I am open to debate it rationally. Social statistics is extremely complex, but what I can tell you is that it is much easier to use it to rule out an hypothesis than to prove one. And frankly I believe that a detailed look at the studies available rule out the hypothesis that, in general, more guns lead to more safety.

 

[DarthFed]

My problem with this gun debate, aside from the loss of innocent lives of course, is the dishonesty of the far left. They want to save lives they say. But it is a well established statistical fact that the overwhelming majority of the gun violence in the US is committed by hand guns. We are talking 8 to 1. But the far left will say something like " We are not after the handguns , we want to get rid of these high powered assault weapons. The second amendment is safe ! " Well, didn't you just say you want to save lives? You could save way more lives by banning hand guns ! This attitude by SOME on the left leads me to believe they are more interested in the popularity of the crime than actual gun violence that takes place every single day in the country. Not blaming all on the left. They know who they are.

I think you are reading too much into that. It is true that the "average" every day criminal uses handguns while the mass shooters use high capacity assault rifles. Most of the cries for gun control come on the heels of a mass shooting so it is natural that you hear more about banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

A couple of things on this:

1. There is no way there will be an outright ban anytime soon so if you are in the gun control camp it is about picking your battles. Going after assault rifles after a bunch of mass shootings is more plausible than talking about banning hand guns.

2. Anyone with a brain realizes that banning assault rifles won't prevent mass shootings. But picture the clowns this weekend with handguns and shotguns and the bottom line is there is way less carnage. The Dayton shooter hit over 20 people and fired about 40 rounds in an attack that took less than 30 seconds.

 

[Murat B.]

I think you are reading too much into that. It is true that the "average" every day criminal uses handguns while the mass shooters use high capacity assault rifles. Most of the cries for gun control come on the heels of a mass shooting so it is natural that you hear more about banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

A couple of things on this:

1. There is no way there will be an outright ban anytime soon so if you are in the gun control camp it is about picking your battles. Going after assault rifles after a bunch of mass shootings is more plausible than talking about banning hand guns.

2. Anyone with a brain realizes that banning assault rifles won't prevent mass shootings. But picture the clowns this weekend with handguns and shotguns and the bottom line is there is way less carnage. The Dayton shooter hit over 20 people and fired about 40 rounds in an attack that took less than 30 seconds.

What I find difficult to understand is why is the big picture being ignored? Assault rifles kill fast but handguns kill way more when you look at the numbers in a year. It is not even close. Do we want to save more lives or not?
I also understand how difficult the issue is. I am just not a big fan of teary eyed politicians or the talking heads making a political case after every tragic event. I am not a big fan of Ben Shapiro but I was the happiest person in the world when he destroyed Pierce Morgan on tv after a mass shooting and ended his CNN career.

 

[DarthFed]

What I find difficult to understand is why is the big picture being ignored? Assault rifles kill fast but handguns kill way more when you look at the numbers in a year. It is not even close. Do we want to save more lives or not?
I also understand how difficult the issue is. I am just not a big fan of teary eyed politicians or the talking heads making a political case after every tragic event. I am not a big fan of Ben Shapiro but I was the happiest person in the world when he destroyed Pierce Morgan on tv after a mass shooting and ended his CNN career.

Well I look at it like this; the people using handguns to commit crimes, I'm glad it's that instead of assault rifles. If those peeps were using assault rifles their chances of killing the intended target would be higher and of course the chances of collateral damage would be a lot higher as well.

Politicians on both aisles just blow hot air after these shootings. No politician is going to take on the gun-toting citizens or even the NRA. It'd be career suicide. Much better to have a group of strangers die than to risk that, right?

 

[calitennis127]

Just to be clear, while Japan had 3 gun related deaths in 2017, more than 30,000 US citizens are killed by guns every year...and yet Cali still tried to find a way to frame that. Amazing.

Yeah he does.....because not looking at geography and demographics is insanely simplistic you dumbass. The USA is a huge and very diverse country with parts of the country that are extremely different from each other. To lump them all into one category of "American gun violence" is beyond preposterous. If 68% of our murders occur in 5% of our counties, how is that not a significant detail?

I showed you the chart and of course you had nothing to say about that. You are just falling back on generalized and vague clichés about "American gun violence" even though the chart clearly demonstrates that those Donald Trump supporters who you belittle live in areas as violence-free as Japan.

You are simply a misinformed tool, a slave to the New York Times, which - again - is an American media company. Look at some details. Be a big boy. You're a budding historian after all, aren't you?

 

[brokenshoelace]

You are simply a misinformed tool, a slave to the New York Times, which - again - is an American media company. Look at some details. Be a big boy. You're a budding historian after all, aren't you?

Indeed I am. And a lawyer too. History and argumentation. Your two biggest weaknesses.

 

[calitennis127]

nIndeed I am. And a lawyer too. History and argumentation. Your two biggest weaknesses.

You don't know jackshit about history - especially not American history - and you repeatedly run from me in arguments. You are an anti-American bigot who does not know the slightest thing about American conservatism and the different strands of thought within it. So unfortunately I have to show you how ignorant you are. Don't blush when it happens.