Another day, another shooting in the US

[neorichieb1971]

I saw Hilary strutting her stuff on TV last night. When she mentioned about changing gun laws it seemed rather weak. I mean, why put more background checks in when you know a lot of the killings that happened would have happened with these background checks. Does nobody get that?

The other guy (can't remember his name) was also weak. Stating that you should be able to own a gun unless there is a good reason for you to not to own one. So how do you reverse that when you finally found that the guy who was sane yesterday is totally insane today?

And then the other guy stated that Hilary was to blame for Syria because of her previous policies in Iraq. Love it.

[trap15]

Hillary is partially to blame for Syria, though it's more involved than that.

[BryanM]

During my earlier posts, it was troubling me that I could not really give a compelling enough argument for gun ownership to sway others, because we want to have a fairly robust set of principles.

Since the wolves are all dead, deer populations and such would explode to a ridiculous level without hunting. Some states the chance of hitting a deer with your car is 1 in 40 already.

"Deer are the real [s]racists[/s] killers, you see!"

Also it helps having a gun to shoo off pesky wild dogs from eating your sheep or to fend off polar bears while you're filming a TV show in the arctic. At least until we successfully make them go extinct with climate change. Damn bears.

Hillary is partially to blame for Syria, though it's more involved than that.

Honestly I can't think of anyone else who could have been a stronger voice against the war besides them. Oprah got death threats for just saying "hey, maybe we should slow down and think about this first?" so it would have shown some real courage.

The old man's right - the Clintons aren't leaders. They're celebrities. If not blood thirsty war hawks. What was up with all that "hunting the Chinese" stuff?

[evil_ash_xero]

I suppose another reason is that I'm from Texas (probably the gun capital of the US) and I've never known anyone that's been shot, or the victim / perpetrator of a gun crime. I know literally dozens of people that own guns (myself included)

That's very lucky.

I've known a number. However, the number of OD's around here might surpass it soon.

And I live in the sticks. I can only imagine it in urban hell.

[Ed Oscuro]

During my earlier posts, it was troubling me that I could not really give a compelling enough argument for gun ownership to sway others, because we want to have a fairly robust set of principles.

Since the wolves are all dead, deer populations and such would explode to a ridiculous level without hunting. Some states the chance of hitting a deer with your car is 1 in 40 already.

Right, Michigan is one of those states. In my post I mean an argument for defensive firearm ownership - I take it that hunting and target practice / familiarization is fine because Germany allows for those uses also. I think the parts that people have problems with are handguns and fast-shooting weapons with large capacity (i.e., an AR-15 type rifle).

You (and Rob, a long while back) made a good point about the bears though...in my view bears have a right to be left alone in peace and people shouldn't be exterminating them because they make people a bit scared or whatever. It's like the reintroduction of beavers to Scotland - there is every indication there that the animals are helping improve the natural landscape (if not restore it - in many places the ship has sailed and landscapes are probably permanently changed) but even so there are people who are scared by the sight of what's essentially a big hamster with a tail. I wouldn't ask to ban anybody from carrying a weapon for defense in the wild, but we also should have better sense than the people who somehow managed to kill off billions of carrier pigeons.

[ED-057]

you split up the opinions of nations by people who believe in authoritarian policies vs. those who are literally less violent (i.e., they don't spank their kids). You certainly will find some people who are committed Libertarians

Libertarianism has a veneer of anti-authoritarianism, but as a political system it leaves the door wide open for anyone who controls capital to become an authority (ie. robber barons). Libertarian billionaires are probably quite aware of this, others may not be.

I don't know why you contrast authoritarians with "less violent" people. I don't think these two descriptions are mutually exclusive or even related.

I'm pretty sure that proponents of gun control expect some authority to enforce their ideas. It just isn't going to be them personally. They believe in submission to authority, at least.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't know why you contrast authoritarians with "less violent" people. I don't think these two descriptions are mutually exclusive or even related.

But they are related, and this is based on a study of actual behavior: Check out the first link I posted, to...oh damnit, I stuffed it up and posted the original dated book (The Authoritarian Personality) twice. I meant to post this one first:

http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism- ... 052171124X
From one of the reviews:

The book establishes "a fascinating framework of the role of personality types in politics, explored in a recent book, "Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics," by two political scientists, Marc J. Hetherington of Vanderbilt University and Jonathan D. Weiler of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. They start by exploring data showing a remarkably strong correlation between state attitudes toward spanking children and voting patterns. Essentially, spanking states go Republican, while those with more timeouts go Democratic.

Another user argues that the book refers to authoritarianism as "worldview and attitude--not a dimension of personality" but that distinction is academic for our purposes.

Now that you have some idea what this was in reference to, it's a mistake to write something like "mutually exclusive or even related" when criticizing population studies. Nobody opening an epidemiological study is going to argue that two factors are "mutually exclusive;" that could only be shown by studying direct causes and effects. On the other hand, I think the data clearly shows that it passes your weaker test: They clearly are related.

...I find it strange you made that comment, since you're grasping the inherent contradiction here:

Libertarianism has a veneer of anti-authoritarianism

Never miss the chance to question whether "principled" men are actually just full of self-admiration and jealousy.

[MintyTheCat]

There are very few issues the USA brings up that anyone gives a crap about. But gunning people down in broad daylight highlights a very big problem. I'm of the opinion that the US public went to sleep on this one. As the people without guns don't want to fight those with guns on principles of gun ownership.

The gun nuts are just that... nuts. I always tell my gun-toting friends to always vote to decriminalize drugs (all of them) when it comes up on the ballot, b/c it is the exact same argument. Actually, it's a more sound argument. Drugs are far safer than guns and usually only kill the person using them (if that). You should see the looks I get... like I'm the devil reincarnate.

Good point, well made

Yes, people do often react to emotions instead of sound judgement and logic. You see this a lot when people invest money. The mind boggles as to how most people invest money and their reasoning - rather close to people who pick lottery numbers from birth dates

There's a link between a person's intelligence and need for hard and fast rules and more conservative views - which is one reason why the big religions stay in place once established. You have to normalise for those who have been exposed to median to extreme levels of violence and crime though but the thickos generally need hard and fast rules and set ups as it makes them feel more secure and able to predict outcomes.

I very much doubt that many people sit down and consider the laws of their country and the basis for them regardless of if they are american or not. Most people certainly don't have the slightest inkling as to how banks are put together.
It should be mandatory in all schools and have people sit some course of study to help them understand banking and law systems and we'd all be better off for it.

The fools who tout their rights (at the expense or yours most of the time...) - the pro gun people, the pro tobacco people and such, etc. hold it as a mantra concerning their rights and amendments but I'd love to know how many of them understand the basis. It is like a talisman they use to frighten off spirits that are not in accord - no idea how or why it works but they hope it serves them to get the required outcome

Any way you dress it up it is selfish, secular self-interest that drives the pro gun groups and at present the law protects them and keeps the gun industry well in cash.
Same goes for the Tobacco industry: as many lives as it takes provided that the cash continues to flow.

I shall say it again: think of the deaths caused through guns as a tax paid in innocent, human life.

[BryanM]

I saw Hilary strutting her stuff on TV last night. When she mentioned about changing gun laws it seemed rather weak. I mean, why put more background checks in when you know a lot of the killings that happened would have happened with these background checks. Does nobody get that?

Yes, we all know the only way to stop massacres is a full ban and a mandatory buyback program like Australia did. The problem: You're more likely to get a freaking basic universal income passed than that in the current USA political climate. Anyone who supports this out loud is dead politically. (This might change in a few decades - Gay marriage seemed impossible back in 2003. Then again, everything seemed impossible during that time when Osama Bin Laden was in control of the country.)

So the two proposals the democrat party is putting forth:

Background checks might help in some imaginable situation. One of them often brought up is in the case of abusive husbands - "if a man beats his wife and puts her in the hospital, he should not be allowed to buy a gun."

So-called Assault Weapons ban or regulation could reduce the magnitude of the next massacre. Maybe only 8 or 9 people would have died in the Aurora Theater shooting.

That's where the USA is right now.

Clinton was trying to drive a wedge between her and Sanders on this issue to make him look like some blood thirsty monster. When in actuality, their stances on the issue are virtually identical. It's typical Clintonian politics - avoid saying anything solid, charm people by sounding good. It's depressingly effective in selling yourself to idiots.

Sanders is of course completely right. Unless rural states loudly tell their congress critters it's ok to vote on a bill, including gun owners and gun clubs, there's zero chance of anything happening. These people are terrified the government is going to pass something overnight when they weren't paying attention, and it's hard to say their fears are groundless. If anything is to be done, it has to be done in slow, transparent baby steps so that everyone feels like they have a voice.

The vast overwhelmingly majority of the country supports background checks and closing the gunshow loophole. The only enemy against that is the NRA and ignorance. If we can't pass a gun law that does that much, we can't pass a gun law that does anything.

The only candidate that even has a prayer of doing that is the sandman. I am Bernie Sanders and I approve of this message.

When she mentioned about changing gun laws it seemed rather weak.

This does kind of hit me in the feels hearing this from someone living in a wonderful hippy utopia tho.

Mister, in my country, slavery is still constitutional. Please lower your expectations for us - we're nearly an entire century behind the rest of the world on many things. We're trying >._.)>

Like I said before, the increased frequency of these massacres can be a symptom of a system that's given up on supporting human life. Universal healthcare, a minimum wage a human can raise a kid on... stuff like that might reduce overall stress. If the goddamn Nordic countries can have guns up the ass and have 1/10th the homicide rate we do, maybe, just maybe, the guns themselves aren't 100% of the problem.

[Ed Oscuro]

Clinton was trying to drive a wedge between her and Sanders on this issue to make him look like some blood thirsty monster. When in actuality, their stances on the issue are virtually identical. It's typical Clintonian politics - avoid saying anything solid, charm people by sounding good. It's depressingly effective in selling yourself to idiots.

Yes, this is worth bearing out again. I didn't really notice that myself, but that's pretty much it.

Sanders was caught off-guard a bit at the start and had to yell a bit by the time he got his footing again, and overall this was the segment where he was the least audible in the whole debate.

If any conservative types were listening, Sanders actually did utter a couple dog-whistle phrases for them (I happen to think they're okay as far as it goes).

Sanders is of course completely right. Unless rural states loudly tell their congress critters it's ok to vote on a bill, including gun owners and gun clubs, there's zero chance of anything happening. These people are terrified the government is going to pass something overnight when they weren't paying attention, and it's hard to say their fears are groundless. If anything is to be done, it has to be done in slow, transparent baby steps so that everyone feels like they have a voice.

Well, I think that time might be coming sooner rather than later. The "gun rights lobby" thinks that they are like the kid with his finger in the dike, and if they give up the littlest thing then they will inevitably lose. What they fail to see is that if some of the common sense stuff isn't done, it's very likely that it will be done over their objections and then we'd likely see the most stringent regulations put into place all at once. Once that happens, it'd be very hard to roll it back.

Like I said before, the increased frequency of these massacres can be a symptom of a system that's given up on supporting human life. Universal healthcare, a minimum wage a human can raise a kid on... stuff like that might reduce overall stress. If the goddamn Nordic countries can have guns up the ass and have 1/10th the homicide rate we do, maybe, just maybe, the guns themselves aren't 100% of the problem.

That's also an interesting point, and a better fact than those Thomas Sowell raised today in his column (which I don't often read and like even less - but today he had a couple decent points). If you're in a place where people are cold in the dark and depressed for half the year, yet they don't have crazy murder and suicide problems, then we should be able to manage much better here in the (mostly) sunny States.

[rancor]

Yes, we all know the only way to stop massacres is a full ban and a mandatory buyback program like Australia did. The problem:

The problem is, as I stated earlier, all gun owners have decided to file police reports for stolen firearms if this comes to pass. How can I give you something that I no longer have? This has been decided the way to go on an almost national level.

The "gun rights lobby" thinks that they are like the kid with his finger in the dike, and if they give up the littlest thing then they will inevitably lose.

That's exactly what they think. If there's any doubt, you need only look at "smokers rights".

BELMONT, California. -- Dozens packed the Belmont city council chambers Tuesday night for the first public airing of a new smoking ban proposal.

The crackdown aims to curb the harmful effects of second-hand smoke by preventing puffs not just in parks and around public buildings -- but in private apartments and city streets as well.

If the law passes, the only places left in Belmont to smoke would be single family homes and private cars.

The law has now passed and gone into effect.

[Ed Oscuro]

You know you're going places when you think you hold common cause with smokers, who are rightly reviled everywhere.

As usual, the debate here is about how much intrusion by the government is necessary. Germany says the government should have a strong role and individuals should have little rights, I say citizens should have a much stronger role in the absence of services, and you say...what, no role? I don't think the problem here is about guns but about people who are using the guns issue as a proxy for trying to push the government entirely out of their lives...which is not what a democracy is about, sorry. If you want to live in complete anarchy, there's still some shacks on concrete pilings out in the middle of the ocean.

If you want a better analogy, look at the goddamn "Tea Party" and the race to not have a new Speaker of the House. Just saying "you'd better give in to us, we won't go away" is just crystallizing opposition to that faction. I think the same thing is happening to the gun rights folks. At some point, opposition is just going to overwhelm the supporters and take everything they want. The Tea Party isn't going to be at the table when that happens, but everybody will remember that a candidate who talks about big government is probably looney tunes.

Frankly, I fail to see how asking people to suffer a background check is inherently a huge loss for firearms rights. I'm in favor of making any associated fees and burdens as small as possible, but y'know, I'm not here saying "goddamn, going to the DMV is a horrible check on my rights as a driver." Where's the national organization for lead-burning cars or driving without a seat belt? I mean, what's the damn difference? If anything, there's a hell of a lot more regulations and restrictions associated with auto use than Sanders is saying should be done for guns.

[ED-057]

state attitudes toward spanking children and voting patterns.

So spanking and voting are proxies for being violent and being authoritarian? I would hope there is more to it than that, because I don't see much of a connection there.

Giving your children timeouts in lieu of corporal punishment could just be a fad that happens to be popular among certain demographic groups. An even more confounding factor, is that people might avoid corporal punishment merely because they fear persecution in their political climate ("OMG child abuse!")

Voting patterns in a lesser-of-two-evils system likewise can't be relied on to represent some concrete political philosophy. Not much thought is required to cast a vote for one of two parties. If you ask me, anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is necessarily not putting enough thought into it (unless they simply like evil).

What does it mean to be anti-authoritarian? As I mentioned in the case of Libertarians as well as gun control advocates, people who tag themselves as anti-authoritarian many times just desire a different authority, someone else to hold the reins. Another possibility would be "the law of the jungle," or plain anarchy. Not too many people believe in that as a political ideaology.

Democracy itself could be viewed as anti-authoritarian, in that people (including government) are coming to an agreement among themselves about each person's rights and responsibilities, instead of these determinations being made arbitrarily by an authority figure. So for instance, when the representatives of the people ratify a constitution which describes the government's powers and limitations, their only authority comes from the consent of the governed. However, when they wield power not delegated to them or take actions specifically disallowed, they are betraying democracy in favor of authoritarianism.

Plenty of gun rights advocates are in favor of a return to constitutional government generally.

So tell me again, which camp is authoritarian, and which isn't.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ha, I started with a tl;dr, but I had to write a lot...you have one misconception about what these studies and commentaries are meant to show.

I'll put aside your arguments that are based on your intuitions disagreeing with my sources, except to say: This is pretty well-researched stuff, with a lot of academic interest going back to the '50s, so you have to do better than "I don't believe it." I understand you don't have the book so I'll take on more of the responsibility for the explanation, but in case you're not familiar with American culture:

Giving your children timeouts in lieu of corporal punishment could just be a fad that happens to be popular among certain demographic groups.

I think it ceases being a "fad" when it stretches back decades, or even centuries (particularly if you look at the flip side, people who spank their kids). The word "fad" suggests there is some kind of short period, but we get into definitional games (how long until it's a trend, and how long until it's an ancient national characteristic?) for no good purpose that I can see.

I think we'll go more places if we talk about what a demographic group is. Wikipedia is kind of obtuse about this, as usual. A demographic group is a group with shared characteristics. What shared characteristics? Whatever it is that can be measured. There's demographics of ethnicity and race, but also of gun owners, of non-gun owners, of libertarians, librarians, people on the spectrum of libertarian attitudes, of attitudes towards corporal punishment, and of authoritarianism. You could try to study the demographics of people who spend too much time on the Internet arguing about what demographics mean. Naturally, something like "attitudes towards spanking" is pretty concrete, while "authoritarian attitudes" seems more manufactured - just as demographics studying different income groups (by GDP, or by how much tax one pays, or by how many cars a household owns) are manufactured. If they're good studies, they still capture concrete behavior.

I can't say that the studies of authoritarianism are all describing ancient trends, but that's not what the study needs to show. You mention "certain demographic groups." "People who give timeouts" comprise a demographic group; a demographic group is just a group that shares some particular measurable thing in common. Demographics are most useful for describing groups by behavior, not so much use for studying individuals. Just as important, they are just descriptive: Whatever else you think is "really" driving the behavior is beyond the scope if it's not needed to answer policy questions. "Do vampires bite people on the neck?" can give us some insight into whether Dracula is likely to bite somebody on the neck, and we don't need to know whether Dracula is misunderstood to make use of this information.

An even more confounding factor, is that people might avoid corporal punishment merely because they fear persecution in their political climate ("OMG child abuse!")

This is more along the lines of asking whether Dracula is misunderstood. The behavior is not going to change because of the tentative explanation we put up to explain it.

You're free to look over my posts and ask me to justify myself where I've tried to explain the reasoning behind a trend, and this is good: Ultimately the arguments move beyond just describing trends, and into trying to understand they "why" and the what to do about it. When it comes to looking at gun owners, I don't believe that the gun rights advocates I've met (online and elsewhere, mostly online) speak for all gun owners, but on the other hand, I don't hold any illusion that I could just discount them entirely. In fact, I think it highly likely that they represent the views of many other gun owners! When it comes to what kinds of policies they support - I think this comes down more clearly on the side of behavior, instead of trying to tell a story about why they do it. If I have been correct in identifying gun ownership with likelihood of holding authoritarian views, that is more in line with what I've tried to do.

Phew...

Another of your questions is reasonable enough - why is it that I'm banging on libertarians? Well, a few points, some of which is just putting your comments into context:

a.) Libertarians are a minority group in comparison to the mainstream, so it's important to note that when I talk about these groups, I'm not just talking about libertarians. (More on that later.)
b.) Calling oneself a libertarian does not necessarily mean taking on a certain stance on authoritarianism or gun rights. Probably some libertarians are really more like classical anti-violent anarchists.
c.) But, using my powers of intuition, I'm going to say that this is probably a fringe within a small group and most libertarians are self-interested, i.e., don't exercise that power against me, but I'll do as I please otherwise, and that suggests a willingness to use force to see to one's own needs.

In other words, anybody with a passing interest in libertarianism has noticed by now that reconciling the inherent contradictions on who gets to use force has always posed a problem for libertarians, like the ethics of lying for a Catholic. Most usually try to dodge by going full libertarian (most libertarians, I mean, not Catholics).

Looking over my previous post, I see that I mentioned libertarians a few times, but I didn't equate wanting to own a gun (or wanting to defend the right to own a gun) with being a libertarian. I think my mentions all can be seen as in passing, as pointing out a different kind of view than the usual authoritarian response or the usual gun-owner's response. See, I'm not comfortable with identifying being a gun owner with being authoritarian, all the time, but I don't think it's mysterious that they are generally related.

It's a bit off the topic of this post, but here's what one of the authors thinks about firearms and the guns lobby, for what it's worth:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan- ... 03651.html

[ED-057]

Mister, in my country, slavery is still constitutional.

This is false.

Amendment 13 - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Even before it was abolished, slavery was never protected by the Constitution, which means the states could (and some obviously did) ban it.

[rancor]

smokers, who are rightly reviled everywhere.

If only they could be round up, and put into some sort of "camp" setting to be reprogrammed / reducated amirite?? They need to be shown the error of their free-wheeling ways and think more about the benefit of the collective rather than the self.

[ED-057]

the law protects them and keeps the gun industry well in cash.

Ah yes, the small arms manufacturers and their blood-stained wads of cash. In this respect, they are sort of like the military-industrial complex, except with many fewer dollars and much less blood, and not having specific information that their goods will be used to commit mass murder before the sale goes through. And of course, the fact that the corporate media loses their shit when random-pissed-off-guy shoots somebody, but gives militarism a free pass.

When the US ships military-grade weapons overseas to known human rights abusers, conducts illegal drone strikes and bombing campaigns, tortures people, and lies about what they are doing at every step of the way, that is business as usual. But if a few white Americans get shot, that is NEWS!

Why do you suppose that is?

The result seems to be that some people trust their horribly destructive and corrupt government which regularly commits crimes with impunity, more than they trust their own neighbors. To the extent that they are asking the government to protect them from themselves. Like one of the damned asking Satan to tell the guy next to him to keep his hands to himself. While he burns for all eternity.

[Ed Oscuro]

Edited my earlier post to actually be helpful, I hope

Mister, in my country, slavery is still constitutional.

This is false.

Amendment 13 - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Even before it was abolished, slavery was never protected by the Constitution, which means the states could (and some obviously did) ban it.

Technically this is completely correct, but the view isn't totally crazy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment

Under the 1919 German Weimar Constitution, the prevailing legal theory was that any law reaching the necessary supermajorities in both chambers of parliament was free to deviate from the terms of the constitution, without itself becoming part of the constitution. This very wide conception of "amendment" eased the rise of Adolf Hitler to power; it was consequently explicitly ruled out in the postwar 1949 constitution, which allows amendments only by explicitly changing the constitution's text.

So, looking at the entire situation:

-The Constitution of The United States is the original text
-In the United States we don't have a system whereby the original text is altered
-Instead we append amendments
-And put faith in a common-sense doctrine which holds that a new amendment wins if it differs from the original text or a previous Amendment (as happened with the repeal of Prohibition).

The system of courts and doctrines isn't really that fragile - until we hold a constitutional convention, where anything can happen, woohoo!

So, lazy-factchecking sitewise, "the claim slavery is legal is 10% true"
(Naturally the percentage is not meant to be accurate.)

[BryanM]

Mister, in my country, slavery is still constitutional.

This is false.

This is false.

Amendment 13 - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Technically this is completely correct

It's completely wrong, Ed. Read the amendment! Don't be a lazy Susan who skims! Be a keener internet lawyer Guy liek me

i watch cartoon porn in my free time. it doesn't pay as well as I hoped

[BryanM]

It's completely wrong

Every single white person who thought slavery was over after the civil war should watch this video I keep posting dangit.

Millennials are the very first generation of people to start to be born in this country without the shadow of slavery hanging over them. There's a reason why we still have cops choking people to death on TV.

Tiny economist Robert Reich talks of a school chum getting murdered because he tried registering black people to vote. (These days we just deny them the vote through laws, like the 2000 election in Florida (which decided that one) and Alabama. Much more humane.) This does not happen in a healthy society.

[BryanM]

Every single white person who thought slavery was over after the civil war should watch this video I keep posting dangit.

I mean, I get it. I was an out of touch white person too once upon a time. But then I just became an out of touch person.

No shame no blame

[MintyTheCat]

The problem is, as I stated earlier, all gun owners have decided to file police reports for stolen firearms if this comes to pass. How can I give you something that I no longer have? This has been decided the way to go on an almost national level.

1. Less guns around means less ready access to them which means less use of guns which will result in less gun crime and lives being taken.

2. Denormalises the gun as a mainstay in society; people develop other ways of thinking and maybe you guys even find yourselves solving a few problems along the way.

3. All guns are mechanical and will eventually fail to function - even if you lose them or have them stolen or if you bury them somewhere. The issue at present is that there is a ready supply of new guns and replacement parts for any foreseeable future which means you get the opposite of what's stated in point #1.

Bring in the laws, prohibit sales, reduce use, gun culture dimishes and less people get killed - it worked for opium which was legal going back a bit and look you have substantially opium related deaths and crimes these days - it really works

You guys are still playing cowboys and indians and most of us are aware of how that turned out. You ran out of indians to shoot but the culture lives on in spirit.

there's a hell of a lot more regulations and restrictions associated with auto use than Sanders is saying should be done for guns

Elephant in the room syndrome.

smokers, who are rightly reviled everywhere.

If only they could be round up, and put into some sort of "camp" setting to be reprogrammed / reducated amirite?? They need to be shown the error of their free-wheeling ways and think more about the benefit of the collective rather than the self.

Yes...Have you ever paid health-insurance? The notion of collective works similarly.
You can often be told to pay more if you smoke. Sure, it may be against your right to smoke (...yawn...) but why should the collective pay for your poor choices given that no one forced you to smoke?

You could extend that to being why should the collective pay for your poor choices when half a dozen end up shot dead? Right now though the laws support guns and gun use and it is ironic that the US takes passive-smoking more seriously than it does gun crime

Bloody hilarious country you chaps have over there.

[rancor]

2. Denormalises the gun as a mainstay in society;

For someone that admits to never actually having been there, you seem to believe you know a lot of what constitutes "a mainstay in society". I'm reminded a bit of the folks that watch an entire anime series, then claim to "know" Japan. Encountering, shooting, worrying about, and handling guns is not something most Americans do on a daily (or even weekly / monthly) basis. Please do not believe that what you see in Hollywood movies = the majority of American society.

but why should the collective pay for your poor choices given that no one forced you to (fill in the blank)?

I suppose you believe this goes for all things people choose to do?

Ambulance / emergency services for motorcycle commuters?
Community-funded rehabilitation for drug users?
Anything more than a bullet in the back of the head for convicted criminals?
Medical care for people involved in extreme or dangerous sports?
Neo/Pre-natal services for sexually active teens?
Services for seniors who failed to properly save or plan for retirement?

These are all mistakes people make on a personal level, and I can think of literally dozens of cases where people choose to do things that the community pays for. That's a cold, dark world you live in where people are condemned for life because of their poor decisions.

[Xyga]

Maybe among the solutions the US could ban the European manufacturers who make more and more profits over civilian handguns sales over there ?
Germany is one of those leading exporters by the way.
http://www.dw.com/en/european-arms-mone ... a-16540687
And they fucking fund the NRA too.
Ok that wouldn't change anything as the local US manufacturers would be glad to take their market shares anyway, I just mean before we use the cuntry-morality scale again; let's not forget Europe supports the US gun laws by turning a blind eye for the sake of its businesses.

[MintyTheCat]

but why should the collective pay for your poor choices given that no one forced you to (fill in the blank)?

I suppose you believe this goes for all things people choose to do?

Ambulance / emergency services for motorcycle riders?
Community-funded rehabilitation for drug users?
Anything more than a bullet in the back of the head for convicted criminals?
Medical care for people involved in extreme or dangerous sports?
Neo/Pre-natal services for sexually active teens?
Services for seniors who failed to properly save or plan for retirement?

These are all mistakes people make on a personal level, and I can think of literally dozens of cases where people choose to do things that the community pays for. That's a cold, dark world you live in where people are condemned for life because of their poor decisions.

50% of men who smoke die due to illnesses caused through smoking.
Smoking unlike motor accidents is self inflicted and willing done.

I agree in provision for all you have listed above. They are due to circumstance. Smoking is not due to circumstance unless it is second-hand smoke/passive in which case the victim here would not be paying higher health insurance as they do not smoke. Of course the levels of the substances would be evident in their body, blood, etc. and then you get into a legal situation potentially whilst trying to work out why that non-smoker ended up smoking and indeed if an employer, spouse or neighbour is responsible. You may find at some point that the insurance will be taken from the smoker's side as they have caused the damage and more so if it is caused through an employer having not protected their employees - this is especially relevant to people working in the catering and leisure industries.

It all gets involved but boils down to accountability.

It is not a dark world view at all; it is simple stats: smokers die earlier and have more health issues during life.

I would argue that the US is already "a cold, dark world you live in" due to its lack of adequate health care provisions for its citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in ... _uninsured

Compared to what many of us have in Europe and Canada this issue is a massive concern and indeed as a society the US already condemns people for not being rich enough.

Think on, Rancor, think on.

[DEL]

BryanM wrote:

So-called Assault Weapons ban or regulation could reduce the magnitude of the next massacre. Maybe only 8 or 9 people would have died in the Aurora Theater shooting.

The Aurora Hoax was the first of these operations.
Its a hard push for gun confiscation. Expect many more of these ops.

[trap15]

[Rob]

[ED-057]

Millennials are the very first generation of people to start to be born in this country without the shadow of slavery hanging over them.

What do you mean? You were just complaining about (penal) slavery's continued existance! Which is a fair point, I must admit (especially considering an ACLU report that the number of African-American men who are either incarcerated or on probation has actually surpassed the number pre-Civil War slaves)

Ha, I started with a tl;dr, but I had to write a lot...

Thanks for going the extra mile, Ed.

It's a bit off the topic of this post, but here's what one of the authors thinks about firearms and the guns lobby, for what it's worth:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan- ... 03651.html

I'm not seeing anything here other than an article made up of anti-gun talking points attacking unspecified pro-gun pundits for using pro-gun talking points. Do you see something different?

[BryanM]

What do you mean? You were just complaining about (penal) slavery's continued existance! Which is a fair point, I must admit (especially considering an ACLU report that the number of African-American men who are either incarcerated or on probation has actually surpassed the number pre-Civil War slaves)

Well, what I mean is that it's no longer done flagrantly out in the open and celebrated any more. There aren't chain gangs of people being worked half to death out doors in mines and such. They're packing meat for McDonald's at like $1 an hour to make overpriced phone calls and such. Instead of killing one of them when they try to organize a strike, they're put into isolation instead.

I believe there was only one conviction for a white guy murdering a black one in the south until the mid 1960's, and he had a literal murder farm. Not so long ago. Our parents grew up when their parents were doing this violent suppression stuff.

But today, slavery is condemned as monstrous. Barbaric. Something in our distant past that was put to bed soon after the civil war. Because the media doesn't ever talk about it, it is invisible to us. You and Ed and 24 year old me didn't know. (Black history month is actually educational if you watch PBS during Feb during some stretch of your life. It's really a good idea they have that month. White people would tune it out less if it was named HOLY SHIT WE STILL HAVE SLAVERY Month tho. People are highly narcissistic so "black" history = white people not interested) White people can't care about what they don't know.

If people knew, it would not be. Bernie Sanders is the only one talking about prisoner's rights at all. Goddamnit this man - if there's a problem I have with my government, he already fuckin' knows about it. Bastard, I thought I'd die before ever voting.

Because the media doesn't ever talk about it

"George Bush became president because black people in Florida weren't allowed to vote."

That sounds like a big story, right? Like............. possibly up there as the biggest story of all time when it comes to domestic news. Not a word of it on TV. I sound like a crazy conspiratard when I bring it up. Because if it were true, of course the media would have told us right?

Someone tell me I'm not crazy and that it's the world that's crazy.

If people knew

I mean yeah, the party of racism gets ~65% of the white vote. But white people on the whole aren't that bad - the crazies just vote more because they care more because the alternative to Trump's purging policies is, like, what, a lady who wants to cut Social Security?

The real number is probably around 40 to 50% shitlord, which isn't that far away from the 30% number that the neutral latino demographic gives them. I think we can get there in a few generations and Jim Webb can become a republican again.