talkpolitics | Oh wow.

luzribeiro posting in

If you think that mansplaining about "not assault weapons" and "assault weapons" in light of today's events in Las Vegas is going to be helpful in discussing the huge gun violence problem the USA has, you are the problem.

50+ dead, 400+ taken to hospitals.

Save us all the wisdom you need to share about the bullshit you believe.

This is how these guys handle everything - by dragging us out into the weeds of the mansplains rather than actually addressing the issues.

Don't be a dick.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

policraticus

Don't just stand there! Do something! Anything!!

Well, I am sure Colbert is sincere, but what exactly should we do? Let's see the plan that will make mass shootings a thing of the past, then I will let you know if doing nothing is cowardice, or prudence. There are already a lot of laws on the books regulating the sale and ownership of firearms in the US, most of them are quite sensible and I don't think very many gun owners begrudge them for a minute. But gun owners aren't fooled. The laws we follow aren't written with us in mind. But the targets of these laws, don't follow laws. By definition.

From:

airiefairie

How is this prudence? The per capita death rate from firearms in the US is not just the highest in the world, it's several times higher than the next in the ranking. How do you explain that? And more importantly, how do you change it? Or are you saying this situation is OK? How is this prudent?

Yes, "do something". You said it yourself - we're not the experts in US law here. You seem to be. Which is why I do not presume to have a better proposal than you. You first. Go ahead, propose... "something".

Recognising a problem as a problem is the first step. And you don't seem willing to do even that.

From:

policraticus

US is not just the highest in the world, it's several times higher than the next in the ranking

It is hard to take you seriously when you are so wrong on the facts. The US ranks around 15th to 20th depending on how you calculate it. Since 2/3rds of firearms deaths in the US are suicides, you'd be better off arguing for more suicide prevention. Not for nothing, the US does have a staggering number of guns, far, far more than any other country. We have so many more it calls into question, for me, why our rate of gun violence and death isn't far higher. If guns are the cause of this problem, then why doesn't the exponential increase in gun ownership track with an increase in gun violence. We have never had more guns per capita in the US than we do now, and the percentage seems to be growing every year. And yet, gun violence and violent crime in general is at some of its lowest rates in a generation, and seems to keep falling. How do we reconcile this?

Look, don't take my word for it. Nate Silver's crew did a deep dive on US firearm fatalities and the effect of increased gun control on gun violence. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/

Edited Date: 4/10/17 21:02 (UTC)

From:

airiefairie

Did you even read what you're citing?

"The US ranks around 15th to 20th depending on how you calculate it."

Yes, how do YOU calculate it? Because the way I see it, the US is grouped together with such nice places like Honduras, Venezuela, Swaziland, Colombia and South Africa.

Which other developed nation comes even close to those gun-related fatality rates, pray tell?

And you are telling me about being taken seriously?

I'm sick and tired of people like yourself telling me how this problem is not really a problem.

Edited Date: 4/10/17 21:07 (UTC)

From:

policraticus

Wait, are you saying only rich, white, Eurocentric countries count as countries? That only those people count as people who count?

Who should be taken seriously now?

From:

airiefairie

If you're willing to rank yourself among the Third World, by all means, be my guest. But then you'd relinquish your moral high ground to lecture people about "freedom and democracy". So which is it?

Do you think someone priding themselves about ranking above Colombia and Afghanistan in terms of violence levels should be taken seriously? But honestly.

From:

garote

"In terms of violence levels" is a completely different kettle of fish.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-27/map-here-are-countries-worlds-highest-murder-rates

The story told there is, the US has more gun crime, but isn't a much more violent place in general.

On the other hand, the scale on that chart you're looking at bottoms out at 4.9, which is not informative. The city of New York alone has 8.5 million people living in it, and a murder rate of 3.9 per 100,000 (2016). Compare that to London, with 8.7 million people and a murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000 (2015).

In relative terms, the murder rate in New York is TRIPLE that of London. In absolute terms, that's not much of a difference. Approximately a 0.0039% chance versus a 0.0012% chance of being murdered in a given year.

That is a not exactly convincing evidence that the US is a fundamentally different place in terms of violence.

(no subject)

From:

airiefairie - Date: 6/10/17 06:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

garote - Date: 6/10/17 07:57 (UTC) - Expand

From:

nairiporter

"The problem here, for the most part, isn’t faulty guns or insufficient training. It’s dangerous people using guns effectively. The best approach to violence prevention is to zero in on that small number of high-risk people who are using guns to harm themselves or other people, and look at what might be done to prevent them."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/23/gun-control-violence-what-works-what-doesnt

Conversely, you could take a few lessons from Australia.
https://www.vox.com/2017/10/3/16411676/the-weeds-australia-america-gun-violence

But of course that won't happen, will it.

From:

policraticus

For the first one, sure. But from what I can tell about this shooter, so far, that wouldn't work. Also, in inner cities, where young men killing other young men over drugs or pride, make up the largest number of firearm victims, I think a lot of people will take exception to this kind of profiling. People couldn't abide "stop and frisk" policies in NYC. It is a vexing problem.

As for Australia, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/

From:

nairiporter

What about all those school shootings? Don't tell me they couldn't be prevented either.

Is it that hard to have sensible gun control in schools?

From:

policraticus

You've got to be trolling me now.

I think shootings like at Columbine or Newtown might have been prevented with better mental health screenings, more active mental health interventions. But the shooters in those cases stole the guns they used, so all gun control laws were rendered moot.

As for gun control in schools, I have friends who went to school every day during duck season with a 12 gauge shotgun. They'd drop it off at the vice principal's office on the way to homeroom. No one thought anything about it. As it is, I think almost every school in the US is now a "Gun Free Zone." That might be a reason they become an attractive target. No one will shoot back at you. If just some on the staff of the Newtown elementary school had been armed, maybe they could have controlled the situation with a gun. We'll never know.

Edited Date: 4/10/17 21:18 (UTC)

From:

nairiporter

I am talking about access control in schools - for schoolchildren. How can a pupil be allowed to enter a school with a gun?

Isn't there security in those schools? Where have I said that security staff shouldn't be armed? And *I* am trolling you now?

From:

garote

There are large chunks of the US where a long gun is considered first as a tool, and considered as a murder weapon second, if at all. It's the way my father was raised, and his father before him, first on the Oklahoma plains and then in the undeveloped terrain along the Sacramento river in California, where his family hunted small game to supplement their meager income. Hunting season is a big thing in many midwestern states. In some areas you can go out on a November morning and hear rifle fire in the hills all around you, and it is absolutely normal. Young people are trained by their own parents to handle firearms responsibly well before any government entity is on the scene to run programs and gather paperwork.

Missouri has an early youth portion of their deer hunting season.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/sports/outdoors/2015/10/21/youth-early-hunting-opportunities/74262026/

Let that sink in a bit. This is really a different culture. And their possession and use of firearms does not move the needle on their murder rate one bit. Murder is almost entirely a big city problem, like it is everywhere else in the world.

(no subject)

From:

nairiporter - Date: 6/10/17 06:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

garote - Date: 6/10/17 06:40 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

nairiporter - Date: 6/10/17 07:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

garote - Date: 6/10/17 18:47 (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

(no subject)

From:

garote - Date: 6/10/17 18:44 (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

(no subject)

From:

garote - Date: 6/10/17 23:54 (UTC) - Expand

From:

luzribeiro

Start with removing NRA's immense influence on US politics, that's what you can do as step one. You might be surprised how the rest will start arranging from there on.

From:

policraticus

How is the NRA's influence "immense?" As a matter of spending, the NRA's budget is a rounding error for lobbyists for things like the pharmaceutical industry or the banks. The NRA spends a little over $3.3M. Total spending on gun rights by all lobbyists is less than $6M. The US Chamber of Commerce, in contrast, spent $39.9M. So, what qualifies as "immense" seems fairly elastic.

What the NRA's membership does do is vote. They are motivated voters who will come out and support candidates who support gun rights and they will vote against those who do not. If that gives them "immense" power, well that is what voting is supposed to do for citizens. Removing the right of NRA members to vote might prove problematical.

Edited Date: 4/10/17 21:03 (UTC)

From:

luzribeiro

Dude, the entire GOP is in the NRA's pocket. When NRA speaks, the GOP listens and trembles. The NRA may not be giving the biggest share of the party donations, but they sure are the most vocal group. Same with wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh (the GOP even apologized for slighting him). Some groups and some people have ridiculously disproportionate influence over US politics, because they hold key segments in control, segments of the electorate that can decide votes and elections. So will you stop bullshitting me already?

Removing voting rights!? What the fuck are you talking about?

Edited Date: 4/10/17 21:12 (UTC)

From:

policraticus

The GOP listens to the NRA because its members vote.

They vote.

That gives them influence.

Does that seem unfair or illegal to you?

From:

luzribeiro

The NRA's influence over the GOP is disproportionate to the number of NRA's membership. That's what I'm saying. If only a fraction of the GOP base are NRA supporters, then why is NRA such a decisive factor for GOP's policies?

Or are you saying the majority of the GOP base are gun nuts? Because somehow I can't believe this.

From:

policraticus

I get that. The reason it is disproportionate is that the members of the NRA are dedicated voters. They will drive votes to the GOP both by themselves and by motivating others who agree with them but may not be members.

NRA = Gun nuts? Great argument.

(no subject)

From:

luzribeiro - Date: 6/10/17 06:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

garote - Date: 6/10/17 06:42 (UTC) - Expand

From:

mahnmut

Yeah, because Do Nothing is much more prudent.

From:

policraticus

First, do no harm.

When you don't have a satisfactory solution, doing nothing is absolutely more prudent.

From:

mahnmut

Said the ostrich before he stuck his head back into the sand.

From:

garote

Not cool, bro. There really is more nuance in play here than "guns = more murder".

From:

mahnmut

Well get your shit together as a nation and address those nuances, because right now you're failing. Big time. If you think I'm being "uncool" for saying you've got a huge problem on your hands, so be it.

From:

garote

Oh no, I'm totally cool with that. Shit be wack here.

We need to get it all together, like in a little backpack or something, and bury it somewhere.

I'm hot for my electronic solution. Digital scan-based trigger locks that cannot be removed, mandated by law for any new weapon sold. If a criminal gets it, it's bricked. Then we go on a full-scale hunt for the chop-shop bastards who will spring up to subvert the bricking, and throw them each into a dark hole for eternity. If it's good enough to protect our credit cards and party photos, it's good enough to wire into a gun.