Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#26
(10-13-2017, 02:23 AM)Morganite Wrote: That's such a broad assertion that it's basically impossible to judge. What changes, where? Homicide rates are far from evenly distributed, so just saying "American" is overbroad to start with. (Also, the nationwide numbers are already going down, so maybe we now return you to our cultural changes already in progress?)

But on the other hand, I've seen some reasonably compelling arguments that you could get a huge improvement by ending the war on drugs, and that's not really a cultural change as such, even if it ties into cultural views about crime and punishment.

The big factors seem to be the American views on violence, guns, minorities and crime and punishment.

I'm generalizing massively, I'm well aware of it, but frankly? While ending the war on drugs would be a considerable step forward, it does not address the underlying issue. And that issue is how unevenly such efforts have been handled. The war on drugs pushed two drugs in particular as harmful, crack cocaine and marihuana, and that was no accident. Because crack cocaine was often used by poor black folk and marihuana by hippies, both of which groups likely to be opposed to the then incumbent political party and president.

Meanwhile, rich white people using powder cocaine were very lightly touched in comparison.

It's basically an attempt to stifle the ability to vote by felony disenfranchisement. And it's been quite successful at it too directly and due to knock on effects.

Quote:Yeah, that part about returning posessions and rights... it just doesn't sound like they do that unless you go after them with lawyers. While the need for rapid action is sort of understandable, the part where by default there's nothing like "go before a judge and prove that you have a good reason to take someone's property" is pretty suspicious. (One story I read suggests that they by policy don't even tell the person whose property is being run off with *why* they are doing so, which just adds a fine coating of motor oil to the whole production if true.)

Ah, so basically it's just government authorized theft? And given the target is often people who are depressed, suicidal, both or otherwise in a position that renders them unable or unwilling to file a complaint they are going to keep getting away with it. Rather like civil forfeiture in the US.

Quote:(I've also seen it suggested that SAFE is basically one solid mass of HIPPA violations, but I'm not sure how well that plays out in practice.)

Looking at the summaries that might well be right.

Quote:That sounds about as sensible as grouping together car vs. deer accidents and red light runners when looking at traffic safety. They're different kinds of problem that aren't going to respond to the same remedies.

Although accident rates involving either are likely to respond well to better brakes.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#27
My mother makes fun of me, because whenever I do a public protest, I end up talking to one of the crazies there for 10-20 minutes.  For some reason, they're attracted to me.  The type that says that we need to kill all of the X, or that we need to secede, or that we we need to ban all oil production.  You know the type.  And the words I use most often are, "But the world's more complicated than that!"

If you've ever done anything resembling science or engineering, you know you need to pay attention to a lot of things that don't seem necessarily related to the issue, but end up having an effect anyway.  The relevant problem in this case is: What are the causes of human mortality, and how can we reduce them?  Guns, being devices designed to inflict mortality, are naturally part of the discussion.  All uses of guns.

The primary cause of gun deaths is suicide.  The primary cause of drug deaths is overdose.  So, self-inflicted for both.  If someone argues that having gun deaths is the price we pay for a free society, then doesn't it follow that drug deaths are the price we pay for a free society?  If not, why not?  Automobiles, too, are a massive cause of death.  Are cars too the price of a free society?

None of these social rules are forgone conclusions, as much as Americans would like to believe they are.  Back in the 1920s, the President of the National Rifle Association argued for strict gun control.  In the 1900s, many communities raged against the danger to their children posed by automobiles moving at 25 mph to kill people while polluting their homes.  Some towns banned cars.

I guess the main problem for me is that yes, guns are for the most part a harmful part of American culture.  But on the whole, more harm is done to the social fabric from guns than by other causes of mortality.  For the United States, this means lawlessness and violence in both the U.S. and Mexico.  The mortality winners, however, are disease, accidents, and cars.  The Effective Altruism community seems to be mostly focused on disease cures, because this is the most effective approach to fighting mortality and suffering.  Antivaxxers are much easier to fight than the car industry or gun lobby, so that's where we should be doing our work.  For now, anyway.

I believe that gun use is a problem, but not worth fighting about, other than to keep the line for now.  Not until we have mass shooting much larger than this, are Americans going to want to get rid of the things.  Sorry, Mexico.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#28
Sorry it's taken me so long.  Just been so busy and when I've not been busy I've been utterly exhausted.

(10-10-2017, 05:18 PM)h azard Wrote: @Blackaeronaut (because the quote system doesn't work properly)

Quote:Look at Japan's suicide rates and tell me people over there aren't stressed.

Also, if someone over there is REALLY of a mind to cause harm and mayhem, they typically use rented box vans and box cutter knives.

Of course they are stressed.

Their murder and mass murder spree rates are also substantially lower than the US' rates.

Uh, yeah, you took that entirely in the wrong direction there.  The reason why their murder spree rates are so much lower is because suicide has this weird cultural acceptance over there.  Combined with the conformity and uniformity that is the cultural norm for Japan, people are far more likely to just commit suicide than go on a killing spree.

And the few that do?  Rental trucks and box cutters pretty much all around.  Though there have been a few real outliers where an actual sword was used.

(10-10-2017, 05:18 PM)h azard Wrote:
Quote:Please do something about Mental Health Care. Please do something about class inequality. Please for the love of god do something about the issue of racism in our country.

Then vote and be loud.

What makes you think I haven't been!?  I'm only one person, but in order to make real change happen, we have to get the politicians to actually be on our side, and for the right reasons!

(10-10-2017, 05:18 PM)h azard Wrote: Also, the class inequality thing? That impacts the racism and mental health care issue in a major manner. Rich crazy people are either covered up or shoved into an asylum to keep them from causing trouble (and often enough both) while poor crazy people are left on their own with little to no support. The racism has been the cause of lowered opportunities for non-white people for centuries causing class inequality but it's fed right back into by the class inequality because it's difficult for non-whites to get the needed means to fight the racism without getting a pat on the head and told to shut up and get lost.

This will be a lot easier to address once economic inequality is addressed.  The two are intrinsically linked together, and it will be a lot easier to prod corporations into paying fair wages than to tell people to stop hating each other.  Once the stressors of having a large portion of the American public being in the poor house is no longer as bad, then we can work on the other parts.

But that's a whole different debate.

(10-10-2017, 05:18 PM)h azard Wrote:
Quote:And BTW: All signs are currently pointing at this guy being utterly stark raving bonkers. Looking at his methodologies, even if you had removed the option of guns, he would have probably have gone with something worse like pressure cooker bombs or pipe bombs. Or maybe even just driving a truck full of anfo right into the middle of the whole thing and pulling the trigger. Because he was already planning on killing himself.

Would those pressure cooker bombs or pipe bombs have had the same ability to kill 59 people and injure nearly 10 times that number? And if you think unusual ammonium nitrate purchases aren't tracked, especially when the same person or region also has an unusual diesel purchase you must believe the FBI very incompetent indeed. And that he was suicidal or stark raving mad doesn't mean you can just discard what he did, how he did and what tools he used to do it.

Quote:Please do not make this about guns.

Why not? It's the tool he used. Why should one not question how he got them, and if there's something that can be done structurally to limit access to guns for loons?

Wow.  You really don't get it.

First off, I'm not even going to address the gross negligence in your implication that bombs are nowhere nearly as deadly.  Besides, Morganite (God bless you!) has already addressed this.

Secondly, don't act as if there are no workarounds for getting past the FBI's nets.  This man was methodical enough and was planning this long enough that he could have just as easily gone around driving a diesel vehicle and just siphoned a bit of fuel out after every fill up, and periodically pick up a bag of fertilizer from Walmart - ostensibly for his lawn and garden.

When you're taking time to plan things like this man did, the purchases do not have to be unusual.  They can be everyday average things.

And at what point do I discard what he did?  What he did was horrific and terrible, but what could have been done to stop him!?  Look at how well prepared he was!  He achieved exactly what he set out to do and that takes long, well thought out, and methodical planning.

A man that makes a plan like this would not let some so little as a firearms ban stop him.  He would have thought of a different method.  STOP ACTING LIKE GUN BANS ARE SOME MAGICAL CURE-ALL!!!  Because for what you want?  Gun bans most emphatically will not work.

(10-10-2017, 05:20 PM)SilverFang01 Wrote:
(10-10-2017, 11:12 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Please do something about Mental Health Care.  Please do something about class inequality.  Please for the love of god do something about the issue of racism in our country.

We should be doing something about these issues anyway. The main problem lies in that a good chunk of the population:
   
    A) Doesn't care because they believe they are not affected by these issues.
    B) Prefer to leave things as they are, just out of spite.
    C) Embrace ignorance to such a degree that even after disaster strikes, they still believe they are in the right.

They can be solved, but I am afraid that we will have to drag a lot of people kicking and screaming towards their solution.

Yes, agreed.  And it is definitely not going to be quiet and clean.  But I'm fairly certain that after a few years of grumbling, much like with Obamacare people are going to come to accept it for the good it does, by and large.  (Not that I think Obamacare is perfect, mind.  It does need fixing, but that's yet another debate for another thread.  Although I will say that I got a fun bit of schadenfreude from the people that didn't know that the AHCA was the same thing as Obamacare until Trump started gunning for it.)

(10-10-2017, 08:40 PM)Morganite Wrote:
(10-10-2017, 05:18 PM)hazard Wrote: Why?

No seriously, that's an honest question. Why does removing guns make it all worse? Why will it make people more stressed? Why will it make people more prone to stockpiling and hoarding, and why will it cause more massacres? In a country, I note, that already has 1 mass shooting killing 4 people or more in a single event per day on average.

There are multiple answers to the first question, but a lot of it boils down to "You won't actually be able to remove most of the guns. See also: Prohibition".

Seriously.  God bless you, Morganite.

Honestly, Hazard, I don't understand your mental process here.  To expand on what Morganite is saying here: Do you honestly think that EVERYONE is just gonna hand their guns over with a smile on their face?  You really don't know what it's like out here.  Morganite has the right of it - it will be like the Prohibition all over again... only far, far worse because unlike turning alcohol into a controlled substance, you're going to see a sudden spike in violence across the nation as people VIOLENTLY resist having their guns taken away.  And you can't call out the National Guard for a mere 'police action'.  Besides, I think they'll be too busy to be called up because most of them are gonna be fighting to keep their own guns.

In short, it will be something that will make the LA Riots look like a kiddie fair by comparison.

(10-10-2017, 08:40 PM)Morganite Wrote: More stockpiling and hoarding seems like a safe bet, since it keeps happening even without new regulation. I'm not sure I can even call it irrational, given how shit like this keeps happening.
Pfft.  No joke.  This happens at every election cycle.  The NRA goes around fear mongering, saying that if this particular Democrat gets elected that they're gonna take their guns away, and then they sit back and laugh their asses off while their bank account start running up as people empty theirs to buy more guns and ammo before an ostensible ban could be put into place by someone who hasn't even been elected yet.

(10-13-2017, 02:23 AM)Morganite Wrote: Yeah, that part about returning posessions and rights... it just doesn't sound like they do that unless you go after them with lawyers. While the need for rapid action is sort of understandable, the part where by default there's nothing like "go before a judge and prove that you have a good reason to take someone's property" is pretty suspicious. (One story I read suggests that they by policy don't even tell the person whose property is being run off with *why* they are doing so, which just adds a fine coating of motor oil to the whole production if true.)

(I've also seen it suggested that SAFE is basically one solid mass of HIPPA violations, but I'm not sure how well that plays out in practice.)

Take it from someone who was active duty in the US Armed Forces - the US Government is very quick to take things, but incredibly slow to give them back if the taking was wrongful.  And yes, sometimes it only happens once lawyers get involved.

(10-13-2017, 07:32 AM)robkelk Wrote:
(10-13-2017, 02:23 AM)Morganite Wrote:
(10-11-2017, 07:48 AM)robkelk Wrote: If you're serious about reducing gun deaths, you need to look at all gun deaths.

That sounds about as sensible as grouping together car vs. deer accidents and red light runners when looking at traffic safety. They're different kinds of problem that aren't going to respond to the same remedies.

Oh, you need to look at much more than just those two cases if you're going to seriously look at traffic safety. You have to look at everything.

If you only look at part of an issue, you're never going to find the common causes shared by what you might think are unrelated effects.

Oi.  You want a common cause for gun violence?  How about the person holding the damn gun?  Or, more specifically, the mind of the person holding the gun.

Fix the mental health system.  Start encouraging mental health checkups.

Fix the economy so people can actually pay their bills, save a bit of money, not rely on government assistance, and actually live a life where they can pursue hobbies.  This helps with mental health, believe it or not.

Don't even bother with gun regulation.  YOU WOULD ONLY BE TREATING A SYMPTOM.  Fix these other far more important issues and you'll see a lot of gun violence and gun suicides simply go away.

Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
"They did not care about all the other attempts wizards had made on the Lone Power through history; as far as a computer is concerned, there is no program that cannot be debugged, or at worst, rewritten."
-Diane Duane, High Wizardry
"If our friendship depends on things like space and time, we've destroyed our own brotherhood! But overcome space, and all we have left is Here. Overcome time, and all we have left is Now. And in the middle of Here and Now, don't you think that we might see each other once or twice?"
-Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#29
(11-05-2017, 10:19 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Uh, yeah, you took that entirely in the wrong direction there.  The reason why their murder spree rates are so much lower is because suicide has this weird cultural acceptance over there.  Combined with the conformity and uniformity that is the cultural norm for Japan, people are far more likely to just commit suicide than go on a killing spree.

Let me reflect that; the US has such high murder rates for a first world country because killing people has this weird cultural acceptance over there. No seriously; the US is weirdly alright with killing people who do not fit the cultural norm of the USA even though the USA greatly values individuality. More on this later.

(11-05-2017, 10:19 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: And the few that do?  Rental trucks and box cutters pretty much all around.  Though there have been a few real outliers where an actual sword was used.

And the fact that rental trucks are huge and unsubtle and box cutters are melee only weapons with limited penetration greatly limits the potential danger. Doesn't mean they aren't dangerous, far from it, but in comparison to an easily hidden weapon with an accurate range in excess of 15 meters and a deadly range of hundreds while being able to go through most non-structural obstructions they are likely to face renders guns far more dangerous. And that just describes a pistol.

(11-05-2017, 10:19 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: What makes you think I haven't been!?  I'm only one person, but in order to make real change happen, we have to get the politicians to actually be on our side, and for the right reasons!

Then organize.

And no, you don't need the politicians to actually be on your side for the right reasons. You just need them to be on your side so they get elected and then hold them to their election promises. Because to a great many politicians 'getting elected' is all they need for a reason, and not getting reelected because they reneged on their election promises is not something they are willing to face.

(11-05-2017, 10:19 PM)Black AeronautThis will be a lot easier to address once economic inequality is addressed.  The two are intrinsically linked together, and it will be a lot easier to prod corporations into paying fair wages than to tell people to stop hating each other.  Once the stressors of having a large portion of the American public being in the poor house is no longer as bad, then we can work on the other parts.

But that's a whole different debate.[/quote' Wrote:
Right... Talk to me again when you've managed to put that dreaded socialism thing to work in the US.

Seriously, the USA just after the Second World War was far from perfect, but it was amazingly socialistic in comparison to the current US.

[quote='Black Aeronaut' pid='167201' dateline='1509938373']Wow.  You really don't get it.

Quite possible. Would hardly be the first time.

(11-05-2017, 10:19 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: A man that makes a plan like this would not let some so little as a firearms ban stop him.  He would have thought of a different method.  STOP ACTING LIKE GUN BANS ARE SOME MAGICAL CURE-ALL!!!  Because for what you want?  Gun bans most emphatically will not work.

For a man like this?

A gun ban probably would not have worked, you'd need a shrink at minimum. But I'm not looking at things in a vacuum; for most mass shootings gun access restrictions probably would have worked. Either because of better screening of applicants or due to better mandatory gun education imposing a mental block on the notion of shooting a person or because of better and more secure gun storage protocols. I'm not expecting such efforts to remove all mass shootings, but I am expecting them to decrease the incidence of them.

(11-05-2017, 10:19 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Honestly, Hazard, I don't understand your mental process here.  To expand on what Morganite is saying here: Do you honestly think that EVERYONE is just gonna hand their guns over with a smile on their face?  You really don't know what it's like out here.  Morganite has the right of it - it will be like the Prohibition all over again... only far, far worse because unlike turning alcohol into a controlled substance, you're going to see a sudden spike in violence across the nation as people VIOLENTLY resist having their guns taken away.  And you can't call out the National Guard for a mere 'police action'.  Besides, I think they'll be too busy to be called up because most of them are gonna be fighting to keep their own guns.

... The Prohibition didn't make alcohol a controlled substance. Current laws on alcohol make it a controlled substance, the Prohibition made it a forbidden substance. There's a difference.

And no, I don't expect everyone to just hand over their guns; I'm expecting that the actual result of such efforts would be a slow encroachment on the idea that having a gun is a right and that it is instead something that becomes a privilege showing a great degree of trust by society (as facilitated by the government) in the good sense and judgement of one authorized to carry a gun. Anything faster than that may cause a civil war to follow.

That said, greatly restricting or even forbidding access to guns that are not pistols (for personal defense) or single shot hunting guns seems plausible to me. I mean, that is what you have those guns for, right? It's not as if you need a 30 shot (semi)automatic long gun to hunt deer, boar, bear or wolves, right?

(11-05-2017, 10:19 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Oi.  You want a common cause for gun violence?  How about the person holding the damn gun?  Or, more specifically, the mind of the person holding the gun.

Fix the mental health system.  Start encouraging mental health checkups.

Fix the economy so people can actually pay their bills, save a bit of money, not rely on government assistance, and actually live a life where they can pursue hobbies.  This helps with mental health, believe it or not.

Don't even bother with gun regulation.  YOU WOULD ONLY BE TREATING A SYMPTOM.  Fix these other far more important issues and you'll see a lot of gun violence and gun suicides simply go away.

I think I'm about to say something very unpopular.

Fixing the mental health system is not going to majorly decrease the incidence of mass shootings. It'll help plenty with suicides, as will fixing the economy, but fixing the economy is also not something that will majorly decrease the incidence of mass shootings.

To put it quite simply, it appears to me that most of the perpetrators of those shootings may be crazy, but they aren't insane. Not clinically and not criminally. Rather, it's a result of how the US as a culture handles people who do not fit the culture. You are right that the mind of the person holding the gun is critical, but minds are shaped by culture. And US culture? US culture is bad at handling things outside the accepted bounds.

I mean, the normal, accepted and dominant culture in the US posits the following rules; you are white (Anglo-Saxon heritage preferred), Christian (Protestant preferred), heterosexual, married with children or looking for a partner for the same, physically active, and not poor. For men, it's accepted and expected that you will occasionally have sex with someone other than your spouse (if married) or girlfriend (if not), for women you are expected to have 1 sexual partner, ever, unless said partner dies before you do.

If you are not white? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you are not Christian? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you are not heterosexual? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you are not married (and of sufficient age you should be)? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you have no children (and are married and should have them by now)? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you have children but are not married? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you are not fit of body? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you do not prefer to perform physical work? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you are poor? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you are a man who has no extra marital liaisons and has not established himself as dearly in love with his spouse? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.
If you are a woman who has extra marital liaisons or a history of many boyfriends? You will be scorned, insulted and degraded.

The extent of scorn, insults and other hurts visited upon you will vary with how badly and in what manner you do not fit the accepted, dominant culture of the US.

Outside of school shootings, many of which appear to be revenge killings, mass shootings appear to largely target marginalized minority groups. Be they abortion clinics (woman, pregnant out of wedlock and not wanting children is the stereotype), homosexual bars (male homosexuals are more likely targeted than female in this manner) or community centres (religious facilities usually). The motivation largely boils down to hatred.

You know, the thing that tends to come with scorning, insulting and degrading other groups either as motivating factor or as a result of it.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#30
(11-06-2017, 07:26 AM)hazard Wrote: ...
And no, I don't expect everyone to just hand over their guns; I'm expecting that the actual result of such efforts would be a slow encroachment on the idea that having a gun is a right and that it is instead something that becomes a privilege showing a great degree of trust by society (as facilitated by the government) in the good sense and judgement of one authorized to carry a gun. ...

There's the rub - in the USA, having a gun (or any other weapon) is a right, protected by their Constitution.

In order to institute any sort of firearms regulation, you're going to have to either repeal or re-interpret the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This is not impossible - at least one amendment to the Constitution has been repealed in the past - but would be very, very difficult to actually do without a major shift in public opinion.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#31
Not to mention getting the NRA to stop painting even licensing equivalent to a driver's license as an outright attack tantamount to seizure while whispering in its members' ears that a few dozen dead children here and there is a small and acceptable price to pay for maintaining their gawd-given freedom to amass a personal arsenal.

So who else noticed that Trump already trotted out the "too soon" line again last night about the massacre in Texas?
-- Bob

I have been Roland, Beowulf, Achilles, Gilgamesh, Clark Kent, Mary Sue, DJ Croft, Skysaber.  I have been 
called a hundred names and will be called a thousand more before the sun grows dim and cold....

Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#32
... I wonder what they will say if the bullets start flying at an NRA meeting. The more public the better.

I don't want it to actually happen, it would be no better than any other mass shooting, but I wonder.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#33
(11-06-2017, 12:54 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: So who else noticed that Trump already trotted out the "too soon" line again last night about the massacre in Texas?

I noticed. 

I also noticed that I am sick and tired of the "thoughts and prayers" dance that politicians do on every incident. That maybe it is time someone pulled a publicity "hit job" on the current NRA leadership and their cronies, make them as toxic as the right has made the social safety net. Also redefine the Second Amendment to strip it of all the bullshit that has been bolted onto it.

Otherwise, It's just a waste of breath to propose solutions.
****************************************************************
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
― Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory
——————————————————-
What zombie movies got wrong about the actual apocalypse, part 1,487: they omitted scenes of people on the street demanding the right to be eaten by zombies.
—Kelly Davio, Twitter, 4/19/2020
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#34
So... The New York Times ran the numbers.

They compared mass shooting incidents in various countries. One caveat: this is mass shootings, not mass murders. (They were careful to point that out.)

They were careful to rule out other causes: mental health care spending per capita in the USA is on the same order of magnitude as in other developed countries, people in the USA play video games per capita in the same order of magnitude as in other developed countries, and the overall crime rate in the USA per capita is on the same order of magnitude as in other developed countries. Yet the number of mass shootings per capita in the USA is orders of magnitude higher than in other developed countries. The only difference that the article could identify was the ease of firearm ownership.

And the final paragraph of the article is extremely pertinent to the discussion...
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#35
That is very interesting Rob.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#36
Hazard, what planet are you from?

First of all, do you honestly expect me to take time away from my job to organize something like that?  Are you fucking stoned?  That bullshit is for people that either have too much time on their hands, or they got nothing left to lose.  I'm working 10 to 12 hour overnight shifts and I'm just barely digging myself out of a hole.  I don't even make $25k/year here, and that's busting my ass working anywhere between 50 to 60 hours a week!

As for why most Americans won't hand over their assault rifles or everything else?  You've got to be kidding, right?

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was so that everyone could defend themselves from their own government if needs be.  What you are asking of us is to remove and essential final check on the power of the Federal Government.  Don't argue about the semantics of "What are a bunch of jon does going to do against trained soldiers?"  That's not how it works.  Ideally the Military is supposed to recognize where the Federal government has gone too far and either stand aside or even assist in a revolution.

That is not going to be given up.  Not ever.

As for your belief that a better mental health system won't severely curb this issue?  I think you're wrong.

No matter what their beliefs, no matter how they rationalized their actions, every one of these people were completely raving mad.  Make mental health a priority and you will catch the vast majority of these people before they can ever do any lasting harm.

ETA:

Rob, what that study fails to show is HOW that money is spent on mental health. I'm pretty sure if you compared the system in use here in the USA to that of other countries, you'd probably see a very different picture.

Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
"They did not care about all the other attempts wizards had made on the Lone Power through history; as far as a computer is concerned, there is no program that cannot be debugged, or at worst, rewritten."
-Diane Duane, High Wizardry
"If our friendship depends on things like space and time, we've destroyed our own brotherhood! But overcome space, and all we have left is Here. Overcome time, and all we have left is Now. And in the middle of Here and Now, don't you think that we might see each other once or twice?"
-Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#37
(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Hazard, what planet are you from?

Earth. Looking at the rest of your post, clearly a better corner of it than yours.

What can I say, the Netherlands may have their problems but we're pretty awesome generally speaking.

(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: First of all, do you honestly expect me to take time away from my job to organize something like that?  Are you fucking stoned?  That bullshit is for people that either have too much time on their hands, or they got nothing left to lose.  I'm working 10 to 12 hour overnight shifts and I'm just barely digging myself out of a hole.  I don't even make $25k/year here, and that's busting my ass working anywhere between 50 to 60 hours a week!

Well, I'm sorry to say, but that sounds to me like your congresscritter and your state delegate need to be told to move their asses and get you a decent working wage if you can work 60 hour weeks and not get out of your hole.

So yes, I did expect you to have enough time on your hands to be politically active even with a fulltime job and no, I don't do drugs. I mean, being politically active and an informed voter takes time, surely a nation as democratic as the USA would ensure that its enfranchised public has the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the political process.

[The answer to that is, of course, a resounding no. Because the USA is the nation of high ideals and not following up on those high ideals.]

(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: As for why most Americans won't hand over their assault rifles or everything else?  You've got to be kidding, right?

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was so that everyone could defend themselves from their own government if needs be.  What you are asking of us is to remove and essential final check on the power of the Federal Government.  Don't argue about the semantics of "What are a bunch of jon does going to do against trained soldiers?"  That's not how it works.  Ideally the Military is supposed to recognize where the Federal government has gone too far and either stand aside or even assist in a revolution.

That is not going to be given up.  Not ever.

You clearly have not carefully read the Second Amendment. It doesn't speak of the people being able to protect themselves, it speaks of a well regulated militia protecting a State. In fact, let me quote the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in full:

Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let us unpack that, shall we? At the time of writing a State would be, well, a State of the United States of America, be it Connecticut, Georgia, either of the Carolina's, Rhode Island or those I'm forgetting. It is presumed that to ensure their security they will be operating a well regulated Militia of some sort. And because the Constitution of the United States defines the rights and privileges of the federal government all this says is that the federal government cannot pass or enforce gun laws restricting access to guns.

In that regard it's a major restriction on the federal government, as it prevents the federal government from centralizing gun ownership under its own control and denying States access to guns that could be used to tell the federal government to get lost. That check? It's not the people's, it's the States'.

However, as the Constitution does not define the restrictions specific to the various states in the United States except by saying 'everything not defined as a right of the federal government is a matter the states and people need to deal with,' this means that state governments and lower level governments can pass whatever gun control laws they wish without running into the Second Amendment. In other words, the states need to start regulating their militias. Or, you know, handle gun control laws sanely.

And that's not even getting into the breach of the Second Amendment that is the ATF law enforcement agency. I mean, a federal level enforcement bureau for gun laws?

(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: As for your belief that a better mental health system won't severely curb this issue?  I think you're wrong.

No matter what their beliefs, no matter how they rationalized their actions, every one of these people were completely raving mad.  Make mental health a priority and you will catch the vast majority of these people before they can ever do any lasting harm.

The problem is that, well, I'll let you continue.

(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: ETA:

Rob, what that study fails to show is HOW that money is spent on mental health.  I'm pretty sure if you compared the system in use here in the USA to that of other countries, you'd probably see a very different picture.

Your mental health culture is a mess. Your mental health culture is structurally a mess, and it's supported in remaining this mess by the USA's own cultural attitudes. The shooters may have been crazy, the shooters may have been insane. But by your own laws they cannot be prevented from gaining access to guns, and knowing the USA those people who would be most at risk of becoming mass shooters would be ignored by whatever mental health system would be developed in favour of politically more advantageous mental health issues.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#38
The Second Amendment god demands more blood:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html
****************************************************************
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
― Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory
——————————————————-
What zombie movies got wrong about the actual apocalypse, part 1,487: they omitted scenes of people on the street demanding the right to be eaten by zombies.
—Kelly Davio, Twitter, 4/19/2020
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#39
Okay, that resets the "okay to talk about gun control" clock back to zero again.

Because it's only okay to talk about gun control when no one has been killed with a gun.
-- Bob

I have been Roland, Beowulf, Achilles, Gilgamesh, Clark Kent, Mary Sue, DJ Croft, Skysaber.  I have been 
called a hundred names and will be called a thousand more before the sun grows dim and cold....

Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#40
(11-09-2017, 12:58 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Hazard, what planet are you from?

Earth. Looking at the rest of your post, clearly a better corner of it than yours.

What can I say, the Netherlands may have their problems but we're pretty awesome generally speaking.
Which is part of the issue here.  Think about how Europe has developed over the last 200 years.  Not very long ago (at least, not long in the grand scheme of things), most of your countries were being ruled through monarchies - many of which had pretty clear ideas about who gets to use swords and armor.  Mainly, that was people they felt they could trust to not do something like stage a revolt.

Here?  We had our revolt and only by luck did we get through it with our independence from the British Empire.  And that makes for a VERY different perspective for the general populace.
(11-09-2017, 12:58 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: First of all, do you honestly expect me to take time away from my job to organize something like that?  Are you fucking stoned?  That bullshit is for people that either have too much time on their hands, or they got nothing left to lose.  I'm working 10 to 12 hour overnight shifts and I'm just barely digging myself out of a hole.  I don't even make $25k/year here, and that's busting my ass working anywhere between 50 to 60 hours a week!

<snip>

[The answer to that is, of course, a resounding no. Because the USA is the nation of high ideals and not following up on those high ideals.]
Hey, you said it, not me.  Tongue

But on that note... yeah, that's part of the issues with our socioeconomic system I'd like to see fixed.  And the Conservatives that are in charge right now don't want to fix that because they will quickly find themselves being outed by the lower-class
(11-09-2017, 12:58 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: As for why most Americans won't hand over their assault rifles or everything else?  You've got to be kidding, right?

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was so that everyone could defend themselves from their own government if needs be.  What you are asking of us is to remove and essential final check on the power of the Federal Government.  Don't argue about the semantics of "What are a bunch of jon does going to do against trained soldiers?"  That's not how it works.  Ideally the Military is supposed to recognize where the Federal government has gone too far and either stand aside or even assist in a revolution.

That is not going to be given up.  Not ever.

You clearly have not carefully read the Second Amendment. It doesn't speak of the people being able to protect themselves, it speaks of a well regulated militia protecting a State. In fact, let me quote the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in full:

Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

<snip>

You're conveniently ignoring one important bit there.

"...the right of the people..."

That's a very important word there, "people".  In fact, it's right in the preamble of our Constitution - the very first words in the very first line.  From the word go we decided on a system of government that derives its power from its people and not any one person or group of persons.  Everyone that is a citizen of this nation has the right to say, "No, this is not what I wanted."

And the ultimate expression of that sentiment is by way of revolution.  The Second Amendment guarantees that so we have the option to overthrow our government by force of arms should it fail to represent and serve We, The People.
(11-09-2017, 12:58 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: As for your belief that a better mental health system won't severely curb this issue?  I think you're wrong.

No matter what their beliefs, no matter how they rationalized their actions, every one of these people were completely raving mad.  Make mental health a priority and you will catch the vast majority of these people before they can ever do any lasting harm.

The problem is that, well, I'll let you continue.

(11-09-2017, 12:12 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: ETA:

Rob, what that study fails to show is HOW that money is spent on mental health.  I'm pretty sure if you compared the system in use here in the USA to that of other countries, you'd probably see a very different picture.

Your mental health culture is a mess. Your mental health culture is structurally a mess, and it's supported in remaining this mess by the USA's own cultural attitudes. The shooters may have been crazy, the shooters may have been insane. But by your own laws they cannot be prevented from gaining access to guns, and knowing the USA those people who would be most at risk of becoming mass shooters would be ignored by whatever mental health system would be developed in favour of politically more advantageous mental health issues.

I never said that it wasn't a mess.  That was my point entirely.  That is what we need to fix.

Now, I just had the epiphany that you're not seeing this issue the way I'm seeing it.

You're seeing it as something that REQUIRES police action on a broad scope.

Now, I don't really blame you for that sentiment.  It's a very knee-jerk thing: "Make it illegal so it won't happen again!"  It's laudable...

...But it's also laughable.

I'm not saying that we should not try to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally deranged.  I apologize if I was not clear on that matter before, but you were arguing so vehemently for blanket bans that it got lost in the signal noise.

The thing is that this is what a overhauled, reformed, and digitized background check system is supposed to be for.  A state-operated mental health system would have the ability to red-flag a person in a database that has mental issues that renders them a danger to themselves and/or other, and should not be permitted access to firearms (or any weapons for that matter).

I won't touch on confiscation of already owned firearms as that's a whole other ball of wax, but the idea here is that this is supposed to keep people who should not have guns from buying them.

But that's the thing.  You can't just go all HULK SMASH on this.  It is a far more complex and delicate issue than you think it is.  The regulation needs to be light-touch, laser-precise, and backed up by a competent system.

As for the system itself?

Fix mental health - preferably by enacting some form of single payer/universal health care system so it can be better regulated.  And really, I suspect that by rolling all healthcare subsidiaries (ie: all of Medicare and Medicaid) will greatly streamline the system and make it more cost-effective.

Really, we just need to have it so any damn fool can walk into a hospital and get treatment for anything, and walk out again without ever worrying about any sort of medical bills.  Your citizenship is your health care plan.

Enact a Federal $15/hr minimum wage so people can have peace of mind without practically killing themselves.

Toughen up laws on regulating corporations so they can't run roughshod over everyone.

I got other wild ideas that might help as well.  Like in exchange for the higher minimum wage, all but eliminate business taxes and relabel it as a 'use of infrastructure' tax.  In fact, have that revenue earmarked for the infrastructure and the management of those revenues made completely transparent so companies don't feel jilted about it.  This will encourage the 'trickle down economics' that conservatives love to go on about, and hopefully create more jobs to employ more Americans and bring them out of poverty.

The loss in revenues from this will be more than made up for by income tax revenues from a resurging middle class.

Oh, and how about ensuring Net Neutrality once and for all?  That way businesses don't need to worry about having their networks strangled by overbearing ISP's.  Yet another reason for businesses, particularly IT businesses, to do their business in America.

Reform privacy laws - no more random tracking.  Surveillance should require a court order, and certainly not from some kangaroo court that is not accountable to anyone.  And also, if the Federal Government can't spy on its citizens, then neither should corporations.  A knock-on effect of this is that it will lower people's anxiety levels and serve the mental health aspect for the better.

Another item for mental health: mandatory maternity/paternity leave for everyone, subsidized by the government to take the edge off.  This will reduce stress and anxiety as well as a lot of cases of postpartum depression.

All of this instead of blanket-banning firearms, which will only enrage a lot of people out there as they'll  feel they're being punished for the actions of a few.

Treat the disease.  Not the symptoms.  If you treat only the symptoms, chances are you'll have a dead patient on your hands before long.

Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
"They did not care about all the other attempts wizards had made on the Lone Power through history; as far as a computer is concerned, there is no program that cannot be debugged, or at worst, rewritten."
-Diane Duane, High Wizardry
"If our friendship depends on things like space and time, we've destroyed our own brotherhood! But overcome space, and all we have left is Here. Overcome time, and all we have left is Now. And in the middle of Here and Now, don't you think that we might see each other once or twice?"
-Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#41
Something that I don't expect anyone here to have an answer for:

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: ...
That's a very important word there, "people".  In fact, it's right in the preamble of our Constitution - the very first words in the very first line.  From the word go we decided on a system of government that derives its power from its people and not any one person or group of persons.  Everyone that is a citizen of this nation has the right to say, "No, this is not what I wanted."

And the ultimate expression of that sentiment is by way of revolution.  The Second Amendment guarantees that so we have the option to overthrow our government by force of arms should it fail to represent and serve We, The People.
...
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: ...
The thing is that this is what a overhauled, reformed, and digitized background check system is supposed to be for.  A state-operated mental health system would have the ability to red-flag a person in a database that has mental issues that renders them a danger to themselves and/or other, and should not be permitted access to firearms (or any weapons for that matter).
...

How can the second quote be implemented without including the first quote as something the second needs to treat?

Armed violence certainly seems to me to be a sign of mental illness. EDIT: In private or law-enforcement hands, that is. Military use of force is a different matter.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#42
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Which is part of the issue here.  Think about how Europe has developed over the last 200 years.  Not very long ago (at least, not long in the grand scheme of things), most of your countries were being ruled through monarchies - many of which had pretty clear ideas about who gets to use swords and armor.  Mainly, that was people they felt they could trust to not do something like stage a revolt.

Here?  We had our revolt and only by luck did we get through it with our independence from the British Empire.  And that makes for a VERY different perspective for the general populace.

Black?

I'm Dutch.

I know, I know, that means little to you in what connection there would be to the USA's history.

Let me explain. Way back when, in the mid 16th century, the Protestant movement and the Reformation were in full swing across Europe as the Catholic Church faced heavy criticism internally and externally for its excesses and abuse of power. The Calvinistic variant of Protestantism in particular took hold in the Dutch people. However, the Spanish Habsburgs, strict and staunch Catholics, were the ones in charge of the Netherlands. This was... inconvenient, when displeasure with the Catholic Church as well as an increasing tax burden partially intended as a measure to punish non-Catholics for their apostasy resulted in a wave of rushes on lavishly decorated Catholic churches and the destruction of much of the deemed excessive decoration of those churches.

The response to that kicked off what is known as the Eighty Years War, and was an eighty years long conflict (with a 12 year truce part way in to let both sides recover a bit) between the mighty Spanish Empire and the much smaller Republic of Seven United Netherlands. It eventually ended in a much strained Spain yielding to the Dutch demand of independence as part of the conclusion of the peace established after the Thirty Years War settling much of the religious strife in Europe.

And yet, despite the fact that the United Provinces won their independence by force of arms. And yet, despite the fact that they faced some 80 years of violent religiously fueled conflict on a global stage, including their homelands. And yet, despite the fact that, you know, they were a republic without a monarch (although the House of Orange was held in such esteem and effectively ran the military they were effectively considered royalty by other nations), they never developed the gun culture the US has.

And that despite the fact that in feudal times even the peasants were expected to have some degree of military armaments available to them, even if it's just a thick layer of padded wool, a spear and shield. Because a hue and cry needed a great many capable militia men to respond in the face of danger.

As far as I can tell the entire reason the United Provinces and the later Kingdom of the Netherlands never developed a culture that fetishizes weapon or gun ownership to the extent the US has is because at no point did the Dutch think it necessary. In fact, after the Napoleonic Wars settled European Dutch territory was generally so peaceful the only people with guns were those using them as part of their profession, with few exceptions. Because you didn't need them otherwise.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Hey, you said it, not me.  Tongue

Actually, that's part of what vexes me with the US. So many brilliant and well spoken minds who could make the US the best place to live, period, of the entire world, and a beacon of righteousness and justice all aspire to equal. And nobody listens until they've shouted themselves mute and died. If they ever listen.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: But on that note... yeah, that's part of the issues with our socioeconomic system I'd like to see fixed.  And the Conservatives that are in charge right now don't want to fix that because they will quickly find themselves being outed by the lower-class

Yeah. To be honest, the US political system worked when it was developed, and it worked until the invention of the telegraph. After that though... the entire political system needs to be reorganised, thoroughly.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: You're conveniently ignoring one important bit there.

"...the right of the people..."

That's a very important word there, "people".  In fact, it's right in the preamble of our Constitution - the very first words in the very first line.  From the word go we decided on a system of government that derives its power from its people and not any one person or group of persons.  Everyone that is a citizen of this nation has the right to say, "No, this is not what I wanted."

And the ultimate expression of that sentiment is by way of revolution.  The Second Amendment guarantees that so we have the option to overthrow our government by force of arms should it fail to represent and serve We, The People.

Ehm no, it doesn't.

The Second Amendment guarantees that the States have the means to force the Federal Government to heed its will by threat of arms. Not the people, for all that the States act on the behalf of their people. The Constitution of the United States defines the rights and duties of the Federal Government and leaves all other matters in the hands of the hands of the States and the people. All the Second Amendment says is 'the Federal Government will not restrict access the people's access to weapons so that the States have access to a well organised militia to defend themselves.'

How those States organize and equip their militia, or even if they raise one, is a matter for the States to decide upon, including if they wish to restrict access to weapons to part of their population and what part of that population.

But in many ways the Second Amendment was settled about 150 years ago when the Federal Government declared 'no more slavery,' the Southern States said 'no, we will have slavery and defend our right to hold slaves with force of arms' and the Federal Government's response to that was 'that's cute, but you are not going to hold slaves any longer' and successfully imposed their will on the States by force of arms.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I never said that it wasn't a mess.  That was my point entirely.  That is what we need to fix.

Now, I just had the epiphany that you're not seeing this issue the way I'm seeing it.

You're seeing it as something that REQUIRES police action on a broad scope.

Now, I don't really blame you for that sentiment.  It's a very knee-jerk thing: "Make it illegal so it won't happen again!"  It's laudable...

Actually I don't.

My apologies if I was unclear, I have no issue whatsoever with the concept of a population with access to weapons with the understanding they are handling those things with the required care and caution. It's just that the US general public does not by any measure inspire in me the confidence that they would handle weapons with said required care and caution. Worse, even the US own law enforcement officials, who should be held to higher standards of conduct on the job at minimum when it comes to weapon handling does not inspire that confidence.

They inspire in me the exact opposite. The confidence that many of the armed individuals I might meet in the US do not adequately handle their weapons. In many cases do not know how to adequately handle their weapons. And that because of that incompetence not only may but will hurt innocent people either by accident or deliberately. I see that as reason enough to restrict access to guns, in the public interest and for the purposes of national security if nothing else.

Does this mean extensive police action to enforce gun ownership restrictions? Probably. But only because I see no manner in which the US gun culture can be transformed in such a way that adequate responsibility for gun handling will be instilled in the US general public to the point such a thing is unnecessary.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I'm not saying that we should not try to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally deranged.  I apologize if I was not clear on that matter before, but you were arguing so vehemently for blanket bans that it got lost in the signal noise.

The thing is that this is what a overhauled, reformed, and digitized background check system is supposed to be for.  A state-operated mental health system would have the ability to red-flag a person in a database that has mental issues that renders them a danger to themselves and/or other, and should not be permitted access to firearms (or any weapons for that matter).

This would only function if all legal sales of firearms are required to use this system, leaving aside illegal sales because they wouldn't bother. This includes thus also those occasions where currently no such requirement exists.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I won't touch on confiscation of already owned firearms as that's a whole other ball of wax, but the idea here is that this is supposed to keep people who should not have guns from buying them.

But that's the thing.  You can't just go all HULK SMASH on this.  It is a far more complex and delicate issue than you think it is.  The regulation needs to be light-touch, laser-precise, and backed up by a competent system.

Well, that's fair.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: As for the system itself?

Fix mental health - preferably by enacting some form of single payer/universal health care system so it can be better regulated.  And really, I suspect that by rolling all healthcare subsidiaries (ie: all of Medicare and Medicaid) will greatly streamline the system and make it more cost-effective.

Really, we just need to have it so any damn fool can walk into a hospital and get treatment for anything, and walk out again without ever worrying about any sort of medical bills.  Your citizenship is your health care plan.

Actually, the biggest cost burden (outside of the medical sector vastly inflating their bills in the name of profit) is administrative, mostly to do with doctors having to handle the administrative burden of billing insurance companies appropriately. Rolling all healthcare subsidiaries into the same administrative checkbox would help, but allowing the medical professionals to shift the administrative burden to administrative personnel who don't need more than an insurance card's data stapled to a short form describing whatever procedure and prescription was performed and provided, if any. Because there's a vast maze of insurance companies and policies in the US.

The other part that would really help is just tossing it under the single payer system and the government walking up to various medical companies saying 'this is what we want, you can bid per state, and if we believe you are cheating us we're eminent domaining the shit out of your patents.'

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Enact a Federal $15/hr minimum wage so people can have peace of mind without practically killing themselves.

This would actually be a bad idea. The base cost of living is not equal across the entire USA. Cities are vastly more expensive than rural areas, to the point that 15 dollars an hour would ruin companies in at least some rural areas, while those living in cities may not make ends meet with such a wage.

That is not to say no minimum wage is required, far from it. It just can't be a blanket minimum wage, it has to be tailored to the specific requirements of a given region.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Toughen up laws on regulating corporations so they can't run roughshod over everyone.

You ideally have a government that will run roughshod over the corporations on the public's behalf if and when and only if and when required. But laws that force corporations to handle as equals with their consumers and not do things that threaten the public's health and safety would be good enough.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I got other wild ideas that might help as well.  Like in exchange for the higher minimum wage, all but eliminate business taxes and relabel it as a 'use of infrastructure' tax.  In fact, have that revenue earmarked for the infrastructure and the management of those revenues made completely transparent so companies don't feel jilted about it.  This will encourage the 'trickle down economics' that conservatives love to go on about, and hopefully create more jobs to employ more Americans and bring them out of poverty.

Sorry, trickle down economics does not work. Not in any way. If you shoved 10 million dollars a month towards a rich and big company's CEO he won't suddenly meaningfully impact the economy even more than he already does. No, he's going to use that money to buy more stock and expand his riches by gaining interests in more companies, rather than anything else. He does not buy products, or services, in any greater amount than he already does. His 'demand' for greater amounts or value of products is completely supply independent as it's satisfied.

So is his company's.

No, if you want to encourage greater value and activity in an economy what you need to is ensure that a million of the poorest in economy get 10 more dollars to spend every month. Because they will spend that money. On food, in greater and higher quality amounts. On clothing, in greater and higher quality amounts. On health care, on child care, on schools, on anything and everything they need. Because they absolutely have a greater demand for basically everything than their finances can supply. And there's no need to just give them that money. If you can force it through their wages rather than a subsidy or social security they'll happily take it.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Oh, and how about ensuring Net Neutrality once and for all?  That way businesses don't need to worry about having their networks strangled by overbearing ISP's.  Yet another reason for businesses, particularly IT businesses, to do their business in America.

Businesses don't matter. Not directly, in the net neutrality debate.

What you need is a public that's free to move electronically to whatever provider and service they demand and the ability to interact with everyone that provides services or goods in their location. Because so long as that's true and ISPs can't curate that content the ISPs can't sell their customers to the highest bidder.

A slightly different approach to the same discussion.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Reform privacy laws - no more random tracking.  Surveillance should require a court order, and certainly not from some kangaroo court that is not accountable to anyone.  And also, if the Federal Government can't spy on its citizens, then neither should corporations.  A knock-on effect of this is that it will lower people's anxiety levels and serve the mental health aspect for the better.

Actually, to an extent spying on your own citizens is required for proper government. To an extent.

Which should be entirely accountable and strictly regulated and controlled so it happens only when required.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Another item for mental health: mandatory maternity/paternity leave for everyone, subsidized by the government to take the edge off.  This will reduce stress and anxiety as well as a lot of cases of postpartum depression.

Several months of optional paid maternity leave, at least some of which prior to the expected delivery date, and optional at the decision of the employee and not the employer by any measure would be enough, generally speaking. More is nice, of course, but not required.

(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: All of this instead of blanket-banning firearms, which will only enrage a lot of people out there as they'll  feel they're being punished for the actions of a few.

Treat the disease.  Not the symptoms.  If you treat only the symptoms, chances are you'll have a dead patient on your hands before long.

A valid question is if, to extent the metaphor, the USA is in the ICU, on the ER table, or doomed to die regardless, given the many, many issues it is facing, and symptom treatment is the only thing left.

(11-23-2017, 08:54 AM)robkelk Wrote: Something that I don't expect anyone here to have an answer for:
How can the second quote be implemented without including the first quote as something the second needs to treat?

By accepting we the people, and that the US is governed by majority rule. That is to say, if the majority says you are too mentally unstable to own a gun you have no right to own a gun.

(11-23-2017, 08:54 AM)robkelk Wrote: Armed violence certainly seems to me to be a sign of mental illness. EDIT: In private or law-enforcement hands, that is. Military use of force is a different matter.

An argument can be made that military personnel is functionally insane and that part of becoming a soldier is being taught to be functionally insane. Note insane does not mean illogical; the insane act in general in accordance with their understanding of the world and its logic.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#43
(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote: As far as I can tell the entire reason the United Provinces and the later Kingdom of the Netherlands never developed a culture that fetishizes weapon or gun ownership to the extent the US has is because at no point did the Dutch think it necessary. In fact, after the Napoleonic Wars settled European Dutch territory was generally so peaceful the only people with guns were those using them as part of their profession, with few exceptions. Because you didn't need them otherwise.

No need ever since the Napoleonic Wars?  We were still expanding westward at that time, and leaving aside what we did to the Native American peoples, that was some hairy shit.  At that time it was considered an absolute necessity to have a several guns - mostly pistols, a couple of rifles, and a shotgun for when shit got real up close.

You've heard the expression, "God created man and Sam Colt made man equal"?  That's pretty much it in a nutshell.  And it didn't help matters any that in places where you didn't really need a gun for protection (say, New York City) you had people selling penny dreadfuls telling about outrageous tall tales of gunmen, lawmen, and 'indians' in the 'Wild and Untamed' West.

So, that's where our fetish comes from.  From the aggressive marketing schemes of people like Sam Colt combined with a very real need for personal protection, and the romanticisation of that culture back in the Eastern USA.  (Later on, the Prohibition would do us absolutely no favors on ANY front.)

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: But on that note... yeah, that's part of the issues with our socioeconomic system I'd like to see fixed.  And the Conservatives that are in charge right now don't want to fix that because they will quickly find themselves being outed by the lower-class

Yeah. To be honest, the US political system worked when it was developed, and it worked until the invention of the telegraph. After that though... the entire political system needs to be reorganised, thoroughly.

Ooookayyyy, what does rapid communication have to do with this?

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: You're conveniently ignoring one important bit there.

"...the right of the people..."

That's a very important word there, "people".  In fact, it's right in the preamble of our Constitution - the very first words in the very first line.  From the word go we decided on a system of government that derives its power from its people and not any one person or group of persons.  Everyone that is a citizen of this nation has the right to say, "No, this is not what I wanted."

And the ultimate expression of that sentiment is by way of revolution.  The Second Amendment guarantees that so we have the option to overthrow our government by force of arms should it fail to represent and serve We, The People.

Ehm no, it doesn't.

The Second Amendment guarantees that the States have the means to force the Federal Government to heed its will by threat of arms. Not the people, for all that the States act on the behalf of their people. The Constitution of the United States defines the rights and duties of the Federal Government and leaves all other matters in the hands of the hands of the States and the people. All the Second Amendment says is 'the Federal Government will not restrict access the people's access to weapons so that the States have access to a well organised militia to defend themselves.'

How those States organize and equip their militia, or even if they raise one, is a matter for the States to decide upon, including if they wish to restrict access to weapons to part of their population and what part of that population.

But in many ways the Second Amendment was settled about 150 years ago when the Federal Government declared 'no more slavery,' the Southern States said 'no, we will have slavery and defend our right to hold slaves with force of arms' and the Federal Government's response to that was 'that's cute, but you are not going to hold slaves any longer' and successfully imposed their will on the States by force of arms.

You keep missing the point I am trying to make here.

This is a democratically elected government.  And every government under it, from the State down to the smallest school district, derives their power from We, The People.

Yes, the States are responsible for organizing a militia.  But the idea was that the people of that militia would be supplying their own firearms.  And why not?  If you have your own gun and know how to use it effectively, then why train with a weapon you're not familiar with?

And on top of that, people here in the USA are permitted to form their own militias without any backing from the state.  They merely have to be registered as a militia within that state, and they're good to go.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I never said that it wasn't a mess.  That was my point entirely.  That is what we need to fix.

Now, I just had the epiphany that you're not seeing this issue the way I'm seeing it.

You're seeing it as something that REQUIRES police action on a broad scope.

Now, I don't really blame you for that sentiment.  It's a very knee-jerk thing: "Make it illegal so it won't happen again!"  It's laudable...

Actually I don't.

My apologies if I was unclear, I have no issue whatsoever with the concept of a population with access to weapons with the understanding they are handling those things with the required care and caution. It's just that the US general public does not by any measure inspire in me the confidence that they would handle weapons with said required care and caution. Worse, even the US own law enforcement officials, who should be held to higher standards of conduct on the job at minimum when it comes to weapon handling does not inspire that confidence.

They inspire in me the exact opposite. The confidence that many of the armed individuals I might meet in the US do not adequately handle their weapons. In many cases do not know how to adequately handle their weapons. And that because of that incompetence not only may but will hurt innocent people either by accident or deliberately. I see that as reason enough to restrict access to guns, in the public interest and for the purposes of national security if nothing else.

Does this mean extensive police action to enforce gun ownership restrictions? Probably. But only because I see no manner in which the US gun culture can be transformed in such a way that adequate responsibility for gun handling will be instilled in the US general public to the point such a thing is unnecessary.

....

............

...................

Uhm.

Wow.

Really, I...

Look.  There's something you NEED TO UNDERSTAND HERE.  The vast majority of gun owners here in America?  They are precisely what you want here.  They are sober-minded, responsible, and exceedingly well aware of the harm their guns can do.

You just never hear about these people because THEY DO NOT DO ANYTHING THAT IS NEWSWORTHY.

For every person that commits a crime with a fire arm or accidentally hurt themselves or another person with one, there are at least a hundred more that are perfectly good people who would never do an evil or careless thing with their weapons.  They keep their guns locked up, they keep track of their ammunition, and they practice with their weapons on a regular basis.  And you never, ever hear about them for that reason.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I'm not saying that we should not try to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally deranged.  I apologize if I was not clear on that matter before, but you were arguing so vehemently for blanket bans that it got lost in the signal noise.

The thing is that this is what a overhauled, reformed, and digitized background check system is supposed to be for.  A state-operated mental health system would have the ability to red-flag a person in a database that has mental issues that renders them a danger to themselves and/or other, and should not be permitted access to firearms (or any weapons for that matter).

This would only function if all legal sales of firearms are required to use this system, leaving aside illegal sales because they wouldn't bother. This includes thus also those occasions where currently no such requirement exists.

Well, here's the thing.  By and large, the people who sell and buy guns through a private transaction?  They want to make absolutely certain that the other party is on the level with them.  Mostly because there is very real danger involved.  A good friend of mine does this, and she has her wife (not a typo) cover her with a hunting rifle from under cover some distance away.

Yes, that is something you can do here - at least in Texas.

I've actually given some thought about how to make this safer.  For any and all weapons sales not involving a shop, we can have it so that you have to apply for a temporary permit to sell and/or purchase firearms.  This would involve a digitized background check system, and provide as permit number.  Prior to meeting, the two individuals can exchange permit numbers and check online to see if the permit is good (they would only be good for a very short time - say, one week).

This tells each party that they've not only passed the background check, but also that they are highly unlikely to cause any problems.  (Such as pulling their gun on them and demanding all their goods/money.)

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: As for the system itself?

Fix mental health - preferably by enacting some form of single payer/universal health care system so it can be better regulated.  And really, I suspect that by rolling all healthcare subsidiaries (ie: all of Medicare and Medicaid) will greatly streamline the system and make it more cost-effective.

Really, we just need to have it so any damn fool can walk into a hospital and get treatment for anything, and walk out again without ever worrying about any sort of medical bills.  Your citizenship is your health care plan.

Actually, the biggest cost burden (outside of the medical sector vastly inflating their bills in the name of profit) is administrative, mostly to do with doctors having to handle the administrative burden of billing insurance companies appropriately. Rolling all healthcare subsidiaries into the same administrative checkbox would help, but allowing the medical professionals to shift the administrative burden to administrative personnel who don't need more than an insurance card's data stapled to a short form describing whatever procedure and prescription was performed and provided, if any. Because there's a vast maze of insurance companies and policies in the US.

The other part that would really help is just tossing it under the single payer system and the government walking up to various medical companies saying 'this is what we want, you can bid per state, and if we believe you are cheating us we're eminent domaining the shit out of your patents.'

That second bit is more what I'd like.  Simple, direct, and cost-effective - which is exactly what we need right now.

Oh, the insurance companies will kick and scream.  There would be a lot of people put out of work.  But these would mostly be cube-farm jobs, and American culture has been reviling that sort of thing ever since Office Space came out in theaters.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Enact a Federal $15/hr minimum wage so people can have peace of mind without practically killing themselves.

This would actually be a bad idea. The base cost of living is not equal across the entire USA. Cities are vastly more expensive than rural areas, to the point that 15 dollars an hour would ruin companies in at least some rural areas, while those living in cities may not make ends meet with such a wage.

That is not to say no minimum wage is required, far from it. It just can't be a blanket minimum wage, it has to be tailored to the specific requirements of a given region.

I seriously doubt all of that.

And besides, I strongly feel that if your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees, then you really shouldn't be in business at all.  It's harsh and cold, I know.  But I would be willing to make certain concessions, such as a lower minimum wage for youths (which is like 50% of McDonalds employees), and maybe even a way for small businesses to opt out, but only on a strict case-by-case basis.

Besides, people are so quick to forget that the money paid out would quickly come back into the economy.  Even better yet, you'd have a lot fewer people on welfare, which is money that the State and Federal governments can put to use elsewhere.

Here's some stuff that supports what I'm saying:

http://prospect.org/article/how-walmart-...ay-15-hour


http://www.demos.org/publication/despite...'t-livable

My personal favorite here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAcaeLmybCY

And here's one that argues against for the reasons you cite...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIBlNLyvZKU

However, once again they don't even bring up the fact that these people would start buying goods and services immediately with their money.


(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Toughen up laws on regulating corporations so they can't run roughshod over everyone.

You ideally have a government that will run roughshod over the corporations on the public's behalf if and when and only if and when required. But laws that force corporations to handle as equals with their consumers and not do things that threaten the public's health and safety would be good enough.

That's pretty much what I'd be after - I don't want to kill capitalism at all.  I just want it regulated so they can't abuse the system as easily, and when they do....  -BAM-.  Make them actually hurt.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I got other wild ideas that might help as well.  Like in exchange for the higher minimum wage, all but eliminate business taxes and relabel it as a 'use of infrastructure' tax.  In fact, have that revenue earmarked for the infrastructure and the management of those revenues made completely transparent so companies don't feel jilted about it.  This will encourage the 'trickle down economics' that conservatives love to go on about, and hopefully create more jobs to employ more Americans and bring them out of poverty.

Sorry, trickle down economics does not work. Not in any way. If you shoved 10 million dollars a month towards a rich and big company's CEO he won't suddenly meaningfully impact the economy even more than he already does. No, he's going to use that money to buy more stock and expand his riches by gaining interests in more companies, rather than anything else. He does not buy products, or services, in any greater amount than he already does. His 'demand' for greater amounts or value of products is completely supply independent as it's satisfied.

So is his company's.

No, if you want to encourage greater value and activity in an economy what you need to is ensure that a million of the poorest in economy get 10 more dollars to spend every month. Because they will spend that money. On food, in greater and higher quality amounts. On clothing, in greater and higher quality amounts. On health care, on child care, on schools, on anything and everything they need. Because they absolutely have a greater demand for basically everything than their finances can supply. And there's no need to just give them that money. If you can force it through their wages rather than a subsidy or social security they'll happily take it.

Not that kind of trickle-down economics.  What Trump is doing right now is that he's giving money directly to the Upper Class.  What I want to do is lessen the taxation of the business itself - the money that gets taken out BEFORE they pay out the dividends to the investors.

This will increase the profit margins of the business so they are more likely to expand.

However, I would put the hammer down on things like bonuses, exceptionally large salaries, and capitol gains - close up all the loop holes so they can't just pat themselves on the back for getting free money from the government.  You want to make money, THEN HONESTLY MAKE IT, DAMMIT.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Oh, and how about ensuring Net Neutrality once and for all?  That way businesses don't need to worry about having their networks strangled by overbearing ISP's.  Yet another reason for businesses, particularly IT businesses, to do their business in America.

Businesses don't matter. Not directly, in the net neutrality debate.

What you need is a public that's free to move electronically to whatever provider and service they demand and the ability to interact with everyone that provides services or goods in their location. Because so long as that's true and ISPs can't curate that content the ISPs can't sell their customers to the highest bidder.

A slightly different approach to the same discussion.

That's pretty much what I mean.  This whole thing with killing net neutrality will permit ISPs to dictate what businesses get their customers as consumers.  As well as force businesses to pay a premium to make sure their website has enough bandwidth to support their business effectively.  I mean, honestly?  The only business that's going to benefit from the loss of net neutrality is going to be the ISPs themselves.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Reform privacy laws - no more random tracking.  Surveillance should require a court order, and certainly not from some kangaroo court that is not accountable to anyone.  And also, if the Federal Government can't spy on its citizens, then neither should corporations.  A knock-on effect of this is that it will lower people's anxiety levels and serve the mental health aspect for the better.

Actually, to an extent spying on your own citizens is required for proper government. To an extent.

Which should be entirely accountable and strictly regulated and controlled so it happens only when required.

Again, that's exactly what I mean.  Any sort of monitoring at all would require a court order, just like wire tapping phones before the September 11th attacks.  You had to provide legitimate probable cause to a judge, and that judge would decide if it was a good enough reason for that privacy to be violated.  I want to get us back to that.

Besides, the surveillance they do now?  Not a single conviction out of all that.  There was one that it might have helped with, but there was already sufficient evidence before going through the metadata recordings was even thought of.

It is pointless and nothing more than a money sink that makes us look more like a police state.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Another item for mental health: mandatory maternity/paternity leave for everyone, subsidized by the government to take the edge off.  This will reduce stress and anxiety as well as a lot of cases of postpartum depression.

Several months of optional paid maternity leave, at least some of which prior to the expected delivery date, and optional at the decision of the employee and not the employer by any measure would be enough, generally speaking. More is nice, of course, but not required.

Very much agreed.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 06:09 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: All of this instead of blanket-banning firearms, which will only enrage a lot of people out there as they'll  feel they're being punished for the actions of a few.

Treat the disease.  Not the symptoms.  If you treat only the symptoms, chances are you'll have a dead patient on your hands before long.

A valid question is if, to extent the metaphor, the USA is in the ICU, on the ER table, or doomed to die regardless, given the many, many issues it is facing, and symptom treatment is the only thing left.

I prefer to think that the USA has a very nasty and malignant form of cancer.  It is going to require all forms of treatment, but if that treatment is provided then the prognosis is hopeful.  Otherwise...  I worry it will soon metastasize and our government will turn into a zombie being puppeted by the 0.1% wealthiest people.

And you know what we do with zombies.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 08:54 AM)robkelk Wrote: Something that I don't expect anyone here to have an answer for:
How can the second quote be implemented without including the first quote as something the second needs to treat?

By accepting we the people, and that the US is governed by majority rule. That is to say, if the majority says you are too mentally unstable to own a gun you have no right to own a gun.

Okay, touching on this again...

I would have it so a mentally unstable person would not be able to purchase firearms, but the sticky part is when they already own firearms.  In which case I would have them stored - either in safe deposit boxes or secure commercial storage (whichever is more viable due to the size of the collection) in said owners name, paid for by the government, and sealed by a court order that may only be broken by another court order based on the word of the doctor treating the owner.

(11-23-2017, 04:31 PM)hazard Wrote:
(11-23-2017, 08:54 AM)robkelk Wrote: Armed violence certainly seems to me to be a sign of mental illness. EDIT: In private or law-enforcement hands, that is. Military use of force is a different matter.

An argument can be made that military personnel is functionally insane and that part of becoming a soldier is being taught to be functionally insane. Note insane does not mean illogical; the insane act in general in accordance with their understanding of the world and its logic.

This.  And the fact that I have already stated that many gun owners here in the USA... they may come off as being a bit crazy for enjoying shooting as a hobby, but I assure you that harming another person is something they would be loath to do.

I have a friend who was being raped once.  She was attacked as she was exiting her car.  She broke the window with her head, pulled her gun out, and shot the man, killing him.  And she will attest that pulling the trigger is the easy part.  It's dealing with everything else afterwards that's hard.

And I assure you, she is not the type that would have shot this person for any other reason.  Her life was in danger, and she took appropriate action.  And the same would apply to most of the rest of the gun owners here in America.

Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
"They did not care about all the other attempts wizards had made on the Lone Power through history; as far as a computer is concerned, there is no program that cannot be debugged, or at worst, rewritten."
-Diane Duane, High Wizardry
"If our friendship depends on things like space and time, we've destroyed our own brotherhood! But overcome space, and all we have left is Here. Overcome time, and all we have left is Now. And in the middle of Here and Now, don't you think that we might see each other once or twice?"
-Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#44
(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: No need ever since the Napoleonic Wars?  We were still expanding westward at that time, and leaving aside what we did to the Native American peoples, that was some hairy shit.  At that time it was considered an absolute necessity to have a several guns - mostly pistols, a couple of rifles, and a shotgun for when shit got real up close.

You've heard the expression, "God created man and Sam Colt made man equal"?  That's pretty much it in a nutshell.  And it didn't help matters any that in places where you didn't really need a gun for protection (say, New York City) you had people selling penny dreadfuls telling about outrageous tall tales of gunmen, lawmen, and 'indians' in the 'Wild and Untamed' West.

So, that's where our fetish comes from.  From the aggressive marketing schemes of people like Sam Colt combined with a very real need for personal protection, and the romanticisation of that culture back in the Eastern USA.  (Later on, the Prohibition would do us absolutely no favors on ANY front.)

Then why is it that Canada, under pretty much the same constraints, has such a different gun culture?

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Ooookayyyy, what does rapid communication have to do with this?

The purpose of the electoral college and the way representatives (Senate and House both) are organised has everything to do with communication capabilities. In the time where communication between a representative and their people would take days at minimum and often weeks or months for the furthest stretches of the nation a mostly independent representative that acts on the behalf of the people of a given region is sensible, especially with sensible enforcement of anti gerrymandering regulations.

In a system like this swing is not a flaw; it's a good thing if a given electoral district can be relied upon to be unreliable in its loyalties to a given party or candidate, as it makes sure that they have to pay attention to the people's concerns.

However, with greater communication capacity and especially with mass communication capacity that can reach the entire public in a day or less there is gain to be had in breaking up the electoral system, at least a little. Senators appear to be the representatives of the State they come from; that can remain, so simply turn the Senate elections into a two seat election on the State level (perhaps by choice of the State selected by the governor, selected or elected by the State Senate, or elected by the people), and abolish the electoral district system as anything other than a way to unify voting administration for the House of Representatives. Let the House represent the entire people of the United States.

This will inherently break up the old two-party system in at minimum the House because suddenly it's no longer a first past the post system.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: You keep missing the point I am trying to make here.

This is a democratically elected government.  And every government under it, from the State down to the smallest school district, derives their power from We, The People.

Yes, the States are responsible for organizing a militia.  But the idea was that the people of that militia would be supplying their own firearms.  And why not?  If you have your own gun and know how to use it effectively, then why train with a weapon you're not familiar with?

And on top of that, people here in the USA are permitted to form their own militias without any backing from the state.  They merely have to be registered as a militia within that state, and they're good to go.

This does not fit what I'd call a 'well regulated militia' as required in the Constitution. Using your own weapons is one thing (if a logistical nightmare if there's enough different munitions types), but only needing to say 'we're a militia' without any check to see if they're competent and/or willing and able to obey orders in case of an emergency?

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Look.  There's something you NEED TO UNDERSTAND HERE.  The vast majority of gun owners here in America?  They are precisely what you want here.  They are sober-minded, responsible, and exceedingly well aware of the harm their guns can do.

You just never hear about these people because THEY DO NOT DO ANYTHING THAT IS NEWSWORTHY.

For every person that commits a crime with a fire arm or accidentally hurt themselves or another person with one, there are at least a hundred more that are perfectly good people who would never do an evil or careless thing with their weapons.  They keep their guns locked up, they keep track of their ammunition, and they practice with their weapons on a regular basis.  And you never, ever hear about them for that reason.

Then the main problem, from what I can see, is that these responsible gun owners either refuse to or can't control the national conversation on gun ownership. Not helped by the fact that the NRA, which does control the national conversation, is firmly in support of the crazies.

That there's a silent majority that opposes or at least condemns the craziness is nice, but if they're silent nothing changes.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Well, here's the thing.  By and large, the people who sell and buy guns through a private transaction?  They want to make absolutely certain that the other party is on the level with them.  Mostly because there is very real danger involved.  A good friend of mine does this, and she has her wife (not a typo) cover her with a hunting rifle from under cover some distance away.

In highly conservative Texas? Well, good for them.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Yes, that is something you can do here - at least in Texas.

Well, if this is the sort of precaution you need to feel safe enough to conduct a gun sale, you've got a problem.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I've actually given some thought about how to make this safer.  For any and all weapons sales not involving a shop, we can have it so that you have to apply for a temporary permit to sell and/or purchase firearms.  This would involve a digitized background check system, and provide as permit number.  Prior to meeting, the two individuals can exchange permit numbers and check online to see if the permit is good (they would only be good for a very short time - say, one week).

This tells each party that they've not only passed the background check, but also that they are highly unlikely to cause any problems.  (Such as pulling their gun on them and demanding all their goods/money.)

Given that apparently the situation is felt to be dangerous enough to warrant armed back up; it would also be an option to require all such sales to be done either at the local police station, or otherwise in the presence of a law enforcement officer.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: That second bit is more what I'd like.  Simple, direct, and cost-effective - which is exactly what we need right now.

Oh, the insurance companies will kick and scream.  There would be a lot of people put out of work.  But these would mostly be cube-farm jobs, and American culture has been reviling that sort of thing ever since Office Space came out in theaters.

They are still people with jobs whose jobs suddenly disappear. It's a concern.

That said, just tossing the entire thing under a single payer insurance system won't be enough. Hospitals still charge exorbitant rates for their services, those need to handled, as well as pharmaceutical companies who do the exact same thing. Of course, such companies I implied would be hit with 'charge reasonably or lose your patent' stuff. That would for those companies be a major loss of income.

Another possible measure would be restricting consumer targeted advertising and limiting how much companies can reward or punish health care providers for using or not using their products. It's one of the ways that pharmaceutical companies pressure doctors.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I seriously doubt all of that.

And besides, I strongly feel that if your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees, then you really shouldn't be in business at all.  It's harsh and cold, I know.  But I would be willing to make certain concessions, such as a lower minimum wage for youths (which is like 50% of McDonalds employees), and maybe even a way for small businesses to opt out, but only on a strict case-by-case basis.

A lower minimum wage for youths is actually useful in another way; young people that don't get paid enough to live on are more likely to stay in school. That said, always enforce the minimum wage, even for small businesses. Otherwise you'll see small businesses pop up everywhere as large businesses create small businesses to fill their needs for personnel at ludicrously low wages.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Besides, people are so quick to forget that the money paid out would quickly come back into the economy.  Even better yet, you'd have a lot fewer people on welfare, which is money that the State and Federal governments can put to use elsewhere.

Including by lowering taxes. Or by rebuilding much of the infrastructure that's falling apart.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Here's some stuff that supports what I'm saying: <snip>

However, once again they don't even bring up the fact that these people would start buying goods and services immediately with their money.

You misunderstood my argument.

I'm not saying 'minimum wages don't need to be raised,' I'm saying, much like the Demos article, that 'the minimum wage in one location is not necessarily equal to the minimum wage in another place.' Let me cite another website, Numbeo, that compares cost of living in 132 cities across the US. The most expensive city to live in (New York) is established as the baseline, and all other cities are cheaper. In the cheapest (Athens, Georgia) the cost of living is only about 60% the cost of living in New York.

Because of this, a minimum wage that would cover the cost of living in one city would either fall short of covering the cost of living in the other, or be far more than needed. This will impact, greatly, the viability of the exact same stores with the exact same products with the exact same prices in similar locations. Tailoring minimum wages to the local economy would be much better for the economy than a flat declaration of what the minimum wage must be across the entire USA despite the fact that there's vast differences in regional economies.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Not that kind of trickle-down economics.  What Trump is doing right now is that he's giving money directly to the Upper Class.  What I want to do is lessen the taxation of the business itself - the money that gets taken out BEFORE they pay out the dividends to the investors.

This will increase the profit margins of the business so they are more likely to expand.

However, I would put the hammer down on things like bonuses, exceptionally large salaries, and capitol gains - close up all the loop holes so they can't just pat themselves on the back for getting free money from the government.  You want to make money, THEN HONESTLY MAKE IT, DAMMIT.

Then they will award themselves with more shares and thus more dividends instead of necessarily investing in expansion. What you need is a graduated income tax that taxes all income, including from bonuses, large salaries, capital gains and dividends.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: That's pretty much what I mean.  This whole thing with killing net neutrality will permit ISPs to dictate what businesses get their customers as consumers.  As well as force businesses to pay a premium to make sure their website has enough bandwidth to support their business effectively.  I mean, honestly?  The only business that's going to benefit from the loss of net neutrality is going to be the ISPs themselves.

Pretty much. It doesn't help that the US network system is wholly owned by the ISPs and ISPs don't share their networks. If you live in a certain place you usually have access to only 1 provider, especially in more rural regions.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Again, that's exactly what I mean.  Any sort of monitoring at all would require a court order, just like wire tapping phones before the September 11th attacks.  You had to provide legitimate probable cause to a judge, and that judge would decide if it was a good enough reason for that privacy to be violated.  I want to get us back to that.

Besides, the surveillance they do now?  Not a single conviction out of all that.  There was one that it might have helped with, but there was already sufficient evidence before going through the metadata recordings was even thought of.

It is pointless and nothing more than a money sink that makes us look more like a police state.

You mean be a police state. There's a lot wrong with US law enforcement that needs to be dealt with.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I prefer to think that the USA has a very nasty and malignant form of cancer.  It is going to require all forms of treatment, but if that treatment is provided then the prognosis is hopeful.  Otherwise...  I worry it will soon metastasize and our government will turn into a zombie being puppeted by the 0.1% wealthiest people.

And you know what we do with zombies.

Well, let's hope it won't come to that. It'd mean US isolation from the world for at least a generation as it sorts itself out, and while I hope the EU would rise to the occasion, it'd still mean effective dominance by Russia and China on the world stage. And I trust those two a lot more for exactly the wrong things and reasons.

(11-25-2017, 01:55 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Okay, touching on this again...

I would have it so a mentally unstable person would not be able to purchase firearms, but the sticky part is when they already own firearms.  In which case I would have them stored - either in safe deposit boxes or secure commercial storage (whichever is more viable due to the size of the collection) in said owners name, paid for by the government, and sealed by a court order that may only be broken by another court order based on the word of the doctor treating the owner.

Look, if you must provide a government measure to do this don't source it out commercially.

Commercial organisations care about their profits. If this means that they can make more profit by skimping on security and having half their stored goods disappear without anyone caring they will do so. Because noone will care and it makes them more money. Instead, store it in a government facility and regularly and properly check up on those items.

You may be noticing I'm a fan of big government. Mostly, this is because it's generally easier to force accountability on a government than on a business if you have no choice about a provided service or good.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#45
This is an interesting study, and sure to add fire to the debate over gun control

From the article:
Aiming for more useful data, researchers tried to hit on factors behind why people own guns and their attachments to them. Who owns guns and how do they feel about their possessions? And how do those feelings affect their stances on gun policies?
****************************************************************
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
― Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory
——————————————————-
What zombie movies got wrong about the actual apocalypse, part 1,487: they omitted scenes of people on the street demanding the right to be eaten by zombies.
—Kelly Davio, Twitter, 4/19/2020
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#46
The "When We Can Talk About It" counter's been reset.
-- Bob

I have been Roland, Beowulf, Achilles, Gilgamesh, Clark Kent, Mary Sue, DJ Croft, Skysaber.  I have been 
called a hundred names and will be called a thousand more before the sun grows dim and cold....

Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#47
And reset again yesterday, here in Colorado.

http://www.9news.com/news/crime/man-who-.../503509572

My husband and I go past that apartment complex about once a month, going to a local gaming thing at a gaming cafe. It's... disconcerting.
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#48
Re-reading the thread and just noticed this:
(10-13-2017, 10:50 PM)hazard Wrote: ...
It's basically an attempt to stifle the ability to vote by felony disenfranchisement. And it's been quite successful at it too directly and due to knock on effects.
...

Say what? If you go to prison in the USA, you lose your right to vote?

Is that even Constitutional?
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#49
(01-02-2018, 09:13 AM)robkelk Wrote: Say what? If you go to prison in the USA, you lose your right to vote?

Is that even Constitutional?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

In Britain, you can't vote while you're in prison

It's quite common in many states in the US, and does last and is constutional.

It is something that REALLY creeps me out. Taking away someone's right to vote is something that I believe the government should fundamentally not have the power to do.
Reply
RE: "It's always too soon to talk about gun control"
#50
(01-02-2018, 09:13 AM)robkelk Wrote: Re-reading the thread and just noticed this:

Say what? If you go to prison in the USA, you lose your right to vote?

Is that even Constitutional?

Yes.

The US Constitution notes that one may not be restricted from voting except in cases of rebellion or other crimes. Not all states have such laws, but most do, and the most restrictive tend to be in the American South. Strictly speaking it's unconstitutional if enforcement can be proven to be racially biased or the law was constructed in a racially biased manner, but proving that can be... difficult.

Me, I'd say there's two charges that can result in being disenfranchised; treason and voting fraud. And for elected officials I consider voting for other elected officials without their express permission voting fraud.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)