French strict gun control din't prevented the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.
I'll just quote what I wrote the last time you made this argument. Since I then pointed out that France didn't have strict gun control when it came to these guns. And that you can't really compare gun laws in the U.S with how rich and well-connected international terrorist organisations used smuggling and the black market to get firearms in Europe.
The way the terrorists from the 2015 terror attacks in France got their weapons is actually pretty complicated. The reason they could get the guns was in fact because the gun control was not strict when it came to the illicit arms trafficking of for example deactivated guns from the old Balkan conflicts that are later reactivated. European authorities just didn't know about this way of procuring weapons until recently, or didn't know how to stop it. Things have changed since then, even though there is still a problem within the EU, especially since there are several member states that have weaker gun laws.
French strict gun control din't prevented the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.
I'll just quote what I wrote the last time you made this argument. Since I then pointed out that France didn't have strict gun control when it came to these guns. And that you can't really compare gun laws in the U.S with how rich and well-connected international terrorist organisations used smuggling and the black market to get firearms in Europe.
The way the terrorists from the 2015 terror attacks in France got their weapons is actually pretty complicated. The reason they could get the guns was in fact because the gun control was not strict when it came to the illicit arms trafficking of for example deactivated guns from the old Balkan conflicts that are later reactivated. European authorities just didn't know about this way of procuring weapons until recently, or didn't know how to stop it. Things have changed since then, even though there is still a problem within the EU, especially since there are several member states that have weaker gun laws.
Again, lets suppose that for a miracle. the one true lord and savior, the State manages to impede illicit arms trafficking, by an powerful spell that disintegrate every weapon that cross the border, disassembled or not. Note that US government can't even prevent 30 million of illegals from Mexico from reaching US. Lets suppose that France can control his very long border and impede the importation of any illegal weapon from Eastern Europe.
How do you prevent homemade firearms? Do you know? Firearms aren't an ancient allien technology. Homemade submachine gun + homemade silencer
But one question. There are near 400 million firearms on US. How do "strict gun control" supporters suggest to take all of this guns? The government can't prevent
You don’t. No one is making that argument.
And you can take all your straw men arguments about other countries and drop them because they do not help with the problem.
What’s the problem?
A six year old being shot in the back while he is playing in a bouncy castle because some asshole is mad at the society he is living in so he goes and buys a gun to shoot up a garlic festival.
How do you prevent that from happening what seems like monthly now in the United States? Not Canada, not Japan, not Switzerland. The United States has this problem.
How do you prevent 6 year olds, or any innocent bystander for that matter from being killed by a gun?
I can tell you it isn’t by taking guns away from people who already own them. This guy bought his a week or two before the shooting, but it is limiting the sale of types of guns now.
I have never once in my life heard a single American liberal ever suggest outright removing all guns from the country. If there are folks in this country that seriously advocate removing all guns from the country, I have never heard them. From what I can tell, those people are a fantasy.
That is, in fact, a strawman--at least for the United States.
The only policies I've heard suggested by liberals are those which do one or more of the following:
1. Limit the total number of guns in circulation by either offering to buy them back from gun owners or limiting manufacturing
2. Ban guns that are especially useful for killing people (pistols or automatic weapons) and/or have no role in hunting
3. Restrict guns from the mentally ill and/or folks with criminal records
4. Mandate that all ammunition not used for hunting or by the military or police service be nonlethal
5. Limit the number of guns or the amount of ammunition that can be purchased by a single person
6. Require all guns to have biometric scanners that prevent anyone except from their legal owner from using them
Number 3 is the actually popular one among Democratic policymakers, and last I heard, a majority of NRA members supported it as well.
For me is simple. If citizen "A" is considered "capable" of driving an car with responsibility, then "A" is capable of owning an firearm with responsibility.
I have never once in my life heard a single American liberal ever suggest outright removing all guns from the country. If there are folks in this country that seriously advocate removing all guns from the country, I have never heard them. From what I can tell, those people are a fantasy.
That is, in fact, a strawman--at least for the United States.
The only policies I've heard suggested by liberals are those which do one or more of the following:
1. Limit the total number of guns in circulation by either offering to buy them back from gun owners or limiting manufacturing
2. Ban guns that are especially useful for killing people (pistols or automatic weapons) and/or have no role in hunting
3. Restrict guns from the mentally ill and/or folks with criminal records
4. Mandate that all ammunition not used for hunting or by the military or police service be nonlethal
5. Limit the number of guns or the amount of ammunition that can be purchased by a single person
6. Require all guns to have biometric scanners that prevent anyone except from their legal owner from using them
Number 3 is the actually popular one among Democratic policymakers, and last I heard, a majority of NRA members supported it as well.
I'd be fine with #3.
Also OK with #1 part a (voluntary buy-backs).
Maybe on #2 - automatic weapons only (although technically I think they're already illegal). Perhaps you mean 'Assault Weapons'?
No from me on #4, #5 (not sure how you coild keep track anyway), and #6 unless other adult family members/significant others are also allowed to use them (it would likely be struck down as soon as somebody's wife couldnt use the gun to protect herself because it only works for hubby).
Comparing countries of vastly different income levels, and thus vastly different levels of resources for enforcement of crime is extremely disingenuous. There's a reason why *I* have specifically not done this. To do so would be extremely dishonest.
Secondly, it is simply *not true* that the USA is "not a violent country". Compared to other high income countries, its homicide rate is double or even as much as four times what peer countries experience. This is generally true of Argentina, Panama, Costa Rica or elsewhere when compared to their economic peers across the globe.
Lastly, continuing to include minute countries like the Falklands just illustrates a further inability to take about these issues with sincerity. Small countries, with little to no urban areas, are more or less useless to include in this analysis. As their per capita statistics could bounce around wildly year-to-year, but also because they do not often contain urban centers, where crime has always concentrated across history and geography. I've similarly never mentioned Belize or the Bahamas, for example, even though their recent per capita stats also puts them near the top in homicides.
It would also behoove you, and improve the discussion on here, to at least acknowledge that some fact you previously said was in error. Your earlier point about Mexico and Brazil is definitively not factually correct. How can you expect people to trust things you claim to be true when you're brazenly avoiding clarification here?
Just to add here, in case it wasn't obvious, but clearly poverty has a strong correlation with crime. Probably stronger than any gun control or no gun control.
This is why when trying to answer the question of whether gun control or no gun control has an effect on violence, we have to find a way to separate out this variable. There's no other right way to attempt to answer that question.
Also editing to add: "French strict gun control din't prevented the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack."
France's homicide rate is 1.30. The US is 5.30. That's far more compelling evidence that it *does* work.
1. Limit the total number of guns in circulation by either offering to buy them back from gun owners or limiting manufacturing
2. Ban guns that are especially useful for killing people (pistols or automatic weapons) and/or have no role in hunting
3. Restrict guns from the mentally ill and/or folks with criminal records
4. Mandate that all ammunition not used for hunting or by the military or police service be nonlethal
5. Limit the number of guns or the amount of ammunition that can be purchased by a single person
6. Require all guns to have biometric scanners that prevent anyone except from their legal owner from using them
1) What if gun owners don't wish to sell their guns back to the government? What can you do about the people who know how to craft their own guns?
2) I would say it is illegal for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons, but it isn't--you have to pay a lot of money and jump through a lot of hoops, and most people don't qualify for those programs or licenses. Besides, what can you do about people who know who to convert weapons to automatic? Most homicides by gun are committed by handgun, anyway, but those murders don't make for splashy headlines or attention-grabbing nightly news stories.
3) Most criminals with convictions for violent offenses are already forbidden from owning guns. That can't stop some guy from selling them out of the back of a van in an alley, unfortunately, just like it can't stop someone from stealing a legally-owned gun from a house.
4) This is impossible to implement.
5) This is reasonable, but ultimately unenforceable without a national registry...and that isn't going to happen any time soon.
6) If the scanner has to be keyed to its legal owner then that means the system must be able to be updated if the gun legally changes hands. If the system is changeable then it is hackable or avoidable--this won't work.
I'm just throwing this out because I'm curious what Europeans think. Has anyone else noticed that the new British prime minister bears an uncanny resemblance to American president Donald Trump? I'm not sure how much their respective politics align, but as an American having seen just a few short articles in our news about Brexit, Theresa May's resignation after failing to get any Brexit deal through the legislature, and pictures of the new guy, I was just really impressed with the physical resemblance, and maybe the political resemblance, as the new guy is apparently very in support of Brexit, and "Making Britain great again" by implementing policies hostile to the EU and immigration of refugees to Britain. Is it just me?
I'm just throwing this out because I'm curious what Europeans think. Has anyone else noticed that the new British prime minister bears an uncanny resemblance to American president Donald Trump? I'm not sure how much their respective politics align, but as an American having seen just a few short articles in our news about Brexit, Theresa May's resignation after failing to get any Brexit deal through the legislature, and pictures of the new guy, I was just really impressed with the physical resemblance, and maybe the political resemblance, as the new guy is apparently very in support of Brexit, and "Making Britain great again" by implementing policies hostile to the EU and immigration of refugees to Britain. Is it just me?
No, it's not just you. The physical resemblance doesn't bother me, although it's certainly there, and I can't speak for all Europeans, of course, but most people I know have been watching this development with increasing worry. The political attitude is similar, in a very, very unpleasant way, and the Brexit is just a small part of it.
There's generally the ugly phantom of a new wave of nationalism creeping through Europe, and I find it very worrying. Especially because Europe has suffered for decades from the results of two wars caused by such tendencies, and I belong to the generation that grew up bored by the history lessons, like "Yes, but do we *have* to repeat that every year? People aren't crazy, such a thing will never happen again!"
I'm not so sure anymore that societies are capable of learning from mistakes made by their grandfathers' generation.
I thought we'd overcome nationalism. But it's rearing its ugly head around the whole world again.
I'm just throwing this out because I'm curious what Europeans think. Has anyone else noticed that the new British prime minister bears an uncanny resemblance to American president Donald Trump? I'm not sure how much their respective politics align, but as an American having seen just a few short articles in our news about Brexit, Theresa May's resignation after failing to get any Brexit deal through the legislature, and pictures of the new guy, I was just really impressed with the physical resemblance, and maybe the political resemblance, as the new guy is apparently very in support of Brexit, and "Making Britain great again" by implementing policies hostile to the EU and immigration of refugees to Britain. Is it just me?
Here's a in depth brits take on Boris Johnson "Britain's Trump" for American audiences.
I thought we'd overcome nationalism. But it's rearing its ugly head around the whole world again.
Human beings simply don't like each other very much. Instead of trying to legislate that we all get along like kindergartners it would be wiser to realize that the average person you pass on the street simply doesn't care about you *at all*.
@Balrog99@Mathsorcerer: To implement number 4, you would enforce the regulations on manufacturers and imports--you wouldn't enforce it on gun owners because it would be extremely inefficient. Nonlethal ammunition could be sold to anyone, but lethal ammunition could only be sold to police departments and the military.
As for existing lethal ammunition still in the market, it might be most cost-effective to wait for the supply to dry up rather than try to track it down. The police could easily track down some sources of ammunition and try to confiscate, purchase, or replace them.
As for gun buyback programs, you can easily make them voluntary instead of involuntary. If you check my wording, I specified a voluntary buyback program, because I've never heard any liberals suggest a mandatory one.
On the biometric scanners: there's no reason you couldn't let the gun allow two specific people to use it, but not others. So, a mom and dad could access the gun, but their mentally ill and potentially suicidal teenage son couldn't fire it. Likewise, if you were to transfer ownership, it would be fully possible to reprogram it to recognize a new owner--you'd just have to make sure the only way to switch control was to take it to a licensed professional. You could also have some computer scientists periodically update the system to make it harder for crooks to reprogram them.
The technology already exists. I mean, you can rig a phone, or a computer, or a door, to only be unlockable with a fingerprint. My laptop has a fingerprint reader, and it can be remapped if I give it the right code. Why not do the same things with guns?
Since I forgot to mention an important point: No one method of gun control will keep all guns out of the hands of all criminals, just like no law against robbery will prevent all robberies, and yet we do not throw up our hands and say it's hopeless and we shouldn't try to save lives. The important thing is decreasing violent crime as much as possible, and we have multiple tools at our disposal.
There are no rules for Republicans anymore. This will only get worse, especially if he's re-elected.
Lindsey Graham threw out Senate Rules to jam a partisan immigration restriction bill through committee over Democratic objection. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) committee of "breaking their committee rules to jam through a partisan bill that would allow children, young children in cages for a longer period of time," adding he would "not support this partisan process or this partisan bill."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman and current member of the panel.
"If the majority is willing to break any rule in order to report this bill today, there are no rules. … This committee is nothing but a conveyor belt of ultra-partisan ideas. It's under the thumb and control of Donald Trump," Leahy said. "This is suppose to be the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not the Donald Trump committee."
This is his focus - screwing us with pro-corporate bigot activist judges. He's put 144 judicial appointments since Trump's inauguration.
McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency, but also stonewalled Obama’s lower bench appointments.
And with a rule change in 2017, he sped up confirmations of Supreme Court nominees, requiring just a simple majority, clearing the way for Trump’s first high-court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch. The push for confirmations continues.
Civil rights groups opposed at least two of the judges that were appointed and one would not say where Brown V. Board of Education was decided correctly or not.
A Trump appointed Judge is, for now, blocking a State law in Federal Court, that allowed the House Judiciary Committee to request Trump's State Tax Records.
Whatever happened to "No standing" and "State's Rights"? There's no justice.
I thought we'd overcome nationalism. But it's rearing its ugly head around the whole world again.
Human beings simply don't like each other very much. Instead of trying to legislate that we all get along like kindergartners it would be wiser to realize that the average person you pass on the street simply doesn't care about you *at all*.
We already live in that world. If we go further along that road we'll all literally be slaves to rich people and corporations. No more euphemisms about it.
Legislation is the only thing that can even the playing field.
I thought we'd overcome nationalism. But it's rearing its ugly head around the whole world again.
Human beings simply don't like each other very much. Instead of trying to legislate that we all get along like kindergartners it would be wiser to realize that the average person you pass on the street simply doesn't care about you *at all*.
We already live in that world. If we go further along that road we'll all literally be slaves to rich people and corporations. No more euphemisms about it.
Legislation is the only thing that can even the playing field.
Or we could go back the old methods. You know, pull the rich people out of their homes and businesses and start lynching them. Its historically proven to work. And no, I'm not seriously suggesting this.
The interesting note here is that libertine gun laws in the US are not only responsible for a disproportionate amount of homicides in the US, but actually have a spillover effect in other countries in the region. It is very easy for criminal organization to do "straw purchases" of weapons in the US and then send them south.
Obviously I'm not saying the US deserves 100% of the blame for crime in Latin America, but it does play a role.
My most favorite parts of 'Lord of War' was the first minute, and the last minute.
In the first minute, Nicholas Cage's character says "There's over 550 million firearms in the world. That's one for every 12 people. The question is 'How do we arm the other 11?'"
In the last minute, a statement that 'the worlds' largest arms exporters are the U.S., the U.K., Russia, France, and France. They are also the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.'
For me is simple. If citizen "A" is considered "capable" of driving an car with responsibility, then "A" is capable of owning an firearm with responsibility.
The purpose of a car is not to kill things. This is, in fact, the primary purpose of a gun. Sure, there are SOME non-lethals, but they are specialty rounds. 99.99999% of all cartridges are lethal.
How do you prevent 6 year olds, or any innocent bystander for that matter from being killed by a gun?
Making his father unable to defend the child without being put in jail doesn't sounds like an interesting solution....
PS : The "asshole" can always use illegal firearms or "roadkill" the child.
Once again, the attacker was brought down by trained security at this event in less than a minute.
That argument no longer works, and IMO never did.
That argument was ridiculous on its face LONG before that. The number of "justifiable" homicides is a pittance of actual gun related deaths. And threatening someone with a gun (a deadly weapon) to 'discourage crime" is in itself a crime.
1. Limit the total number of guns in circulation by either offering to buy them back from gun owners or limiting manufacturing
2. Ban guns that are especially useful for killing people (pistols or automatic weapons) and/or have no role in hunting
3. Restrict guns from the mentally ill and/or folks with criminal records
4. Mandate that all ammunition not used for hunting or by the military or police service be nonlethal
5. Limit the number of guns or the amount of ammunition that can be purchased by a single person
6. Require all guns to have biometric scanners that prevent anyone except from their legal owner from using them
1) What if gun owners don't wish to sell their guns back to the government? What can you do about the people who know how to craft their own guns?
2) I would say it is illegal for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons, but it isn't--you have to pay a lot of money and jump through a lot of hoops, and most people don't qualify for those programs or licenses. Besides, what can you do about people who know who to convert weapons to automatic? Most homicides by gun are committed by handgun, anyway, but those murders don't make for splashy headlines or attention-grabbing nightly news stories.
3) Most criminals with convictions for violent offenses are already forbidden from owning guns. That can't stop some guy from selling them out of the back of a van in an alley, unfortunately, just like it can't stop someone from stealing a legally-owned gun from a house.
4) This is impossible to implement.
5) This is reasonable, but ultimately unenforceable without a national registry...and that isn't going to happen any time soon.
6) If the scanner has to be keyed to its legal owner then that means the system must be able to be updated if the gun legally changes hands. If the system is changeable then it is hackable or avoidable--this won't work.
1. Once again. No one is saying mandatory buy backs. Nothing is forced ever in buy back programs. It is usually incentive based.
2. Once again banning new purchases limits what’s available now. A person from Florida can’t walk into a store in Colorado and just buy a gun and walk into the wilderness waiting to shoot up a school.
3. Biggest thing here are the mentally ill. Background checks and getting a solid reason why they want a semi-automatic rifle to begin with can actually go a long way. Proper training at a facility and having a licence to purchase ammunition would help as well.
4. See 3. Licence to ammunition. IMO that’s the loop hole that gun control needs to take advantage of.
5. I kinda don’t agree with this one as it limits collectors. But once again, licence to buy ammo could work or at least curb these incidents. The only one I think would have still happened would have been the Vegas shooting.
6. I also don’t like this idea. It think there is simpler solutions and I don’t think stolen guns are actually a problem atm.
And truthfully, all these things might not be enough or may fail miserably but what is also failing at the moment is the status quo and it is better to attempt to try something than screaming “it won’t work!”
I thought we'd overcome nationalism. But it's rearing its ugly head around the whole world again.
Human beings simply don't like each other very much. Instead of trying to legislate that we all get along like kindergartners it would be wiser to realize that the average person you pass on the street simply doesn't care about you *at all*.
We already live in that world. If we go further along that road we'll all literally be slaves to rich people and corporations. No more euphemisms about it.
Legislation is the only thing that can even the playing field.
Or we could go back the old methods. You know, pull the rich people out of their homes and businesses and start lynching them. Its historically proven to work. And no, I'm not seriously suggesting this.
All those times the peasants stormed the castle happened when the government was protecting the powerful at the expense of the common folk.
What good does a society where you suspect your stranger is out to hurt you? This mindset is a ploy to put us against each other.
It's not the immigrants that are causing your problems. Immigrants have no power to set up the system that is leaving you behind.
Immigrants are not a fortune 500 company nor a CEO making 600 times an average worker.
Immigrants, abortion, conspiracy theories, are distractions. Deregulation is not the answer it merely perpetuates the situation. A deregulated toothless government that tolerates corruption, nepotism, and unchecked greed leaves you at the mercy of forces with greater access, resources and power than you have. That's a dangerous situation to be in.
I'm just throwing this out because I'm curious what Europeans think. Has anyone else noticed that the new British prime minister bears an uncanny resemblance to American president Donald Trump? I'm not sure how much their respective politics align, but as an American having seen just a few short articles in our news about Brexit, Theresa May's resignation after failing to get any Brexit deal through the legislature, and pictures of the new guy, I was just really impressed with the physical resemblance, and maybe the political resemblance, as the new guy is apparently very in support of Brexit, and "Making Britain great again" by implementing policies hostile to the EU and immigration of refugees to Britain. Is it just me?
@BelgarathMTH the main similarity I see to Trump is Johnson's willingness to persist in saying total lies long enough and loud enough that many people start to believe them. In policy terms though I don't see too much alignment. Even in relation to the issues you mention Johnson's position is less clear-cut than you may believe:
- in relation to the EU he's become prime minister by strongly pushing for Brexit, but that doesn't mean he's particularly hostile to the EU - it just means he's found a method to achieve his long-held desire to be prime minister. He first became famous as a journalist by writing made-up stories about EU policies - but again the rationale for that was to make himself famous, not any particular hostility to the EU. One well-known anecdote about him is that ahead of the Brexit referendum he wrote two articles - one strongly supporting Remain and one strongly supporting Leave. I think his decision about which one to publish had nothing to do with personal conviction and everything to do with political advancement. I'm not the only one to think that - it's a common view among the more ardent Brexiteers. That's why Johnson has been forced into such a strong line on Britain exiting the EU on 31 October - that was necessary to get him support from those that are genuinely hostile to the EU.
- in relation to immigration he's actually rather out of step with his party in thinking immigration is generally positive. Most conservatives would like immigration to be reduced and they've had a target for quite a few years now to reduce annual net migration to the 'tens of thousands'. That target was a significant driver for the Brexit vote, as freedom of movement means it is not possible to control immigration from within the EU. What you probably haven't heard is that Johnson quietly dropped that target as one of his first acts as prime minister. That's in line with his thinking over many years - as mayor of London for instance he supported an 'earned amnesty' for illegal immigrants and he put forward a similar plan as part of Theresa May's government.
A deregulated toothless government that tolerates corruption, nepotism, and unchecked greed leaves you at the mercy of forces with greater access, resources and power than you have. That's a dangerous situation to be in.
A powerful, efficient government which will gladly take away your rights with the excuse "but this is for the greater good" is *more* dangerous.
Those 144 Federal judge appointments will help protect the country from anything Progressives might want to try and implement.
The United States is on track to attain "energy independence"--oil and natural gas production will, before the end of this year, surpass consumption. Can we finally stop doing business with countries like Saudi Arabia?
As for existing lethal ammunition still in the market, it might be most cost-effective to wait for the supply to dry up rather than try to track it down. The police could easily track down some sources of ammunition and try to confiscate, purchase, or replace them.
This one's easy. "Bring in your lethal ammunition and we'll let you fire it out of a machine gun!!!"
A deregulated toothless government that tolerates corruption, nepotism, and unchecked greed leaves you at the mercy of forces with greater access, resources and power than you have. That's a dangerous situation to be in.
A powerful, efficient government which will gladly take away your rights with the excuse "but this is for the greater good" is *more* dangerous.
Those 144 Federal judge appointments will help protect the country from anything Progressives might want to try and implement.
Better "for the greater good" than "It's just good business".
A deregulated toothless government that tolerates corruption, nepotism, and unchecked greed leaves you at the mercy of forces with greater access, resources and power than you have. That's a dangerous situation to be in.
A powerful, efficient government which will gladly take away your rights with the excuse "but this is for the greater good" is *more* dangerous.
Those 144 Federal judge appointments will help protect the country from anything Progressives might want to try and implement.
Better "for the greater good" than "It's just good business".
A deregulated toothless government that tolerates corruption, nepotism, and unchecked greed leaves you at the mercy of forces with greater access, resources and power than you have. That's a dangerous situation to be in.
A powerful, efficient government which will gladly take away your rights with the excuse "but this is for the greater good" is *more* dangerous.
This is one of two fallacies that drove me away from Libertarianism all those years ago. Historically, the federal government in the USA has been the greatest guarantor of individual rights. It's always been the state and local governments that try to infringe upon us. Those times in our history when the central government has been weak are when we start to lose our freedoms to the states or corporations.
A deregulated toothless government that tolerates corruption, nepotism, and unchecked greed leaves you at the mercy of forces with greater access, resources and power than you have. That's a dangerous situation to be in.
A powerful, efficient government which will gladly take away your rights with the excuse "but this is for the greater good" is *more* dangerous.
Those 144 Federal judge appointments will help protect the country from anything Progressives might want to try and implement.
The United States is on track to attain "energy independence"--oil and natural gas production will, before the end of this year, surpass consumption. Can we finally stop doing business with countries like Saudi Arabia?
These are not "conservative judges that just want to call balls and strikes and adhere to the text of the Constitution". That's more spin and lies from Republicans, who in case you haven't been paying attention are lying about this topic as well.
The Heritage Foundation is funded by right wing billionaires. Why? To protect the Constitution? Yeah no. They go through this trouble to protect their billionaire interests. They want to protect the country from progress that might make things better for we the people, yes that's their goal. We'll get loss of freedom but more religious bigotry. They want to remove gains in individual rights and voting rights.
Conservatives want more like Citizens United where politicians are for sale.
They want more decisions like Gorsuch's Ice Road Trucker - people should just die for corporations.
More rigged elections so more decisions like legalizing gerrymandering.
If that's what you want more of then there's something wrong with you, those aren't American ideals.
Conservative judges have been on the wrong side of progress since the beginning of the nation. And they've given us the worst decisions in our nation's history like Dredd Scot. Any advance in our history has been fought tooth and nail by Conservatives. Conservative judges have been ruling against stopping child labor, against the 40 he work week, against integration, against individual rights.
All the good things have been made - like social security and Medicare - against the complaints and bad rulings of Conservatives.
Comments
I'll just quote what I wrote the last time you made this argument. Since I then pointed out that France didn't have strict gun control when it came to these guns. And that you can't really compare gun laws in the U.S with how rich and well-connected international terrorist organisations used smuggling and the black market to get firearms in Europe.
Again, lets suppose that for a miracle. the one true lord and savior, the State manages to impede illicit arms trafficking, by an powerful spell that disintegrate every weapon that cross the border, disassembled or not. Note that US government can't even prevent 30 million of illegals from Mexico from reaching US. Lets suppose that France can control his very long border and impede the importation of any illegal weapon from Eastern Europe.
How do you prevent homemade firearms? Do you know? Firearms aren't an ancient allien technology. Homemade submachine gun + homemade silencer
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/01/22/common-illicitly-homemade-submachine-guns-brazil/
And again. How do you plan to take out almost 400 million guns? And what you will do with countless of people who made his life and carrear with it? Working on gun stores, firing ranges, or in the industry?
You don’t. No one is making that argument.
And you can take all your straw men arguments about other countries and drop them because they do not help with the problem.
What’s the problem?
A six year old being shot in the back while he is playing in a bouncy castle because some asshole is mad at the society he is living in so he goes and buys a gun to shoot up a garlic festival.
How do you prevent that from happening what seems like monthly now in the United States? Not Canada, not Japan, not Switzerland. The United States has this problem.
How do you prevent 6 year olds, or any innocent bystander for that matter from being killed by a gun?
I can tell you it isn’t by taking guns away from people who already own them. This guy bought his a week or two before the shooting, but it is limiting the sale of types of guns now.
Making his father unable to defend the child without being put in jail doesn't sounds like an interesting solution....
PS : The "asshole" can always use illegal firearms or "roadkill" the child.
That is, in fact, a strawman--at least for the United States.
The only policies I've heard suggested by liberals are those which do one or more of the following:
1. Limit the total number of guns in circulation by either offering to buy them back from gun owners or limiting manufacturing
2. Ban guns that are especially useful for killing people (pistols or automatic weapons) and/or have no role in hunting
3. Restrict guns from the mentally ill and/or folks with criminal records
4. Mandate that all ammunition not used for hunting or by the military or police service be nonlethal
5. Limit the number of guns or the amount of ammunition that can be purchased by a single person
6. Require all guns to have biometric scanners that prevent anyone except from their legal owner from using them
Number 3 is the actually popular one among Democratic policymakers, and last I heard, a majority of NRA members supported it as well.
I'd be fine with #3.
Also OK with #1 part a (voluntary buy-backs).
Maybe on #2 - automatic weapons only (although technically I think they're already illegal). Perhaps you mean 'Assault Weapons'?
No from me on #4, #5 (not sure how you coild keep track anyway), and #6 unless other adult family members/significant others are also allowed to use them (it would likely be struck down as soon as somebody's wife couldnt use the gun to protect herself because it only works for hubby).
Once again, the attacker was brought down by trained security at this event in less than a minute.
That argument no longer works, and IMO never did.
Comparing countries of vastly different income levels, and thus vastly different levels of resources for enforcement of crime is extremely disingenuous. There's a reason why *I* have specifically not done this. To do so would be extremely dishonest.
Secondly, it is simply *not true* that the USA is "not a violent country". Compared to other high income countries, its homicide rate is double or even as much as four times what peer countries experience. This is generally true of Argentina, Panama, Costa Rica or elsewhere when compared to their economic peers across the globe.
Lastly, continuing to include minute countries like the Falklands just illustrates a further inability to take about these issues with sincerity. Small countries, with little to no urban areas, are more or less useless to include in this analysis. As their per capita statistics could bounce around wildly year-to-year, but also because they do not often contain urban centers, where crime has always concentrated across history and geography. I've similarly never mentioned Belize or the Bahamas, for example, even though their recent per capita stats also puts them near the top in homicides.
It would also behoove you, and improve the discussion on here, to at least acknowledge that some fact you previously said was in error. Your earlier point about Mexico and Brazil is definitively not factually correct. How can you expect people to trust things you claim to be true when you're brazenly avoiding clarification here?
This is why when trying to answer the question of whether gun control or no gun control has an effect on violence, we have to find a way to separate out this variable. There's no other right way to attempt to answer that question.
Also editing to add: "French strict gun control din't prevented the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack."
France's homicide rate is 1.30. The US is 5.30. That's far more compelling evidence that it *does* work.
1) What if gun owners don't wish to sell their guns back to the government? What can you do about the people who know how to craft their own guns?
2) I would say it is illegal for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons, but it isn't--you have to pay a lot of money and jump through a lot of hoops, and most people don't qualify for those programs or licenses. Besides, what can you do about people who know who to convert weapons to automatic? Most homicides by gun are committed by handgun, anyway, but those murders don't make for splashy headlines or attention-grabbing nightly news stories.
3) Most criminals with convictions for violent offenses are already forbidden from owning guns. That can't stop some guy from selling them out of the back of a van in an alley, unfortunately, just like it can't stop someone from stealing a legally-owned gun from a house.
4) This is impossible to implement.
5) This is reasonable, but ultimately unenforceable without a national registry...and that isn't going to happen any time soon.
6) If the scanner has to be keyed to its legal owner then that means the system must be able to be updated if the gun legally changes hands. If the system is changeable then it is hackable or avoidable--this won't work.
No, it's not just you. The physical resemblance doesn't bother me, although it's certainly there, and I can't speak for all Europeans, of course, but most people I know have been watching this development with increasing worry. The political attitude is similar, in a very, very unpleasant way, and the Brexit is just a small part of it.
There's generally the ugly phantom of a new wave of nationalism creeping through Europe, and I find it very worrying. Especially because Europe has suffered for decades from the results of two wars caused by such tendencies, and I belong to the generation that grew up bored by the history lessons, like "Yes, but do we *have* to repeat that every year? People aren't crazy, such a thing will never happen again!"
I'm not so sure anymore that societies are capable of learning from mistakes made by their grandfathers' generation.
I thought we'd overcome nationalism. But it's rearing its ugly head around the whole world again.
Here's a in depth brits take on Boris Johnson "Britain's Trump" for American audiences.
Boris Johnson: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) (NSFW)
TLDR: they have similarities and differences. Both are lying nationalists who manipulate the media for example.
Human beings simply don't like each other very much. Instead of trying to legislate that we all get along like kindergartners it would be wiser to realize that the average person you pass on the street simply doesn't care about you *at all*.
As for existing lethal ammunition still in the market, it might be most cost-effective to wait for the supply to dry up rather than try to track it down. The police could easily track down some sources of ammunition and try to confiscate, purchase, or replace them.
As for gun buyback programs, you can easily make them voluntary instead of involuntary. If you check my wording, I specified a voluntary buyback program, because I've never heard any liberals suggest a mandatory one.
On the biometric scanners: there's no reason you couldn't let the gun allow two specific people to use it, but not others. So, a mom and dad could access the gun, but their mentally ill and potentially suicidal teenage son couldn't fire it. Likewise, if you were to transfer ownership, it would be fully possible to reprogram it to recognize a new owner--you'd just have to make sure the only way to switch control was to take it to a licensed professional. You could also have some computer scientists periodically update the system to make it harder for crooks to reprogram them.
The technology already exists. I mean, you can rig a phone, or a computer, or a door, to only be unlockable with a fingerprint. My laptop has a fingerprint reader, and it can be remapped if I give it the right code. Why not do the same things with guns?
Since I forgot to mention an important point: No one method of gun control will keep all guns out of the hands of all criminals, just like no law against robbery will prevent all robberies, and yet we do not throw up our hands and say it's hopeless and we shouldn't try to save lives. The important thing is decreasing violent crime as much as possible, and we have multiple tools at our disposal.
Lindsey Graham threw out Senate Rules to jam a partisan immigration restriction bill through committee over Democratic objection. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) committee of "breaking their committee rules to jam through a partisan bill that would allow children, young children in cages for a longer period of time," adding he would "not support this partisan process or this partisan bill."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman and current member of the panel.
"If the majority is willing to break any rule in order to report this bill today, there are no rules. … This committee is nothing but a conveyor belt of ultra-partisan ideas. It's under the thumb and control of Donald Trump," Leahy said. "This is suppose to be the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not the Donald Trump committee."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/01/senate-democrats-lindsey-graham-1444383
Republicans are packing the courts. This week Moscow Mitch confirmed 13 Judges while the Dems were at the debates.
This is his focus - screwing us with pro-corporate bigot activist judges. He's put 144 judicial appointments since Trump's inauguration.
McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency, but also stonewalled Obama’s lower bench appointments.
And with a rule change in 2017, he sped up confirmations of Supreme Court nominees, requiring just a simple majority, clearing the way for Trump’s first high-court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch. The push for confirmations continues.
Civil rights groups opposed at least two of the judges that were appointed and one would not say where Brown V. Board of Education was decided correctly or not.
In addition to judicial picks, the Senate also confirmed Kelly Craft, a gold level member at Trumps Clubs, to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Shocking he didn't go with Ivanka but I guess he was bought off.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trumps-new-pick-for-un-ambassador-was-gold-level-member-at-the-trump-international-hotel/
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/455659-senate-confirms-13-trump-judges-ahead-of-august-break
A Trump appointed Judge is, for now, blocking a State law in Federal Court, that allowed the House Judiciary Committee to request Trump's State Tax Records.
Whatever happened to "No standing" and "State's Rights"? There's no justice.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-taxes/hearing-date-set-in-fight-over-trumps-new-york-tax-returns-idUSKCN1UR5OQ
Another Federal Judge said Democrats had no standing to sue in civil court over Trump and Republican eagerly accepting help from Moscow. That's fine. Watergate started as a civil suit.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/judge-tosses-democratic-case-against-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks.html
Separately, a panel of three Republican appointed Federal Judges threw out an Emoluments suit saying Democrats had no standing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/politics/trump-hotel-emoluments-constitution.html
We already live in that world. If we go further along that road we'll all literally be slaves to rich people and corporations. No more euphemisms about it.
Legislation is the only thing that can even the playing field.
Or we could go back the old methods. You know, pull the rich people out of their homes and businesses and start lynching them. Its historically proven to work. And no, I'm not seriously suggesting this.
My most favorite parts of 'Lord of War' was the first minute, and the last minute.
In the first minute, Nicholas Cage's character says "There's over 550 million firearms in the world. That's one for every 12 people. The question is 'How do we arm the other 11?'"
In the last minute, a statement that 'the worlds' largest arms exporters are the U.S., the U.K., Russia, France, and France. They are also the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.'
The purpose of a car is not to kill things. This is, in fact, the primary purpose of a gun. Sure, there are SOME non-lethals, but they are specialty rounds. 99.99999% of all cartridges are lethal.
That argument was ridiculous on its face LONG before that. The number of "justifiable" homicides is a pittance of actual gun related deaths. And threatening someone with a gun (a deadly weapon) to 'discourage crime" is in itself a crime.
1. Once again. No one is saying mandatory buy backs. Nothing is forced ever in buy back programs. It is usually incentive based.
2. Once again banning new purchases limits what’s available now. A person from Florida can’t walk into a store in Colorado and just buy a gun and walk into the wilderness waiting to shoot up a school.
3. Biggest thing here are the mentally ill. Background checks and getting a solid reason why they want a semi-automatic rifle to begin with can actually go a long way. Proper training at a facility and having a licence to purchase ammunition would help as well.
4. See 3. Licence to ammunition. IMO that’s the loop hole that gun control needs to take advantage of.
5. I kinda don’t agree with this one as it limits collectors. But once again, licence to buy ammo could work or at least curb these incidents. The only one I think would have still happened would have been the Vegas shooting.
6. I also don’t like this idea. It think there is simpler solutions and I don’t think stolen guns are actually a problem atm.
And truthfully, all these things might not be enough or may fail miserably but what is also failing at the moment is the status quo and it is better to attempt to try something than screaming “it won’t work!”
All those times the peasants stormed the castle happened when the government was protecting the powerful at the expense of the common folk.
What good does a society where you suspect your stranger is out to hurt you? This mindset is a ploy to put us against each other.
It's not the immigrants that are causing your problems. Immigrants have no power to set up the system that is leaving you behind.
Immigrants are not a fortune 500 company nor a CEO making 600 times an average worker.
Immigrants, abortion, conspiracy theories, are distractions. Deregulation is not the answer it merely perpetuates the situation. A deregulated toothless government that tolerates corruption, nepotism, and unchecked greed leaves you at the mercy of forces with greater access, resources and power than you have. That's a dangerous situation to be in.
@BelgarathMTH the main similarity I see to Trump is Johnson's willingness to persist in saying total lies long enough and loud enough that many people start to believe them. In policy terms though I don't see too much alignment. Even in relation to the issues you mention Johnson's position is less clear-cut than you may believe:
- in relation to the EU he's become prime minister by strongly pushing for Brexit, but that doesn't mean he's particularly hostile to the EU - it just means he's found a method to achieve his long-held desire to be prime minister. He first became famous as a journalist by writing made-up stories about EU policies - but again the rationale for that was to make himself famous, not any particular hostility to the EU. One well-known anecdote about him is that ahead of the Brexit referendum he wrote two articles - one strongly supporting Remain and one strongly supporting Leave. I think his decision about which one to publish had nothing to do with personal conviction and everything to do with political advancement. I'm not the only one to think that - it's a common view among the more ardent Brexiteers. That's why Johnson has been forced into such a strong line on Britain exiting the EU on 31 October - that was necessary to get him support from those that are genuinely hostile to the EU.
- in relation to immigration he's actually rather out of step with his party in thinking immigration is generally positive. Most conservatives would like immigration to be reduced and they've had a target for quite a few years now to reduce annual net migration to the 'tens of thousands'. That target was a significant driver for the Brexit vote, as freedom of movement means it is not possible to control immigration from within the EU. What you probably haven't heard is that Johnson quietly dropped that target as one of his first acts as prime minister. That's in line with his thinking over many years - as mayor of London for instance he supported an 'earned amnesty' for illegal immigrants and he put forward a similar plan as part of Theresa May's government.
A powerful, efficient government which will gladly take away your rights with the excuse "but this is for the greater good" is *more* dangerous.
Those 144 Federal judge appointments will help protect the country from anything Progressives might want to try and implement.
The United States is on track to attain "energy independence"--oil and natural gas production will, before the end of this year, surpass consumption. Can we finally stop doing business with countries like Saudi Arabia?
This one's easy. "Bring in your lethal ammunition and we'll let you fire it out of a machine gun!!!"
Better "for the greater good" than "It's just good business".
Not always. Be careful what you wish for...
This is one of two fallacies that drove me away from Libertarianism all those years ago. Historically, the federal government in the USA has been the greatest guarantor of individual rights. It's always been the state and local governments that try to infringe upon us. Those times in our history when the central government has been weak are when we start to lose our freedoms to the states or corporations.
These are not "conservative judges that just want to call balls and strikes and adhere to the text of the Constitution". That's more spin and lies from Republicans, who in case you haven't been paying attention are lying about this topic as well.
The Heritage Foundation is funded by right wing billionaires. Why? To protect the Constitution? Yeah no. They go through this trouble to protect their billionaire interests. They want to protect the country from progress that might make things better for we the people, yes that's their goal. We'll get loss of freedom but more religious bigotry. They want to remove gains in individual rights and voting rights.
Conservatives want more like Citizens United where politicians are for sale.
They want more decisions like Gorsuch's Ice Road Trucker - people should just die for corporations.
More rigged elections so more decisions like legalizing gerrymandering.
If that's what you want more of then there's something wrong with you, those aren't American ideals.
Conservative judges have been on the wrong side of progress since the beginning of the nation. And they've given us the worst decisions in our nation's history like Dredd Scot. Any advance in our history has been fought tooth and nail by Conservatives. Conservative judges have been ruling against stopping child labor, against the 40 he work week, against integration, against individual rights.
All the good things have been made - like social security and Medicare - against the complaints and bad rulings of Conservatives.