Page 12 of 228 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262112 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #111


    This chart doesn't give an accurate picture at all nor is it useful to any meaningful discussion. For starters, that chart is missing the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans that were killed during that time. More to the point discussing Chicago's strict gun laws for the proposition that stricter gun laws fail misunderstands the basic facts on the ground. A majority of the guns used in crimes in Chicago come from Indiana, a state with lax gun laws. Last I check Chicago doesn't have a border patrol or have a wall built around it where everyone's vehicle is inspected before entering, making it pretty easy to bring guns into the city limits. Pointing out states or cities that have violence as evidence that gun laws don't work shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how our federalist system works. A country with varying degrees of gun laws make it easy for criminals to circumvent those laws plain and simple.

  2. #112
    One problem I see as an FFL holder, when doing background checks, is the lack of communication between agencies. Background checks, check the FBI system, but it only works properly if other agencies talk to each other. My cousin and her husband are both FBI analysts, and she was telling me how bad California is about updating their criminal database.

  3. #113
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    This chart doesn't give an accurate picture at all nor is it useful to any meaningful discussion.
    I disagree. It give a very accurate picture of exactly what it stated at the top. A different chart might say something else, but if you wanted to show that is was less safe to be a resident in Chicago vs a US soldier deployed, then it is perfect and accurate.

    And I think it was very useful to the discussion - saying it isn't basically means you can't counter it, nor do you want to address the factual problem it is. Jack asked if we are the worst nation for gun crime in the world. To make that relative I used a chart that shows many nations are 10 to 20 times as high, following with an analysis of our nation, showing the majority of crime was gang related, and showed how, in some areas it is as bad as a major military event. This picture just paints that perfectly.

    As could be said in a counter comment, why don't you care about the thousands of people in Chicago dying? :P

    But again, it isn't the guns. That is the means. It is the Motive that is the underlying problem.

    A country with varying degrees of gun laws make it easy for criminals to circumvent those laws plain and simple.
    Ah - but it is also illegal to murder. We have lots of laws about murder. (small edit) In fact, if we just called for stricter murder laws.... wouldn't that stop it?

    Laws really don't stop people from murdering. That is the underlying problem - people willing to kill other people.

    Why they want to murder generally is turf wars over drug selling locations.

    Change the motive, and the means become unimportant.

    So while this point is a good one, and worthy of pointing out:

    More to the point discussing Chicago's strict gun laws for the proposition that stricter gun laws fail misunderstands the basic facts on the ground. A majority of the guns used in crimes in Chicago come from Indiana, a state with lax gun laws. Last I check Chicago doesn't have a border patrol or have a wall built around it where everyone's vehicle is inspected before entering, making it pretty easy to bring guns into the city limits.
    The drug war and gangs drive the need for a tool that lets them be predators, and Chicago where honest people are de-fanged, makes the regular population all that much more vulnerable.

    Making something illegal often means it is only available to those who are planning to not follow the law anyways. Taking away their motive by harder crack downs, making some drugs legal, making prostitution legal, and changing the source of gang members by changing the welfare rules and supporting kids who would turn to a gang (like Iceland has done) would radically change that.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-07-2017 at 03:33 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #114
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    One problem I see as an FFL holder, when doing background checks, is the lack of communication between agencies. Background checks, check the FBI system, but it only works properly if other agencies talk to each other. My cousin and her husband are both FBI analysts, and she was telling me how bad California is about updating their criminal database.
    This is a huge problem. And it could be solved rather easy.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #115

  6. #116
    It's not useful because you are comparing a war zone to a city with a crime problem. U.S. soldiers are specifically trained for combat situations, utilize protective equipment and machinery, have the benefit of force multipliers in crisis situations, etc. all of which lowers casualties and combat fatalities. Making a hyperbolic claim that Iraq/Afghanistan is "less dangerous" than Chicago is simply unproductive to the discussion and is just plainly inaccurate. No one is asserting the violence in Chicago isn't a problem, you don't need to present a dubious comparison to make that point. What proponents of nationwide gun control have advocated is that if you restrict the supply, crimes like murder are more difficult to commit making people more unlikely to commit them. It's tougher to kill someone with a knife than a gun and comes with a higher risk to yourself when you engage the person as you have to get close. That's the whole point of gun control. Restricting the tools that make it easier to kill someone.

    I agree with you about taking the motives away and improving a support system to help encourage youth to move towards a more positive future.

  7. #117
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    I would agree that the conditions are radically different, and your comments are correct, but I suspect everyone here realizes that. It is kinda obvious.

    When it was first brought up this commentry during the Iraq war, and people were bloviating about the number of troops lost, and it was turned around. People said: why are you complaining about the troop losses, when more people die in Chicago? Don't you care about them?

    It is posted originally as much to show that people pick what is important and newsworthy, and ignoring what is shameful and embarrassing, as it was to show the death rate.

    In this, we have two mass shootings which have been covered in the news, but again people ignore that just as many can be lost in a few weeks in Chicago. And that is just one city in the US.

    I don't think we should ignore it. Why do you?


  8. #118
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    To be clear, I don't think "soft" gun control will accomplish much of anything. We need to close the loopholes, and if the NRA would be so kind we need to make sure interstate agencies are appropriately coordinating, but anything that doesn't drastically reduce the number of firearms and firearm owners in the country won't accomplish anything. And that's just not going to happen.

    The most robust thing that actually reduces homicides and crime in the country is economic well being.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    When it was first brought up this commentry during the Iraq war, and people were bloviating about the number of troops lost, and it was turned around. People said: why are you complaining about the troop losses, when more people die in Chicago? Don't you care about them?
    The graphic you used is also known as a bullshit gotcha talking point. It has no actual meaning apart from trying to derail the conversation by inserting a distraction.

    An equally useless statistic would be to do it per capita; the population of Chicago is 2.7 million. From a cursory glance the largest troop deployment is ~300k and usually much, much lower (here). Of course making the death rate per capita as is standard makes the complete bullshit nature of the talking point obvious, but it's easy bait if you don't think too hard about it so it seems like your kind of argument to bring up.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    The answer is you need to change the CULTURE. Not that you need to disarm everyone, nor give everybody a gun, but you need to affect a culture that respects firearms, trains people with firearm usage, and doesn't glorify them like we do in and with our gang/movie cultures.
    And while people bloviate about "culture", they refuse to acknowledge (or at best say nothing) about how our social, cultural and legal institutions have perpetrated and continue to perpetuate problems in predominantly black communities. More often than not you'll find libertarians insisting we're in a post-racial society.

    Bottom line: if you believe in the libertarian economic "rational actor" then fortunately you agree people are choosing the best option available to them and we can get to work on creating better options. And no, your wife's volunteer hours aren't going to cut it.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 11-07-2017 at 10:54 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  9. #119
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post

    Like Flory said.

    It is interesting the conclusions people make when they are not familiar, not only with the subject matter, but the mentality behind it. What I said is quite different. Culture.

    I would like to take on the largest problem, and address those, partially because it is the overwhelming largest problem, and also because it is NOT being addressed. Which is not the gun, nor mass shootings, but gang crime, followed by how we deal with mental health and how we deal with paperwork and licensing. Also how we deal with drug laws and drug abuse. Some of that would have stopped almost every mass shooting also. Like I said, not all, but the majority.
    Sure, I think this is a fair position to take. I disagree with that being the overwhelming largest problem, because it is relatively isolated in small geographic areas of the country and because it doesn't invoke fear in the population in the same way that a random, mass shooting does. I also believe that addressing the culture of the african american communities and addressing the culture of social isolation in our society are not mutually exclusive. At the same time, they're not really inclusive either.

    Further, I agree with what Steve just said that addressing crime in african american communities can more readily be done by improving economic outcomes, and I'll add that improving economic outcomes would not have affected most of the largest domestic mass shootings (Wah Mee Massacre being the obvious exception, there may have been others). I'm harping on this because I'm not cynical to believe that the american population gets up in arms about mass shootings because it's a community gun control opportunity but rather that most people don't want there to be shootings like Sandy Hook or Vegas. They are random acts of evil and terror that change and ruin the lives of far more than those that are killed. Gang crimes tend to not have the same downstream effect as a mass shooting and rarely exceed awareness past local communities.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post

    Race isn't culture. It isn't a motive. Anyone of any race and sex can have a mental illness. Any can have a drug problem. Any race can be raised in a gun culture, or in a gang culture, or Tiger Mom culture, or any - none of that is defined by race.
    I'm not even sure how you got here, so I implore you to take a step back and follow from the beginning how I try to explain the path.

    Nearly all of the mass shooters have a similar profile. They are white males. They have some form of social abnormality, often manifested as anti-authoritarian and socially isolated from their cultural community. It does not appear that a drug problem is any more or less likely to lead to a mass shooting. Being raised in a gun culture seems to have a correlation with mass shootings, but it's difficult to isolate out that contributor in our current society where guns are plentiful. Being in a gang appears to make it less likely you are going to commit a mass shooting, even if risk factors of being involved in a shooting or other violence are higher. Mental illnesses in general make it more likely that you will be the victim of a crime than you will commit a crime, and most of the mass shooters do not have obvious mental illnesses unless you define social isolation as an illness.

    When I describe a cultural negative, I mean the culture should change such that individuals don't want to be socially isolated from their community; that communities identify and encourage people to not be socially isolated and avoid the fringes of anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian behavior. This can be a challenge, because we currently have political groups (Tea Party, Libertarians, Birch, etc) that encourage increasing the feelings of anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian behavior even as they appeal to other types of establishment and authoritarianism. Nonetheless, if you make blanket changes to that community to draw people in and discourage people from isolating, you don't have to worry as much about individual motives.

    I think this goes back to the age old question on what level of profiling is acceptable and what isn't. Obviously, we don't want policemen having to chase down every loner white male in the Country. Still, encouraging cultural changes would make improvements, provided we can remove the counter-movement to have men be more isolated and more upset with society.

  10. #120
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    We need to close the loopholes, and if the NRA would be so kind we need to make sure interstate agencies are appropriately coordinating,
    How are the NRA involved in this at all? I know they are the normal boogie man, but they are not the government.

    The graphic you used is also known as a bullshit gotcha talking point. It has no actual meaning apart from trying to derail the conversation by inserting a distraction.
    I disagree again - it actually would distract from my point if anybodies, and should be used to show how bad America is with guns. And I don't see you jumping down Gordon's throat or anybody else's for making obscure claims or positions.....so I feel this graph brings up other issues in your world view.

    What is shown on there that is so disturbing to your world view that you have to out of hand have to reject it? That instead of ignoring it two of you out of hand brought it up and tried to say it shouldn't be used? That points out that it really is hard for you accept. Why? Does it diminish the Iraq war to the point that you are still emotionally affected by it? So curious. It hurt the Iraq War narrative a good bit - so I can see why, if you held that world view this graph would be particularly difficult to revisit.

    Maybe you need to accept you have a problem with that, and not how it applies to this discussion. Because I wanted to use it to make a different point, in reference to an point I brought up. If you dislike it's existence, yet not in relation to my point, then in reply you only bring up the problem with it's existence and do not, at any point, bring up my point, then the problem exists on it's own.

    Sorry, I am not going to discard it because of your pre-existing issues with the facts it presents.

    And while people bloviate about "culture", they refuse to acknowledge (or at best say nothing) about how our social, cultural and legal institutions have perpetrated and continue to perpetuate problems in predominantly black communities. More often than not you'll find libertarians insisting we're in a post-racial society.

    Bottom line: if you believe in the libertarian economic "rational actor" then fortunately you agree people are choosing the best option available to them and we can get to work on creating better options
    Shoot, remember when liberals elected a person of a race, and said we were in a post racial period, even when they kept telling voters that they listened to them because of their personal race, except one race is still kinda bad, and one sex also? Then proceeded to try and elect somebody by their sex as the defining issue? Grand times. Pulled us out of the racial divide, didn't it. [/sarc]

    How about talking about what you believe instead of trying to guess what I believe? What do you think Steve? Tell us about that. Your 'You have to believe' bit is just parts from your own construction and understanding, and is limited because of it. Uniquely, I can think for myself, independent of how my party feels on some subjects. I have that ability, you should try it some time. Instead of just walking a party line and drinking the blue or red kool-aid. Just because I am a libertarian doesn't mean I sitting here just drinking grape. No matter how good it goes with moonshine.

    And your point? Oh, bad case of transference there buddy. When those 5% of bad counties in the US overwhelmingly exist in areas that are, and have been for decades, under the "social, cultural and legal institutions have perpetrated and continue to perpetuate" of democrats? The Blue Model? PLEEEESE.

    If you think it is flawed - look at your self and the policies you perpetuate. None of those area have a libertarian at the helm. Or a conservative. They do have, and for decades have, had Blue Leadership.

    Trying to bark at my small, nearly insignificant party as if we have some fault is absolutely hilarious when 'The Bad Places' are all under your party's rule.

    Take some ownership. Stop trying to gaslight the issue, and reflect the blame you have towards me when it is sitting the DNC's shoulders, if anybodies.

    Healer heal thyself.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •