[Chas_P]

PeterAlan, on 2022-May-31, 19:30, said:

[*]Take banned weapons (and as many others as possible) out of circulation through deposit, amnesty and buy-back.

Yes! By Jove, I think you've got it! We just respectfully ask the thugs and criminally insane to peacefully surrender their firearms and be nice from now on. That should do it.

[pilowsky]

Chas_P, on 2022-June-01, 18:09, said:

Yes! By Jove, I think you've got it! We just respectfully ask the thugs and criminally insane to peacefully surrender their firearms and be nice from now on. That should do it.

Why say things that are manifestly wrong.
What do you gain from it?

[PeterAlan]

Chas_P, on 2022-June-01, 18:09, said:

Yes! By Jove, I think you've got it! We just respectfully ask the thugs and criminally insane to peacefully surrender their firearms and be nice from now on. That should do it.

Are you wilfully stupid, or does it just come naturally? When you ban weapons you need to take as many as possible of them out of circulation; they don't just disappear in a puff of smoke.

Quite apart from anything else, doing this makes it harder for future thugs etc to equip themselves with them.

I understand there are something like 400 million firearms in the USA; whilst I don't know exactly how this breaks down by type I would guess that at least 300 million could be covered by the sort of ban I was advocating. Don't you think it would be a good thing to get as many as possible of these out of the way?

PS: And maybe, just maybe, last week's shooting in Uvalde wouldn't have happened if a kid hadn't been able to buy, within days of his 18th birthday, two AR-15s, a bunch of 30-round magazines for them and all the ammunition he wanted.

[Chas_P]

pilowsky, on 2022-June-01, 18:30, said:

Why say things that are manifestly wrong.
What do you gain from it?

My level of sarcasm is directly proportional to the the level of stupidity addressed.

[Winstonm]

pilowsky, on 2022-June-01, 02:31, said:

There's a saying that I hear often - most commonly from Americans: "It is what it is."

What is this thing that 'is'?
Is it a cousin of the one thing that often leads to another?
Of all the possible things that a society of nearly 400 million people could maintain is a absolutely fundamental to its existence why choose religion as number one and the right to own a lethal weapon as number two.

How about the right not have someone else decide your reproductive affairs?
Or the right to form a lifelong partnership with any other person you choose?

Why is the right to not be prosecuted less important than the right to not have government quarter troops in your home?

The issue here in the USA is Christian Nationalism; these people are actively (and now openly) working to replace our democratic republic with a fascist theocracy. Every other issue is a branch from this mother plant.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2022-June-01, 16:03, said:

From The "College Gap" in Marriage and Children's Family Structure by Melissa Schettini Kearney at U Maryland

My first reaction, probably the reaction of many, was "Oh, they did a scientific study and they learned that children who grow up in a stable two-parent family find this to be advantageous? Amazing. Who woulda thought?"

Nonetheless, I downloaded the paper, 40 pages or so, and I will read it. Yeah, I had two parents. I am grateful for that, very much so. I am grateful for many things. But I am going to read the paper. Thanks.

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2022-June-01, 19:10, said:

The issue here in the USA is Christian Nationalism; these people are actively (and now openly) working to replace our democratic republic with a fascist theocracy. Every other issue is a branch from this mother plant.

Technically the problem is "Fake christian" nationalists. They can selectively quote from the bible (with the exception of Trump whose favorite book is the bible. He does like the old and the new parts) when it seems to suit their purposes but don't live their lives anything close to what the bible says they should. These "Fake cristians" only pretend to be religious to fool gullible people into following them.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2022-June-01, 19:10, said:

The issue here in the USA is Christian Nationalism; these people are actively (and now openly) working to replace our democratic republic with a fascist theocracy. Every other issue is a branch from this mother plant.

This post quoted Pilowski, who quoted Chas, who was speaking of guns. I think the broad condemnation that you assert is too broad to be effective. Why?

First, I do not really know what capital C capital N Christian Nationalism is, as distinct from a belief in a Christian God and being supportive of the US. And don't bother explaining because no doubt explanations vary with the explainer.

Second, if we are to have any chance of solving the gun violence problem, I hope that the solution does not require religious people to become atheists or require people who are happy to be living in the US to condemn the US.

There is no reason in the world why a person cannot simultaneously believe in God and realize that our way of dealing with weaponry is nuts. I expect many people do.

If I were called before a tribunal to explain my life choices with irrefutable philosophical precision I would fail miserably. But I can still discuss choices. If a religious person in a discussion says "God says I am right so that's that" then there isn't much to do. But if a non-religious person says 'I say I am right so that's that" then there also isn't much to do.

Short version: I hope we can seriously address gun violence. Any effective solution will surely involve much greater restrictions regarding guns. We are more apt to succeed if we keep the focus on guns and not get into discussions of God or Nationalism, with caps or without.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2022-June-02, 08:03, said:

This post quoted Pilowski, who quoted Chas, who was speaking of guns. I think the broad condemnation that you assert is too broad to be effective. Why?

First, I do not really know what capital C capital N Christian Nationalism is, as distinct from a belief in a Christian God and being supportive of the US. And don't bother explaining because no doubt explanations vary with the explainer.

Second, if we are to have any chance of solving the gun violence problem, I hope that the solution does not require religious people to become atheists or require people who are happy to be living in the US to condemn the US.

There is no reason in the world why a person cannot simultaneously believe in God and realize that our way of dealing with weaponry is nuts. I expect many people do.

If I were called before a tribunal to explain my life choices with irrefutable philosophical precision I would fail miserably. But I can still discuss choices. If a religious person in a discussion says "God says I am right so that's that" then there isn't much to do. But if a non-religious person says 'I say I am right so that's that" then there also isn't much to do.

Short version: I hope we can seriously address gun violence. Any effective solution will surely involve much greater restrictions regarding guns. We are more apt to succeed if we keep the focus on guns and not get into discussions of God or Nationalism, with caps or without.

Being in Maryland, you are likely somewhat insulated from the extremes that have taken control of the Republican Party.
My response to our Aussie doc was about why America could not act rationally. My response: the irrational have invaded the political system and are trying to recreate it in their image.
And that is why gun reform is so difficult.

If you don't like Christian Nationalist, use American Taliban or simply read Bill Barr's last speech at Notre Dame or the rumbles from Trump's "spiritual adviser ".

Here, in Tulsa. a politician has a television ad where he says "I believe" and then out loud he prays while driving, "Lead us out. Lead us out". That is the total ad. His message? Vote for me-I am one of you. I am not one of them. This candidate is endorsed by Senator Inhofe.

Ridding us of gun violence will not happen quickly. We should adopt a long-range goal and the start is to rid the political system of the unreasonables.

PS: Concerning CN, this is current so you might take a look here: https://www.newyorke...ian-nationalism

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2022-June-01, 20:09, said:

Technically the problem is "Fake christian" nationalists. They can selectively quote from the bible (with the exception of Trump whose favorite book is the bible. He does like the old and the new parts) when it seems to suit their purposes but don't live their lives anything close to what the bible says they should. These "Fake cristians" only pretend to be religious to fool gullible people into following them.

Although true of some (like Trump), the base is totally convinced of their correctness. Unless one was reared in a stark and fundamentalist Christian environment it is impossible to understand that for those, Christian and person is inseparable to the ego. Without the nomenclature, the person disappears. This is a terrifying psychological catch-22, and it helps to understand why reason is eschewed and even condemned because reason contributes to cognitive dissonance which is antithesis to a faith-based life. There are millions like this; they have guns; and they believe America was made for them.

[johnu]

PeterAlan, on 2022-June-01, 18:46, said:

Are you wilfully stupid, or does it just come naturally? When you ban weapons you need to take as many as possible of them out of circulation; they don't just disappear in a puff of smoke.

As the famous quote goes, Chas_NoDignityNoIntegrityNoHonesty is not naturally stupid, he is a self-made man.

[PassedOut]

Chas_P, on 2022-June-01, 18:51, said:

pilowsky, on 2022-June-01, 18:30, said:

Chas_P, on 2022-June-01, 18:09, said:

PeterAlan, on 2022-May-31, 19:30, said:

[*]Take banned weapons (and as many others as possible) out of circulation through deposit, amnesty and buy-back.

Yes! By Jove, I think you've got it! We just respectfully ask the thugs and criminally insane to peacefully surrender their firearms and be nice from now on. That should do it.

Why say things that are manifestly wrong.
What do you gain from it?

My level of sarcasm is directly proportional to the the level of stupidity addressed.

But your 'sarcastic' comment completely distorts the PeterAlan comment that you quoted. And you pulled that one line from his list of proposals to address a serious problem that our country really faces. I get that you disagree with this particular proposal but, as originally written, it is certainly a plausible step--not stupid at all.

To me, your use of 'sarcasm' looks like a way to avoid contributing your own solutions and to evade stating precisely why you disagree with this particular proposal. Can we infer that you do agree with the other proposals in the PeterAlan list? If so, why pull this one out for unfair criticism?

As a conservative and a life-long owner of firearms, I strongly believe that--for the common good--we need serious measures to reduce number the injuries and deaths by gunshot in our country. Whether correct or not, it is certainly not stupid to hypothesize that a substantial reduction in firearms will tend to reduce those injuries and deaths. Why do you believe that it won't?

[Winstonm]

Whataboutism does not answer questions-it only asks.

[y66]

Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator from Rhode Island said:

Remember fossil fuel’s lie that climate action has big costs? “Yes, we should do something about climate but not wreck the economy”?

Well, corporate analyst Deloitte says it’s a present value $43 trillion gain to address climate, and a $178 trillion loss if we fail to — a $220+ trillion dollar difference!

https://www2.deloitt...ning-point.html

The fossil fuel industry lies for a living, deliberately and purposefully, and they lie to steal from you your future for their present profits, and they lie to hide from you their culpability for the evil they have wrought.

[Winstonm]

But whatabout Hillary’s______.

[y66]

[Chas_P]

Quote

we need serious measures to reduce number the injuries and deaths by gunshot in our country

I agree wholeheartedly. The crux of the matter is what should those "serious measures" be?

Quote

As a conservative and a life-long owner of firearms

Me too. I still have a couple of shotguns and a few pistols. I have a nickel-plated 9mm Radom that my father-in-law brought back from Germany after his tour of duty there during WWII. Do you really think surrendering yours or me surrendering mine will convince the thugs and criminally insane to surrender theirs?

Quote

it is certainly not stupid to hypothesize that a substantial reduction in firearms will tend to reduce those injuries and deaths.

In my opinion it is. If someone can come up with a way to confiscate (and prevent future purchases of) firearms by those with evil intent I'm all for it. I just don't believe that confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens like you and me is the answer.

[awm]

Chas_P, on 2022-June-02, 19:00, said:

I agree wholeheartedly. The crux of the matter is what should those "serious measures" be?

Me too. I still have a couple of shotguns and a few pistols. I have a nickel-plated 9mm Radom that my father-in-law brought back from Germany after his tour of duty there during WWII. Do you really think surrendering yours or me surrendering mine will convince the thugs and criminally insane to surrender theirs?

In my opinion it is. If someone can come up with a way to confiscate (and prevent future purchases of) firearms by those with evil intent I'm all for it. I just don't believe that confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens like you and me is the answer.

It seems to be a common belief on the right that the world can be divided into good people and bad people in a straightforward way. Since bad people are presumably willing to break any law, banning guns will only prevent the good people from getting them, leading to a world where only bad people are armed and therefore not really preventing gun deaths (all of which are presumably due to the evil actions of the bad people).

But this is not really how things work. A great number of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or spur-of-the-moment events where people got into an argument and happened to have firearms on hand. None of these situations result from nefarious plans by bad people with mob connections or something -- they're just ordinary people who happen to get depressed or drunk or angry or forget to lock up their weapons where their toddlers can't get at them. All of these sorts of gun deaths are likely to be reduced if guns are harder to get.

As for the mass shootings, most of these are executed by depressed loners who aren't likely to have serious criminal connections. Random pissed off 18-20 year olds don't necessarily have the resources to obtain illegal weapons. In any case, if the guns were illegal it would give police one more way to track and prosecute possible criminals.

It's true that large-scale criminal or terrorist organisations would still be able to get weapons, but one property of such groups is that they are organised -- and the very fact of this organisation can make them easier for police and security agencies to watch and go after. In any case, a lone "good guy with a gun" is not going to stop Al Qaeda or ISIS -- this requires much larger, more organised, and better-equipped groups like the US military or FBI/CIA.

One interesting data point -- when the US Capitol was attacked on January 6th, why did the "peaceful protestors" attack with flagpoles and baseball bats and fists and not guns? Surely many of them owned guns, and some of the white nationalist groups that were present in the crowd are heavily armed and seem willing to use their weapons. Turns out most of the "protestors" left their weapons outside Washington DC because of the city's strict gun laws. Without those laws, we might not have a republic in the US at all any more!

[pilowsky]

awm, on 2022-June-02, 23:12, said:

It seems to be a common belief on the right that the world can be divided into good people and bad people in a straightforward way. Since bad people are presumably willing to break any law, banning guns will only prevent the good people from getting them, leading to a world where only bad people are armed and therefore not really preventing gun deaths (all of which are presumably due to the evil actions of the bad people).

But this is not really how things work. A great number of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or spur-of-the-moment events where people got into an argument and happened to have firearms on hand. None of these situations result from nefarious plans by bad people with mob connections or something -- they're just ordinary people who happen to get depressed or drunk or angry or forget to lock up their weapons where their toddlers can't get at them. All of these sorts of gun deaths are likely to be reduced if guns are harder to get.

As for the mass shootings, most of these are executed by depressed loners who aren't likely to have serious criminal connections. Random pissed off 18-20 year olds don't necessarily have the resources to obtain illegal weapons. In any case, if the guns were illegal it would give police one more way to track and prosecute possible criminals.

It's true that large-scale criminal or terrorist organisations would still be able to get weapons, but one property of such groups is that they are organised -- and the very fact of this organisation can make them easier for police and security agencies to watch and go after. In any case, a lone "good guy with a gun" is not going to stop Al Qaeda or ISIS -- this requires much larger, more organised, and better-equipped groups like the US military or FBI/CIA.

One interesting data point -- when the US Capitol was attacked on January 6th, why did the "peaceful protestors" attack with flagpoles and baseball bats and fists and not guns? Surely many of them owned guns, and some of the white nationalist groups that were present in the crowd are heavily armed and seem willing to use their weapons. Turns out most of the "protestors" left their weapons outside Washington DC because of the city's strict gun laws. Without those laws, we might not have a republic in the US at all any more!

You might as well try to have a rational discussion with a sheep.
The answer is always the same: but I want my gun.

And yes, they should take away his little piece of nickel plated NAZI memorabilia.

[johnu]

awm, on 2022-June-02, 23:12, said:

In any case, a lone "good guy with a gun" is not going to stop Al Qaeda or ISIS -- this requires much larger, more organised, and better-equipped groups like the US military or FBI/CIA.

According to current media reports, 19 local good guy police with guns did nothing to stop a single Uvalde mass murderer, waiting until a federal border patrol tactical team eventually killed the gunman 30 minutes after they arrived at the scene after being told by the Uvalde police chief to not interfere. Who knows how many of the 21 victims might have survived if the first responders had immediately confronted and killed the gunman? Details are still incredibly hazy with many untrue things said starting with the 1st police press conference and continuing up to the last press conference. The Uvalde police chief has refused to talk to the FBI or news media, and a local DA has apparently issued a gag order to prevent law enforcement from talking.