High school shooting in Parkland FL

[henryp]

Trump pulling out of globalist trade deals, and imposing tariffs, and repatriating overseas capital, reducing immigration, and lowering corporate tax rates are what you're talking about, no?

You know... when you put it like that...
.From the European side, those globalist trade deals were feared due to the ease with which "deregulated" american companies would get their cheap unsafe products in the EU market. Loss of business for the US?
.Imposing tariffs on very select products (solar panels) to increase... don't know, but it does increase usage of fossil fuels, worsening the environment in the States... and the world.
.Repatriating overseas capital? The repatriation tax is designed to to incentivize US-based companies that do business overseas to bring their profits back stateside.... and what do they do with those profits abroad that they don't want to do in the states, but need an incentive?
.Reducing immigration? https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/...7-edition/: "Immigrants added an estimated $2 trillion to the U.S. GDP in 2016." You really think it's wise to lower that?
.Lowering corporate taxes is the cherry on top of the cake - the well known NOT to work trickle down economics which is also well known to fill the pockets of the few on top.


Those measures don't seem as positive now... but maybe, maybe they'll do something... wait and see, huh?

Those are disappointingly simple framings of complex issues.  I'll try not to sidetrack the discussion too much.

Immigration is probably the easiest.  I'm upper middle class white.  For the most part, illegal immigration is not impacting my life negatively.  Their kids aren't going to my school.  They're not filling up my ER.  They aren't committing crime in my neighborhood.  They're not affecting the wages of job markets I'm involved with.  The burden of all those things falls onto the poor.  Their shitty schools get shittier.  Their overcrowded hospitals get more over crowded.  Their wages get lower.  

What I get is cheaper construction costs, cheaper landscaping, and cheaper blueberries.  And while I'm fine with saving a few bucks, I don't think I'm the one who needs it.  

I say this as a person looking at the problem as nothing more than a puzzle to be solved.  If I'm trying to help poor Americans, an easy solution is to remove unnecessary competition for the limited resources they have.

You say, of course, "How about we redistribute some wealth!?"  And you're right.  But who's going to do that?  Everybody that runs the country is rich or trying to get rich.  The Obama's weren't worth a ton going into politics, but they're worth tens of millions now.  I'm sure it'll be 100's of millions shortly.  Is there anything more American than getting ridiculously rich 'fighting for the poor people.'?  I don't think you can change that.  I think that's why Bernie's campaign was ultimately futile.  The rich are going to get theirs, and there's no stopping that.

[pocaracas]

Immigration is probably the easiest.  I'm upper middle class white.  For the most part, illegal immigration is not impacting my life negatively. 

Oh, you meant Illegal immigration...
That's something different. Build that wall to keep the shitholers out! How's that working out?... Promises, promises...

[CapnAwesome]

That's true of course, but saying that they shouldn't have them is different than saying that they do have them. Which is reality. If you want to volunteer to go tell a ptsd vet with a room full of guns to give them up to the government,  be my guest.

I got one of them near me. I can give full address in return for exclusive Youtube rights.

I would love to see Tibs do that (not really). But I think that you literally have one near you proves my point that gun confiscation is obviously not the answer and improving mental health care is. If you improved mental health care maybe these people would give up their guns. If you try to confiscate, you end up with far worse gun violence then the problem you are trying to solve. So good luck with that.

[Shell B]

I got one of them near me. I can give full address in return for exclusive Youtube rights.

I would love to see Tibs do that (not really). But I think that you literally have one near you proves my point that gun confiscation is obviously not the answer and improving mental health care is. If you improved mental health care maybe these people would give up their guns. If you try to confiscate, you end up with far worse gun violence then the problem you are trying to solve. So good luck with that.

I think you're more likely to encounter a bunch of scared vets without guns after they follow the law and begrudgingly hand them over. There'd probably be a few that hid guns or got extra pissy, but I don't think they'd start a huge shootout, for the most part. This is really demonizing vets with PTSD. I've spent decades of my life around groups of vets with PTSD. They have anxiety, not insanity.

[CapnAwesome]

I would love to see Tibs do that (not really). But I think that you literally have one near you proves my point that gun confiscation is obviously not the answer and improving mental health care is. If you improved mental health care maybe these people would give up their guns. If you try to confiscate, you end up with far worse gun violence then the problem you are trying to solve. So good luck with that.

I think you're more likely to encounter a bunch of scared vets without guns after they follow the law and begrudgingly hand them over. There'd probably be a few that hid guns or got extra pissy, but I don't think they'd start a huge shootout, for the most part. This is really demonizing vets with PTSD. I've spent decades of my life around groups of vets with PTSD. They have anxiety, not insanity.

I don't know how anybody can think there would be a voluntary handover of guns in the U.S. without mass violence. Read the links of what nra members say they would do. It's like people want it both ways, they demonize the gun advocates as gun nuts and at the same time say they would peaceably hand over their guns. I mean, that makes no sense.

[RoadRunner79]

Similarly for many places which have enacted gun bans, while they did eventually minimize gun deaths, they didn't have that much effect on overall deaths.  People within a time, realized that they could kill themselves or kill others with things besides a gun.  There may be some instances where the lack of a gun will change things, but for someone who wants to kill another, the problem isn't the weapon. 

I made a case a couple of pages back about how the availability of guns seemingly leads to an increase in the number of actual deaths (caused by guns).
Indeed, I didn't present stats on the overall homicide rate, regardless of the means to achieve it... but I think that it would only add one more nail in the argument that gun availability does cause more deaths.

I think I did see that, but often it's the same comments, so I may not have said anything.  Just from what you had said here, the actual number of gun deaths.This figure likely includes suicides, which account for about 2/3 of gun deaths.  The picture looks a little different when you look at gun related homicides vs the households which possess a gun.  As I had said, we can also look at homicide rates or violent crime rates before and after gun bans in other countries.  Not just gun deaths, but the total number of homicides;  I think you have less impact in your argument, if you are just shifting the means.

The following Chart from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_de...s_by_state shows gun murders to gun ownership.  It doesn't show the correlation that is sometimes presented. 


 

This is why my questions are; what are you trying to accomplish, what are you proposing, and why do you think it will work.    I live in rural Pennsylvania, where I would guess the percentage of households owning a gun is high, and many of them likely own a number of weapons.  Yet I would be far more comfortable walking around at night here, than in Washington DC (the dot way up high), which to my understanding has fairly strict gun control laws.

We may not always have a stable and wise leader like Trump in control, and may need to be able to stand up to the government at some point.

I'm glad someone got a chuckle out of that

---

I think that some of the things that get's me, is that the case for gun control is not made well.    It's more emotional reaction than logical. Say for instance that you want to limit or get rid of automatic rifles with a large clip size.  It doesn't make sense, to cite all gun deaths, when the majority of incidences are not made with this type of weapon.  In this recent school tragedy even, that weapon may have only made a little difference.  This (in my opinion) is more of concern, when you have  a crowd, where indiscriminate fire is more effective. 

Similarly for many places which have enacted gun bans, while they did eventually minimize gun deaths, they didn't have that much effect on overall deaths.  People within a time, realized that they could kill themselves or kill others with things besides a gun.  There may be some instances where the lack of a gun will change things, but for someone who wants to kill another, the problem isn't the weapon. 

We need to be realistic about what is being proposed, and what will be the results.   Arguments that make you come off as someone who is just afraid of guns does not help.

Similarly, the "right to bear arms" shouldn't be used as a conversation stopper.   And it needs to be realistically looked at, that not all who own guns are responsible or thoughtful in their use.  Specific weapons and their availability do need to be looked at, and arguments heard.

Also of consideration is why the founders of the nation included the "right to bear arms".  This is fairly unique to the U.S. from my understanding.  We may not always have a stable and wise leader like Trump in control, and may need to be able to stand up to the government at some point.

If that is true how is it that in Romania only 300 murders happen per year ? And please don't say mentality or culture of violence because Romania's socio-economical enviroment is as fucked as a hooker at the corner.

I'm unsure.   (Also unsure to what specifically you are addressing in my posts).

But Iceland has a number of guns, and very few (none in this instance) murders by gun per 100,000 people.
There are a number of other countries, which have guns, and yet their guns seem to not jump out of their cases and kill people.  They must be nicer to their guns (or better at keeping them subservient.)

https://www.deseretnews.com/top/2519/7/S...rship.html

[Shell B]

I don't know how anybody can think there would be a voluntary handover of guns in the U.S. without mass violence.

I don't think it would be as bad as you think. People who legally own guns are obviously law-abiding citizens. Those who don't won't be asked to hand over their guns anyway because no one knows they have them. Do I think you'd see some Waco shit in a few scattered areas? Sure, but you have to remember that other countries have done it without as much to-do as you're predicting. Again, I don't think taking away people's guns is necessarily the correct answer. We haven't exhausted other options. Fuck, we haven't even tried them.

Read the links of what nra members say they would do.

What motherfuckers say they're going to do and what they actually do when faced with authority are two different things. Bitches be cowards more often than not. No one wants to give up their cushy life sitting in front of FOX news so they can get shot by the NG. Myself included.

It's like people want it both ways, they demonize the gun advocates as gun nuts and at the same time say they would peaceably hand over their guns. I mean, that makes no sense.

Well, I've said neither. I've only said that you were making vets with PTSD look like a gaggle of fucking lunatics. They're just like anyone else with an anxiety disorder. They don't *usually* want to stir shit. They want their guns, but they don't want to get into shootouts with the cops, either. I mean, you're speaking for a huge number of people, and you're speaking as if they're just one confiscation away from taking down the world. They're not Rambo. They're just dudes who like to sit with their backs to the wall facing the entry.

[CapnAwesome]

I don't know how anybody can think there would be a voluntary handover of guns in the U.S. without mass violence.

I don't think it would be as bad as you think. People who legally own guns are obviously law-abiding citizens. Those who don't won't be asked to hand over their guns anyway because no one knows they have them. Do I think you'd see some Waco shit in a few scattered areas? Sure, but you have to remember that other countries have done it without as much to-do as you're predicting. Again, I don't think taking away people's guns is necessarily the correct answer. We haven't exhausted other options. Fuck, we haven't even tried them.

Read the links of what nra members say they would do.

What motherfuckers say they're going to do and what they actually do when faced with authority are two different things. Bitches be cowards more often than not. No one wants to give up their cushy life sitting in front of FOX news so they can get shot by the NG. Myself included.

It's like people want it both ways, they demonize the gun advocates as gun nuts and at the same time say they would peaceably hand over their guns. I mean, that makes no sense.

Well, I've said neither. I've only said that you were making vets with PTSD look like a gaggle of fucking lunatics. They're just like anyone else with an anxiety disorder. They don't *usually* want to stir shit. They want their guns, but they don't want to get into shootouts with the cops, either. I mean, you're speaking for a huge number of people, and you're speaking as if they're just one confiscation away from taking down the world. They're not Rambo. They're just dudes who like to sit with their backs to the wall facing the entry.

I'm just going to respond to the last bit, because it's late here, but I definitely didn't do that. In fact I was replying to someone else who heavily impled he had a neighbor who would not give up his guns. Take it up with him, not me.

Its not neccesarily about ptsd vets, but really all kinds of various militiamen and gun advocates. I used the ptsd example because thats one of the people in the militia in the vice documentary. I highly doubt thay guy would go down without bloodshed. My point still stands, people are like "these gun nuts are crazy, but they will voluntarily give up their guns to the government they are paranoid about."

I definitely wouldn't risk my safety on that bet.

I wish people would read the link or watch the documentary I suggested. But as usual listening to the other side is too much work for most.

[Shell B]

Well, you're not on "the other side" in my case. I'm more middling than anything else. And, yes, watching an entire documentary during my work day is definitely too much effort.

As for you carrying on a comment someone else had made, I didn't see that. Apologies. Nonetheless, my points stand, even if they're not directed at you. Just because some shell-shocked vet in backwoods, USA is ready to duke it out with the locals doesn't mean all vets with PTSD are going to do that. For example, I have an uncle who has PTSD and owns guns. I know he doesn't want to give them up, but I sincerely doubt he'd risk leaving his family without him to protect them over some guns. I'd imagine most dudes feel the same way. They'd take the diplomatic route, go to court, run for office, etc.

Here's the thing, "gun nuts" are crazy. People who would die before they'd give up their guns have to be a bit crazy. I mean, who is going to fight to get them back, to protect their families, etc. if they're lying in a grave? However, not every person who owns a gun is a gun nut. They may be enthusiastic, but they're not going to choose guns over their families. As for me, I'd insist I be compensated for the value of my firearms and then try to go about getting my rights back.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I got one of them near me. I can give full address in return for exclusive Youtube rights.

I would love to see Tibs do that (not really). But I think that you literally have one near you proves my point that gun confiscation is obviously not the answer and improving mental health care is. If you improved mental health care maybe these people would give up their guns. If you try to confiscate, you end up with far worse gun violence then the problem you are trying to solve. So good luck with that.

Yeah, you proved nothing. Bald assertions are hairless.