Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[csyphrett]

he was the answer to a riddle in Die Hard three.

CES

[Tech priest support]

I see that atheists are being blamed for the Texas church shooting already. Want to bet people will try to get employers to start religious screening of employees over this?

 

[Pattern Ghost]

Sounds like a stretch, to be honest. More hyperbole than hypothesis.

[Tech priest support]

Man, don;t you get it yet? American is officially in the "post truth era". Truth as effectively ceased to exist. Someone says something that reinforces a belief people have or justifies something they want to do, and they accept it as a fact, as being the truth regardless of the actual truth. No matter how many times it's refuted, disproved or knocked down, the people who want it to be true just keep bringing it up as a fact. Bill Maher called it the 'zombie lie" .

Whitewater, the birth certificate, the emails, beh ghazi, etc. Truth has ceased to matter in america. For the rest of the foreseeable future the shooter in Texas will have been a ,militant atheistand represent all atheists.

 

[Lord Liaden]

There are people who behave as you say, yes. They're very loud, so they get a lot of attention. Braying jackasses often do. But if they were anywhere close to a majority of Americans, the country would already be in chaos. And the many people and sources who call them out on it would be completely shouted down.

 

This is a bad trend, one that needs to be refuted by all responsible people. But it isn't the time to let a small minority of the willfully ignorant goad us into the same kind of histrionics that they indulge in. If we let all the public discourse descend to that level, they've already won.

[DShomshak]

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 8:40 AM, Simon said:

That's more like it, I suppose.

 

Nolgroth is going to be in a bit of a time-out until next February.

This makes me sad, as I like Nolgroth -- not least for reminding me that people can vote Republican and self-identify as conservative, and not be evil or stupid. I had hoped to learn more of his views as a way to expand my own horizons.

 

Perhaps I should take a vacation from the thread myself. Happy trails, all.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Simon]

10 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

This makes me sad, as I like Nolgroth -- not least for reminding me that people can vote Republican and self-identify as conservative, and not be evil or stupid. I had hoped to learn more of his views as a way to expand my own horizons.

 

Perhaps I should take a vacation from the thread myself. Happy trails, all.

 

Dean Shomshak

He received a mild rebuke (in thread) and reacted...poorly.  He was treated no differently than anyone else.

[Cancer]

14 hours ago, DShomshak said:

This makes me sad, as I like Nolgroth -- not least for reminding me that people can vote Republican and self-identify as conservative, and not be evil or stupid. I had hoped to learn more of his views as a way to expand my own horizons.

 

Perhaps I should take a vacation from the thread myself. Happy trails, all.

 

Dean Shomshak

That's the real reason I look in this thread (and others like them) at all; I just don't understand what broad sections of the population think is important, and this is a place where I can occasionally glean clues.

[megaplayboy]

So, I'd like to peruse the transcript of Carter Page's "interview" before the House Intel Committee, but I'm not sure I can spare the SAN points.  

[csyphrett]

Rpg.net is saying it's like something out of unknown armies or delta green.

CES 

[megaplayboy]

Well, this turned into a very pleasant evening.

[Xavier Onassiss]

9 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

So, I'd like to peruse the transcript of Carter Page's "interview" before the House Intel Committee, but I'm not sure I can spare the SAN points.  

 

Sanity points notwithstanding, I'm gonna have a look at this on my day off.

[Old Man]

Once your SAN is negative enough, what's the harm in losing some more?

 

 

"Thoughts and prayers" for Chris Christie's political career.  Wish you'd won the 2016 GOP presidential nom, dude.

[Old Man]

No matter how you measure them mass shooting deaths are up

 

 

[megaplayboy]

I think a general revamping of background checks --broader, deeper, more diligence in feeding the information, keeping the info locally longer, maybe adding a few new categories of prohibited persons related to domestic violence and mental health--is in order, along with some tweaks to things like weapon accessories(bump stocks and extended magazines(greater than standard design)).  But, bare minimum, you need a "blue" WH and Congress, maybe even a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, in order to pass a gun bill nowadays, so it's going to be quite a while(at least 4 years) before it happens. Individual states can act, however.  

[Pattern Ghost]

13 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

Individual states can act, however

 

I think a lot of the effort has been focused on the local and state level for some time now, even during Obama's terms.

 

While a few national organizations seem to be behind most of these "grass roots" efforts, most of the legislation I've seen doesn't really seem aimed at preventing public mass shootings. (I'm making a distinction between a psychopath shooting up a crowd of mostly strangers for whatever reason, vs. people gunning down other people they have a more personal or professional beef with, since those seem to have differing root causes, and the latter isn't really best addressed by restricting weapons, IMO.)

 

I think the current approach at state and local levels is to rebrand  "gun control" as "gun safety," so a lot of the legislative efforts have focused on universal background checks, removing firearms from domestic abusers or other psychologically impaired people, or safe storage. The first two having been passed in WA lately, for example.

 

Restricting access to weapons may help curb the effectiveness of mass murderers. I think the most logical place to start is uniform crime reporting. This is in the context of local/state efforts. We currently have a reasonable list of disqualifying criteria for gun purchases. The other part of the equation there is limiting the number of people who slip through the cracks because of bad reporting.

 

Restricting access via banning features is fairly futile. Humans are good at engineering around restrictions that are based on strict technical definitions. That's how bump stocks became a thing. Because technically, you still are pressing the trigger one time per shot. The problem with going to a much broader definition for banning categories of weapons has two obvious problems that I see: First, is public backlash. It's a hard sell and you have to ask if the resources could be used more effectively elsewhere in the short term. Second is that any restriction has to allow for firearms suitable for self defense. While you could say that nobody "needs" (a word that shouldn't be used as a qualifier for restricting any right, IMO, but beside the point) a semi-auto rifle with a large magazine capacity for self defense, you're stuck with the simple fact that shooting non-resisting victims is easier to accomplish than self defense. The Virginia Tech shooter used a Ruger .22 LR pistol with ten round magazines, which is a firearm that wouldn't usually be thought of as something to ban, and which is considered poor for self defense usage. Whether  you agree with Heller or not, the decision does state that the 2nd is an individual right and that self defense is a part of that right.

 

Uniform reporting at the local and state level (to the FBI, who already maintains crime records) would seem to be the best first step both in terms of effectiveness in crime prevention and in terms of being an effort that could be successful. Even our current bunch in DC would be hard pressed to argue convincingly against simply making paperwork more  uniform.

[Lord Liaden]

[Extreme gun advocate] "Making paperwork more uniform makes it easier for the feds to  track your guns, which is the first step in taking them away." [/extreme gun advocate]

[Pattern Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

[Extreme gun advocate] "Making paperwork more uniform makes it easier for the feds to  track your guns, which is the first step in taking them away." [/extreme gun advocate]

 

Crime reporting has nothing to do with gun ownership records. It has to do with reporting the same facts about each crime, with defining crimes according to a  uniform criteria (a crime is a misdemeanor in one jurisdiction, an infraction or a felony in another; a crime may have several different names, etc.), and other statistics.

 

ETA: Further, it's a useful tool for law enforcement, and the right has positioned itself as strong on crime and pro law enforcement. Not backing improved reporting would be hypocritical.

[Lord Liaden]

Agreed, PG. Many of the arguments in this debate are deliberately emotional, not rational. But law enforcement is also uniformly behind shared firearm registration information to make illegally used guns easier to track. Hard-line firearms supporters don't back that argument either. I doubt being accused of hypocrisy sways them very much.

[Pattern Ghost]

35 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

But law enforcement is also uniformly behind shared firearm registration information to make illegally used guns easier to track.

 

I'd say that "uniformly" is an overstatement.  LE is split along urban and rural lines in this, as far as I can tell. Elected chief LEOs from liberal cities tend to fall out more for this, AFAICT.

 

ETA: I should point out that I do agree someone would try to twist it around as you pointed out. I'm just thinking it'd be an easier sell than other options, and would do some good.

[Zeropoint]

I would be all for taking guns away from people convicted of domestic violence. I would support this even--possibly even especially--if it meant that a lot of cops could no longer carry guns.

[Cancer]

Given the murder-suicide committed by the Tacoma chief of police on his in-the-process-of-divorcing wife back in 2003 ... I fully endorse that suggestion.

[Old Man]

There is indeed a strong correlation between a history of violence and mass shootings, and it should be added to the list of disqualifying criteria. Unfortunately it isn't absolute--the perpetrators of Sandy Hook, Pulse Nightclub, and Vegas had no prior violent tendencies that I am aware of. 

[Lord Liaden]

See, there's the rub. More background checks, psych screenings, and so forth, are not going to catch everyone who would misuse a gun. The flip side of that which some parties favor, giving guns to more people, is also going to put more guns in the hands of people who are or will become unstable.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I believe the most effective approach would be a de-glamorizing campaign similar to what was done with cigarettes. Stop treating gun ownership and use as something beautiful, sexy, symbol of power and independence, as natural an act as eating or sex. Stop idolizing fictional lone-wolf heroes who take the law into their own hands, blowing away "bad guys," however they choose to define them. Emphasize that guns are designed to kill, with maximum efficiency, with all the consequences of that act. At best they're useful tools in limited circumstances, at worst destroyers of lives. We need to reduce the number of people in society who have come to consider guns a legitimate, even laudable, way to deal with whatever frustrates them.

 

That also means responsible gun owners cannot simply look after their own guns in their own back yard. As role models they have to stand up and vocally and forcefully insist that all gun owners be equally responsible, with substantial enforced penalties if they're not. IMO this is a case of not being part of the solution contributing to the problem.

 

I realize some here may disagree with my position, which is your right that I respect. If you think you have a better idea, by all means express it.

[Tech priest support]