Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[entropy]

ok.. who is typing for Talent.

[drok]

Yeah I'm sorry but the US's gun related death track record is or at least is close to the worst of any of its peer countries. Whether "terror" related or not. But I think there are really two separate issues: terror and non-terror related gun deaths. They need to be looked at separately and have different causes and likely different solutions.

Even as a Canadian, the idea that "the US just needs more gun control" doesn't seem like any kind of answer. First of all it's very nebulous. Second, it's seems to be a bandaid without trying to address a root cause. The question in my mind is why are there so many gun related issues that need to be thwarted in the first place, not how do you thwart them? We don't have that much better "gun control", enforcement, proceeses, etc and our non-terror related gun deaths don't happen as frequently or are as large (per capita). Same for "Terror" related gun deaths, but I think that's a very different comparison.

[iam416]

10 states have gun ownership rates above 50%. 8 states and the DC have gun ownership rates of 20% or lower (I'm counting Illinois at 20.2!). The states are: Wyoming (59.7%), Alaska (57.8%), Montana (57.7%), South Dakota (56.6), WV (55.4), Mississippi (55.3), Arkansas (55.3), Idaho (55.3), Alabama (51.7), North Dakota (50.7), Illinois (20.2), NY (18 ), Connecticut (16.7), RI (12.8 ), Massachusetts (12.6), NJ (12.3), Hawaii (6.7), DC (3.6).

I defy anyone to put those in order from highest gun-homicide rate to lowest w/o cheating. And I've already given you #1:

DC (16.5). The next 17 rates are: 4.0, 3.2, 2.8, 2.8, 2.8, 2.7, 2.7, 2.7, 1.8, 1.5, 1.5, 1.2, 1.0, 0.9, 0.8, 0.6, 0.5

It's just comical that people equate more guns with more gun homicides in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary.

[hack]

Solving the problem completely means some easily-identifiable solutions and some that are harder arrive at. There should be no problem picking the low-hanging fruit for now, while looking into what else lurks underneath.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Granted, a biased source, but Trump's campaign has been paying an ad agency called "Draper Sterling" (a Mad Men reference for those not aware). The address for which is a suburban home very close to Lewandowski's hometown. And the Trump campaign is reportedly doing an audit of all Lewandowki's expenditures. Hmmmm

http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/donald-trump-campaign-appears-to-be-paying-a-fictional-ad-agency/

[iam416]

Second, it's seems to be a bandaid without trying to address a root cause

EFZ. What's also interesting is that the homicide and gun-homicide rate in the US has been falling since the Clinton administration. Considerably. While at the same time, the number of guns in the US has increased. Considerably.

With gun-related homicides in the US, there's zero point in pretending that the major cause is anything other than the urban drug war. None. If we want to reduce homicide rates even further we have to address that root cause. End of story.

There's also some evidence that policing matters. Certainly in Chicago the numbers are so staggering that one can reasonably conclude that the impetus of policing matters a great deal. And, of course, strong policing is on the outs.

But that's the real problem in the US. It's not random ass crazy motherfuckers killing people. Not, yet, at least. Trying to address those incidents through cogent policy is very difficult. Trying to address systemic, recurring, predictable violence through policy is what government ought to fucking do.

[iam416]

DSL:

Is anyone really surprised by the arc of Trump's campaign toward an inevitable fiery heap?

The only question for November is how badly he assfucks down ticket Rs.

[hack]

You're suggesting that human nature can be altered through policy?

[hack]

DSL:

Is anyone really surprised by the arc of Trump's campaign toward an inevitable fiery heap?

The only question for November is how badly he assfucks down ticket Rs.

IMO he's not gonna be on the ticket. Nobody wants him there including him.

[iam416]

You're suggesting that human nature can be altered through policy?

No. I'm saying the worst parts of human nature can be mitigated through policy. Whether that policy is "worth it" is another question.

[iam416]

IMO he's not gonna be on the ticket. Nobody wants him there including him.

Yeah, IMO that's batshit crazy, but man, I sure hope you're right!

[hack]

No. I'm saying the worst parts of human nature can be mitigated through policy. Whether that policy is "worth it" is another question.

Right. I think that's ultimately it. Enough Americans don't think it's worth it. Or, at least, not enough to shift momentum. It's clearly going to have to be more than 50%+1.

[drok]

EFZ. What's also interesting is that the homicide and gun-homicide rate in the US has been falling since the Clinton administration. Considerably. While at the same time, the number of guns in the US has increased. Considerably.

With gun-related homicides in the US, there's zero point in pretending that the major cause is anything other than the urban drug war. None. If we want to reduce homicide rates even further we have to address that root cause. End of story.

There's also some evidence that policing matters. Certainly in Chicago the numbers are so staggering that one can reasonably conclude that the impetus of policing matters a great deal. And, of course, strong policing is on the outs.

But that's the real problem in the US. It's not random ass crazy motherfuckers killing people. Not, yet, at least. Trying to address those incidents through cogent policy is very difficult. Trying to address systemic, recurring, predictable violence through policy is what government ought to fucking do.

Less easily quantifiable, but I think there's a cultural difference as well. For any outsider, it's very clear that gun culture is very different in the US versus the rest of your peers. How that manifests itself in this debate is very difficult to parse out, but I would suggest it's an amplifier, rather than a cause.

I do also think you underestimate the "random ass crazy motherfuckers" aspect. No, it's not on the same scale as the other issues, but I would suggest it is more rampant in the US and my guess is that it's a symptom of less easily quantifiable issues.

[iam416]

Right. I think that's ultimately it. Enough Americans don't think it's worth it. Or, at least, not enough to shift momentum. It's clearly going to have to be more than 50%+1.

Yep. That's politics. That's why activists tend to grossly overstate consequences. That's why tragedies are so great for business -- they have the unspeakably bad consequences baked in! Moving the needle to 60% -- which is probably the minimum you need for significant legislation -- can't be done with the nuance and intellectual honesty that most significant policy decisions require. POLITICS!

To be clear, this is a neutral statement. It's the playbook of anyone who wants to pass legislation that lacks sufficient public support. And to be clear again, the ends may justify the means, but it doesn't make the means any more acceptable to me.

[hack]

Less easily quantifiable, but I think there's a cultural difference as well. For any outsider, it's very clear that gun culture is very different in the US versus the rest of your peers. How that manifests itself in this debate is very difficult to parse out, but I would suggest it's an amplifier, rather than a cause.


Some of you may be familiar with the wetlands conservation group Ducks Unlimited, which is a for hunters/by hunters approach. It produces a separate monthly magazine for its US members and its Canadian ones. A look at the difference in how guns are pictured and discussed in the two versions is a wonderful example of how those cultures differ.