USA Politics (redux)

[Madiel]

Name one gun law that has kept a criminal from getting one.

Who the hell thinks this is about "criminals"?

America has a far higher rate of gun violence than any comparable country. Now this could possibly be because you're all a bunch of criminals and psychopaths who lack the levels of self-control that we have in other countries.

More likely it's because a heck of a lot of people aren't "criminals" right up until the point that they start shooting, and you keep making it possible for them to grab a gun.

Do we have criminals with guns in Australia? Absolutely. In fact at the moment in Sydney we have criminals shooting each other on a fairly regular basis. There is some sort of gang war going on, and there's been a fair number of shootings and fatalities. But by a "fair number" I mean... I think it's less than 10 dead.

We might not stop the dedicated "criminals" getting guns. But dedicated "criminals" aren't a large part of the population, and our "criminals" seem to rarely bother shooting anyone who isn't part of their own millieu. It takes effort to get a gun. Most people don't have the incentives to make the effort. Therefore they don't have a gun to hand when they get angry, or suicidal, or they just can't have an accident with it.

Every time someone in America tries to suggest that gun controls don't work, I wonder how it is even possible in this day and age, on the internet of all places, to so thoroughly ignore that America's gun problem is uniquely American. There are only 2 possible explanations: one is that America consistently refuses to employ the measures that work everywhere else, the other is that you lot are uniquely psychotic. You choose.

[BasilValentine]

Justice Scalia quoted by Wikipedia:
"The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words."

And yet Scalia, the hypocrite conservative, apparently ignored original meaning when he interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that bearing arms mean for personal self-defense rather than just security of the nation.  The best thing about Scalia is that he is dead.  Unfortunately Clarence and Barrett carry on his tradition.

The clearest case of cynical hypocrisy in Scalia's alleged originalism is Citizens United. Unless one believes the founding fathers meant to say that corporations are people and their money is speech.

[milk]

Name one gun law that has kept a criminal from getting one.

Madiel seems to have a good response but I don't quite understand your question. My mind is open regarding this question. I guess we would be looking for research that compares something to something. What are the something-s? I live in Japan. There's almost no gun violence here, certainly none affecting "regular folk." But that might be a bad comparison. Maybe you should suggest what the comparison is.

[Madiel]

The clearest case of cynical hypocrisy in Scalia's alleged originalism is Citizens United. Unless one believes the founding fathers meant to say that corporations are people and their money is speech.

Yes, Citizens United is a truly appalling decision (which our own High Court very pointedly refused to follow when discussing our own campaign finance laws).

But it's just one part of the way in which American politics avoids having ordinary people elect the politicians. Folk keep talking about doing away with the Electoral College, but that's nowhere near as big an issue as campaign finance, gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The whole reason that politicians can get away with ignoring the opinion of the general population on something like gun control is that they've built an electoral system where it's very hard to face the consequences of going against the wishes of the general population.

[Johnnie Burgess]

Who the hell thinks this is about "criminals"?

America has a far higher rate of gun violence than any comparable country. Now this could possibly be because you're all a bunch of criminals and psychopaths who lack the levels of self-control that we have in other countries.

More likely it's because a heck of a lot of people aren't "criminals" right up until the point that they start shooting, and you keep making it possible for them to grab a gun.

Do we have criminals with guns in Australia? Absolutely. In fact at the moment in Sydney we have criminals shooting each other on a fairly regular basis. There is some sort of gang war going on, and there's been a fair number of shootings and fatalities. But by a "fair number" I mean... I think it's less than 10 dead.

We might not stop the dedicated "criminals" getting guns. But dedicated "criminals" aren't a large part of the population, and our "criminals" seem to rarely bother shooting anyone who isn't part of their own millieu. It takes effort to get a gun. Most people don't have the incentives to make the effort. Therefore they don't have a gun to hand when they get angry, or suicidal, or they just can't have an accident with it.

Every time someone in America tries to suggest that gun controls don't work, I wonder how it is even possible in this day and age, on the internet of all places, to so thoroughly ignore that America's gun problem is uniquely American. There are only 2 possible explanations: one is that America consistently refuses to employ the measures that work everywhere else, the other is that you lot are uniquely psychotic. You choose.

Over 90% of people who legally own a gun never break the law.  Why take away their gun?

[Johnnie Burgess]

The clearest case of cynical hypocrisy in Scalia's alleged originalism is Citizens United. Unless one believes the founding fathers meant to say that corporations are people and their money is speech.

If corporations can not give money to politicians neither should labor unions.

[Madiel]

Over 90% of people who legally own a gun never break the law.  Why take away their gun?

I can see that risk-benefit analysis is not your forte.

I mean, I don't even know where you're getting that statistic from, but if you think that 90% is a high figure, you've got to be kidding given the consequences. A woman I used to know on a message board probably only broke the law once. 3 people died as a result. Including her.

And you're suggesting it's okay if MILLIONS of people break a gun law. Because hey, it isn't the majority of the estimated 81 million gun owners. It's less than 10 million! How many people can they manage to kill or maim?

Here's another statistic for you: only 1 out of 23 attempted uses of a gun for self defence actually works. 1 in 23. The other 22 occurrences are accidental shootings or homicides or where the baddy gets the gun.

Now I don't know about you, but if I had a device that failed over 95% of the time, I'd be getting rid of it. The question isn't so much why take away people's guns, the question is more how so many Americans have been conned into believing that their gun is useful into them instead of a potential death trap they have brought into their house.

Most families won't have a child drown in their pool, why have pool fences? Most children won't be poisoned by pills, why have safety caps on bottles? Not THAT many people die in car crashes, why require seat belts?

You're basically exhibiting the mindset that people go around wearing white hats and black hats and that we can basically allow all the people in white hats to walk around with guns. It's the people in the white hats that are the problem, because they're too fucking stupid to understand the profound danger that they are putting themselves and others in for no observable benefit. People buying bread makers they don't need is funny. People buying deadly weapons they don't need is inviting disaster.

Why take away people's guns? To save people's lives. There's actual data to back up that goal. Whereas there isn't data to back up most of the deluded fantasies of American gun owners as to why they claim to want one.

And if you accidentally or mistakenly shoot me (which is more common than crime) the fact that you didn't break the law is scant consolation.

[Madiel]

If corporations can not give money to politicians neither should labor unions.

That isn't the test. The question is whether there is any limit to the amount of money that can be given.

[Madiel]

All good plain sense. Of course, Reason is practically dormant among "ammosexuals."

Well it's worth noting that decades ago  Congress actively suppressed efforts to research guns and gather data, for fear that the research might show guns were a problem. So there's reasoning involved. It's just that the reasoning is not aimed at improving the welfare of the general populace.

[Karl Henning]

Well it's worth noting that decades ago  Congress actively suppressed efforts to research guns and gather data, for fear that the research might show guns were a problem. So there's reasoning involved. It's just that the reasoning is not aimed at improving the welfare of the general populace.

Indeed.

[BasilValentine]

If corporations can not give money to politicians neither should labor unions.

Unions don't use mandatory contributions (dues) to fund campaigns and political activities. They support PACs through voluntary contributions of individual members. So the conclusion, based on your own statement, would seem to be that corporations shouldn't be allowed to give money to politicians, right? But to be serious: The difference here is between voluntary contributions of individuals versus contributions of corporate entities. In unions the right of free speech, if we are equating money to speech as Citizens United does, accrues only to individuals, which is in line with what the framers clearly intended in the Bill of Rights. Citizens United extended the right of free speech (monetarily defined) to corporations, which is clearly not what the framers intended.

[DavidW]

I know, right?  In the distant future there will doubtless be fantasy tales about the giant group of (they believe) True Believers, totally bamboozled and led astray by one of the least likely candidates for sainthood one is likely to meet. I think the underlying story there has to do with the rot which permeates the belief system, turning into something 180° different from where they began. No one is immune, apparently.

Yes I do find it amusing that Christian nationalists follow and seem to worship a nihilistic, liberal atheist who only pretended to be conservative to win their vote and approval.

[Florestan]

A widespread fantasy within certain sectors of the American public seems to be that having a pistol or a rifle at home is somehow going to deter the government form becoming tyrannical --- which is highly ironic given that the self-same Americans are quite prone to decrying how tyrannical the government has become.

[DavidW]

All good plain sense. Of course, Reason is practically dormant among "ammosexuals."

Plus simply restricting the sales of assault rifles (which nobody outside the military needs for any reason) would do a huge amount of good for saving lives without "taking away our guns."  It is also shocking how ignorant some people can be.  In many of these mass shootings the guns were purchased legally and not by "criminals."  People who do these shootings are mentally ill, they're not hardened criminals that are knocking over liquor stores.

And we have hard proof that gun control works.  Most countries have strict laws and they rarely have mass shootings.  While the US is at the point where there are so many shootings that it is now a daily occurrence that are frequently reported now only on the local news.

[fbjim]

To be frank I've always been of the opinion that restricting the power and availability of semi-automatic handguns is far more important than "assault rifles".

[Fëanor]

And we have hard proof that gun control works.  Most countries have strict laws and they rarely have mass shootings.  While the US is at the point where there are so many shootings that it is now a daily occurrence that are frequently reported now only on the local news.

In Canada we have had much stricter guns laws than the USA.  Pivotal dates were 1990 when licenses for all gun ownership was required, and 1995 when all guns -- including previously owed -- had to be registered.  From '95 magazines were restricted to 5 round for rifles, (excepting .22 rimfire), and 10 rounds for hand guns.

• Licenses required extensive background checks plus references and the specific approval of intimate partners.  N.B. Self-protection is not recognized reason for gun ownership in Canada.  License must be renewed every five years.
  
• Regarding registration of guns, registration must be transferred between (license) owners if the guns is sold, given away, or inherited.  At some point the requirement as removed for some "long guns", viz. manual reload and .22 rimfire rifles and shotguns.

OK, so have gun deaths decreased since the tighter rules from 1990?  Yes, they have -- and of course gun deaths in Canada have always been much less than in the USA.

However statistics like this report, show that gun deaths were going down since at least 1979, first year of that report, at a pretty consistent rate and that apparently the stricter gun laws since 1990 have made little or no difference.  Notice the the principle decrease is suicides which was also the case before '79.  The likely primary reason for falling rates of gun deaths in Canada has been increasing urbanization, not the stricter gun laws.  It is still the case that gun deaths are much higher in rural areas which is mainly because there are far more guns in the hands of the public.

[Madiel]

In Canada we have had much stricter guns laws than the USA.  Pivotal dates were 1990 when licenses for all gun ownership was required, and 1995 when all guns -- including previously owed -- had to be registered.  From '95 magazines were restricted to 5 round for rifles, (excepting .22 rimfire), and 10 rounds for hand guns.

• Licenses required extensive background checks plus references and the specific approval of intimate partners.  License must be renewed every five years.
  
• Regarding registration of guns, registration must be transferred between (license) owers if the guns is sold, given away, or inherited.  At some point the requirement as removed for some "long guns", viz. manual reload and .22 rimfire rifles and shotguns.

OK, so have gun deaths decreased since the tighter rules from 1990?  Yes, they have -- and of course gun deaths in Canada have always been much less than in the USA.

However statistics like this report, show that gun deaths were going down since at least 1979, first year of that report, at a pretty consistent rate and that apparently the stricter gun laws since 1990 have made little or no difference.  Notice the the principle decrease is suicides which was also the case before '79.  The likely primary reason for falling rates of gun deaths in Canada has been increasing urbanization, not the stricter gun laws.  It is still the case that gun deaths are much higher in rural areas which is mainly because there are far more guns in the hands of the public.

The report you linked to is nearly 20 years old and the data stops 20 years ago.

Which means it doesn't cover the majority of the period since the first law change, and even less of the period since the second law change, and who knows what other changes have happened since.

Also... the USA has had plenty of urbanisation, so do you just subscribe to the idea that Americans are innately psychos?

[Karl Henning]

To be frank I've always been of the opinion that restricting the power and availability of semi-automatic handguns is far more important than "assault rifles".

I don't see this as either/or.

[Fëanor]

Plus simply restricting the sales of assault rifles (which nobody outside the military needs for any reason) would do a huge amount of good for saving lives without "taking away our guns."  It is also shocking how ignorant some people can be.  In many of these mass shootings the guns were purchased legally and not by "criminals."  People who do these shootings are mentally ill, they're not hardened criminals that are knocking over liquor stores.

To be frank I've always been of the opinion that restricting the power and availability of semi-automatic handguns is far more important than "assault rifles".

I can think of three reasons assault rifles are more dangerous than hand guns:

• The cartridges used in these guns is far more powerful & lethal than in virtually any handgun cartridge
• Assault rifles permit much larger magazine capacities than is practical for handguns
• Guns with a butt stock and some sort of fore stock or grip can be fired much more accurately than handguns by almost everybody.

[Karl Henning]

Nor do I see much point in casting assault rifles in scare-quotes. Common parlance will serve. I'll leave technical distinctions to the legislation.