Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[ewsieg]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra-real-solutions-stop-violence-bipartisan-agreement-gun-framework

 

Quote

"As is our policy, the NRA does not take positions on ‘frameworks’.  We will make our position known when the full text of the bill is available for review," the statement continued. 

Reading between the lines, that to me says that the NRA doesn't believe they can bully their way out of this and are sitting back to see if there is a way to attack this.  Overall good sign IMO as it looks like the NRA is back on their heels.

[pfife]

lol they don't take positions on "frameworks"?  Their whole schtick is a framework LMAO

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Can't remember where I heard it recently, but likely one of a few podcasts where they somewhat debunked the excess guns = more shootings and they pointed out a few countries that actually do have high rates of gun ownership without the high amount of shootings.  That said, they did see a correlation between how religious a country was and how many shootings.  Things that make you go hmmm....

A lot of this counter argument is based on Switzerland, but for a lot reasons it isn't really comparable. For starters in Switzerland a lot of these weapons are military issue long guns that ex-military are allowed to keep as part of the citizen ready reserve after they leave active service, IOW, guns locked in the closet and not thought about as part of everyday life.

Other types of gun ownership in Switzerland is probably falling. Training requirements and background checking are also much more rigorous.

https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2#in-addition-to-the-militias-arms-the-country-has-about-2-million-privately-owned-guns-a-figure-that-has-been-plummeting-over-the-past-decade-6

 

[ewsieg]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

A lot of this counter argument is based on Switzerland, but for a lot reasons it isn't really comparable. For starters in Switzerland a lot of these weapons are military issue long guns that ex-military are allowed to keep as part of the citizen ready reserve after they leave active service, IOW, guns locked in the closet and not thought about as part of everyday life.

Other types of gun ownership in Switzerland is probably falling. Training requirements and background checking are also much more rigorous.

https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2#in-addition-to-the-militias-arms-the-country-has-about-2-million-privately-owned-guns-a-figure-that-has-been-plummeting-over-the-past-decade-6

 

I have no idea what was specifically looked at, but I remember they said the US and a middle eastern country were large outliers for amounts of guns and both had high amounts of mass shootings.  After that though, many countries of Europe and Canada are apparently some of the highest in terms of guns to people and don’t see the same outcomes.  Maybe the Bulwark? I know there are some other listeners here. I want to try and find the details now.

[Motown Bombers]

The US has significantly more guns to people than Canada or Europe. The US is three times higher than the next highest country which is Canada who just moved to essentially ban handguns.

[Jim Cowan]

14 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The US has significantly more guns to people than Canada or Europe. The US is three times higher than the next highest country which is Canada who just moved to essentially ban handguns.

Yes part of the reason Canada gets high numbers is  because of hunting rifles and shotguns.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Jim Cowan

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

Yes part of the reason Canada gets high numbers is  because of hunting rifles and shotguns.

What I hear you saying is that in Canada you can effectively regulate guns, reduce gun homicides and still hunt? This seems like a magical place. Let me guess, you're going to also tell me that if you happen to get shot by the one of these guns the government will also pay for your medical care? 

[Jim Cowan]

Ha ha, I think that hunting is an old man's game here.  When I was in my early teens there was some interest in hunting in my age group, but I only know 1 guy who does it now.  Probably a lot of those rifles and shotguns haven't been fired in 20 years.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

I have no idea what was specifically looked at, but I remember they said the US and a middle eastern country were large outliers for amounts of guns and both had high amounts of mass shootings.  After that though, many countries of Europe and Canada are apparently some of the highest in terms of guns to people and don’t see the same outcomes.  Maybe the Bulwark? I know there are some other listeners here. I want to try and find the details now.

I believe the mid-east country with the highest gun ownership is Yemen, but they've had various civil wars going for maybe 30 of the last 60 yrs. Again, not a model anyone should want to emulate.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I believe the mid-east country with the highest gun ownership is Yemen, but they've had various civil wars going for maybe 30 of the last 60 yrs. Again, not a model anyone should want to emulate.

Yemen is second to the US in terms of private gun ownership? They must really love Jesus there. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by chasfh

[casimir]

On 6/1/2022 at 10:00 AM, chasfh said:

More to the point, they want to convert that particular workforce from being teachers to being babysitters.

It doesn’t take much education or certification to impart to kids the kind of indoctrination some states are seeking to implement. That’s one reason the pay is so low: it repels degreed critical thinkers who want to make a difference educationally, while it continues to attract less-skilled people … OK, let’s be real: women … who prefer to work around little children all day. (I’m not being anti-woman here—rather, these states know women will accept lower pay for the same jobs versus men, and I don’t think many Christian states want adult men around little kids all day every day nine months a year.)

It doesn’t take much knowledge to teach first- and second-graders: even high school grads with a 2.4 GPA who went on to obtain a smattering of community or for-profit college credits already know the entire curriculum for first and second grades. At that point it’s all about directing them how to teach the curriculum, which topics to focus on and, as importantly, which topics to avoid.

With rare exceptions, I suppose, classroom adults with that background probably won’t be agitating for the academic freedom to teach critical topics to children. They’ll probably pretty much do what they’re told so they can keep their teaching jobs in order to avoid the deep fryers and the rubber gloves and the cash registers.

Still waiting for you to backtrack gracelessly on this one, chump.

[chasfh]

9 minutes ago, casimir said:

Still waiting for you to backtrack gracelessly on this one, chump.

I don't know, slick, the idea that a high school graduate would already know everything that a first or second grader is taught in school already, and that they'd just need direction on approach doesn't seem too terribly controversial to me.

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don't know, slick, the idea that a high school graduate would already know everything that a first or second grader is taught in school already, and that they'd just need direction on approach doesn't seem too terribly controversial to me.

Effective teaching isn't just presenting material you know to someone else. It can be, but will usually have an unacceptably low success rate on those terms.  We spend a lot of time of this even at the college level where the students are supposed to be mature enough to understand and cope with their own learning styles. Even at 18 many are not. The truth is that people do not teach other people things, everyone learns everything themselves. Teaching is figuring out how to facilitate the connection between the student and the material so the student teaches it to themselves. Some people have certain levels of emotional intelligence that guide them to do this well without specific training, but most do not.

Edited June 15, 2022 by gehringer_2

[casimir]

40 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don't know, slick, the idea that a high school graduate would already know everything that a first or second grader is taught in school already, and that they'd just need direction on approach doesn't seem too terribly controversial to me.

Don’t get pissy with me.  You’re the arrogant clown that posted the tripe, not me.

And again, your lack of understanding of what you posted and lack of contrition about it exemplify your lack of empathy and character towards others that you incorrectly identify as inferior to yourself.

[chasfh]

9 minutes ago, casimir said:

Don’t get pissy with me.  You’re the arrogant clown that posted the tripe, not me.

And again, your lack of understanding of what you posted and lack of contrition about it exemplify your lack of empathy and character towards others that you incorrectly identify as inferior to yourself.

You're the one charging me waving the billy club around, cheef. I'm not going to dance for you.

[casimir]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You're the one charging me waving the billy club around, cheef. I'm not going to dance for you.

Chuck gonna Chuck.  Everybody else is wrong before Chuck.

[chasfh]

37 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Effective teaching isn't just presenting material you know to someone else. It can be, but will usually have an unacceptably low success rate on those terms.  We spend a lot of time of this even at the college level where the students are supposed to be mature enough to understand and cope with their own learning styles. Even at 18 many are not. The truth is that people do not teach other people things, everyone learns everything themselves. Teaching is figuring out how to facilitate the connection between the student and the material so the student teaches it to themselves. Some people have certain levels of emotional intelligence that guide them to do this well without specific training, but most do not.

Absolutely agree. Not sure the red states trying to pass all these laws stipulating what social precepts teachers must teach and cannot teach, which may well have the effect of driving the better-qualified teachers out of the profession to be replaced by lesser-qualified people only too happy to have the job, would agree with this completely.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

The far right and Republicans, as with everything else, are just projecting when it comes to teaching and what they want taught. They accuse the left and Democrats of "grooming" their kids with an LGBTQA and racially sensitive agenda. When in actuality none of that is happening and it is they who want to ban what can and cannot be taught. It is they who want to dictate to Teachers and Education Professionals what can and cannot be taught. It is they who want creationism and junk theories with no provable scientific merit taught alongside or instead of scientifically tested theories and hypothesis'. They who want to ban books like Maus and whitewash history in the process.

[pfife]

You can't tell them what to do.  They can tell you what to do.

[ewsieg]

11 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

The far right and Republicans, as with everything else, are just projecting when it comes to teaching and what they want taught. They accuse the left and Democrats of "grooming" their kids with an LGBTQA and racially sensitive agenda. When in actuality none of that is happening and it is they who want to ban what can and cannot be taught. It is they who want to dictate to Teachers and Education Professionals what can and cannot be taught. It is they who want creationism and junk theories with no provable scientific merit taught alongside or instead of scientifically tested theories and hypothesis'. They who want to ban books like Maus and whitewash history in the process.

Not all republicans want creationism and junk theories.  There is a larger contingent, especially across the bible belt, that do have skewed ideas, i'll give you that.  But go ahead and follow Libs of TikTok, there are some messed up folks on the left side as well.  They feed/troll on each other.  Most American's, regardless of political party don't want the extremes of either side. 

[Motown Bombers]

It's amazing to me how the far left is branded as just as extreme as the far right when the far left just want to adopt the same policies that are widely accept in successful developed countries like Norway. Right wing extremism is more akin to the Taliban. 

[oblong]

17 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

It's amazing to me how the far left is branded as just as extreme as the far right when the far left just want to adopt the same policies that are widely accept in successful developed countries like Norway. Right wing extremism is more akin to the Taliban. 

Critics to the far left will find some person on a video on the internet with a face full of piercings, one side of their head shaved bald, the other side green, tats all over their face, who claims to be in a relationship with their plants and say "this is the left that's running our schools and wants to turn our kids gay".  Critics to the far right will point to members of congress, governors, attorneys general, school board members and can point to actual policy proposals.

But they're the same threat.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

Not all republicans want creationism and junk theories.  There is a larger contingent, especially across the bible belt, that do have skewed ideas, i'll give you that.  But go ahead and follow Libs of TikTok, there are some messed up folks on the left side as well.  They feed/troll on each other.  Most American's, regardless of political party don't want the extremes of either side. 

I don't disagree that there are plenty of nutty, crazy people on the left. A day on twitter will show you that. The 9/11 truther movement originally took hold among left-wing minded individuals back in the day. There have been various other crazy ideas and conspiracy theories that people on the left have adopted from the CIA to vaccines to things corporations do. There have also been people on the left pushing ideas, like abolishing ICE and defunding entire police departments, that currently sit outside the American mainstream of ideas.

All that said, it is an incredibly small minority of people on the left pushing those things. Generally, even among some of the less well educated or more radical individuals on the left, the average progressive/leftist/democratic socialist/social democrat just wants a government that supports people and takes care of a bunch of core, basic needs in life. Healthcare, child welfare, nutritious food, clean water, housing quality public education, reliable transpiration, a healthy planet, a clean environment, taking care of wildlife, etc. are all seen as basic human rights. The average person on the left isn't building a political movement centered around lazy people on welfare, CRT, gun ownership with no restrictions, gays grooming people, bootstrapping your way through life, or creating a survival of the fittest society.

Sure, the party of centrists and third way Democrats like Joe Biden, Tip O'Neill, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Liberman, John Kerry, Barack Obama is slowly being replaced by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jamal Bowan, John Fetterman, and on. But it isn't being replaced that way all at once. In-fact, there are some on the left who do indeed complain that the transformation of the party into a solidly progressive one moves too slow. But in general, the way they are trying to transform the party and the source of their frustration is built around not helping people enough. Whereas with Republicans and people on the right who are transforming their party, the source of their frustration is racial grievance, intolerance, and a wanting for someone to feel as miserable in life as they do. Misery and hatred love company, and they are finding a home on the right wing of America.

Rational Republicans are fewer and fewer these days. The party of educated, thoughtful, sophisticated conservatism of the likes of George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Gerald Ford, John Boehner, George Will is being replaced by a radical, less educated element with Donald Trump, MTG, Lauren Bobert, Louie Gohmert, Matt Gaetz, Steve Bannon, and Tucker Carlson.  How many people on the right do you hear standing up to people like Herschel Walker who are out there denying evolution or Ben Carson who says the Pyramids of Egypt were grain silos built by Joseph or Donald Trump who says climate change is a Chinese hoax or immigrant caravans from the likes of Tucker Carlson. Pick out anyone of these idiots and chances are they'll be talking about grooming, CRT, gay people, an immigrant invasion of America, guns, non-existent voter fraud, etc.

The American right has become far more radicalized than the American left. Furthemore, the intentions of the average person on the American left is much more altruistic, caring, kind, and virtuous towards the plight of others than it is on the American right.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

Not all republicans want creationism and junk theories.  There is a larger contingent, especially across the bible belt, that do have skewed ideas, i'll give you that.  But go ahead and follow Libs of TikTok, there are some messed up folks on the left side as well.  They feed/troll on each other.  Most American's, regardless of political party don't want the extremes of either side. 

I use to think that, but the last several years I am not so sure.  

[ewsieg]

39 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

The American right has become far more radicalized than the American left. Furthemore, the intentions of the average person on the American left is much more altruistic, caring, kind, and virtuous towards the plight of others than it is on the American right.

In terms of quantity, probably, not sure that matters though.

6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I use to think that, but the last several years I am not so sure.  

The problem isn't who has the most radicalized on their side, it's that when push comes to shove, both parties revert to focusing on 'the base' which unfortunately is carried by the loudest folks, which tend to be made up of some of the more radical folks.  So regardless of who has most of the crazies, it's still the crazies that often control each of the parties or at least have a great influence on the direction.