General politics discussion. Keep it civil.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

That link is to a report that's completely and totally disingenuous and the link truly pisses me off every time it's posted.

A child is not 18. A child is not 19. A child is a pre-pubescent human. The goalposts were moved and almost literally everyone grabbed it and ran. It specifically says "among children and adolescents," but child means "pre-pubescent" and adolescent means "in the process of transitioning from a child into an adult."

NPR specifically and pointedly drops the "and adolescents," as have multiple other news organizations. To me, that changes the tone of the conversation from one of journalism to one of opinion.

Homicide is in the top three leading causes of death for 1-4 year olds. It is not in the 5-9 and 10-14 range. For 1-4, it's accidents, congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities, and assault. For 5-9, it's accidents, cancer, and congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities. For 10-14, it's accidents, suicide, and cancer. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm

More than 1,000 0-14 year olds will die in car crashes this year.

Plenty of teenagers can defend themselves because they have stolen guns. Surprise, those are also the teens who are getting killed. If you want to get these kids (used colloquially) to stop killing each other, you have to fix the root causes of the violence. We're at least one generation away from correcting the violence once we correct the root causes of the violence.

so let us add the word "adolescent" back into the topic, and the conversation still is stupid and outrageous:



actually, looking at your link, homicide is 4th for the 5-9 group: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/da...26D162700D2444

and 4th for the 10-14 group:
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/da...1CA2616F0D9444

part of the problem with data is that it is limited. part of the problem is that for years, the data had no info with the word "gun" in it.

part of the problem was that for years, Republicans threatened to stop funding the CDC unless it stopped funding research into firearm injuries and death. this started in 1996 and only restarted after 2019.

so for years, politicians talked past each other with NO ACTUAL DATA on what gun violence looks like in the context of public health, and so everyone was talking out of their asses and data was only as good as the sources providing it.

"follow the science" is what people like to say. I guess if you don't fund the science and blame non-government research as biased, then everyone can twist the data to their own benefit.

can't have an honest debate about preventing gun violence when you can't even study the issue via the federal government...

[KA24DESOneThree]

Merely addressing the semantics/pedantry of something that is being phrased incorrectly. In no way was that aimed at you, btw, just aimed at the study and those reporting the study in media.

I agree that limiting data is idiotic. We need to be able to pinpoint problems in areas and address those problems and if we don't get the granular data we need, we can't get granular with addressing issues. I don't care how bad the data makes guns look, we can't make meaningful changes without data.

This goes all the way to a state/county level. States/counties with lax reporting requirements, or lax punishments for lack of reporting, or the inability to separate crimes into categories, hurt the public.

Why the dip in 2017 and 2018?

Why the uptick in 2014- was it related to Vine? Why the 2006 spike- was it related to YouTube?

[Future240]

There is a path
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/27/u...earch-cdc.html

“It’s not either, ‘Keep your guns or prevent gun violence,’ ” said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who helped establish the C.D.C.’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control but said he was fired in the late 1990s under pressure from Republicans who opposed the center’s gun research. “There’s a strategy that science can help us define where you can do both — you can protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and at the very same time reduce the toll of gun violence.”

But unfortunately our politicians are bribed, wait, sorry no. LOBBIED :eyeroll: to make it not happen. A lot of those happen to have an R beside their name.

Federal money for gun research all but disappeared after Congress in 1996 enacted the so-called Dickey Amendment, which barred the C.D.C. from spending money to “advocate or promote gun control.” It was named for Jay Dickey, a former Republican House member from Arkansas, who proudly proclaimed himself the National Rifle Association’s “point man” in Washington.

At least they have some funding now.

[collegekid]

A lot of good points made in here recently.
There is no real blanket solution, because "someone else will".

Plenty of illegal substances out there that I can get my hands on without issue.
No matter what you guys do to make specific laws regarding gun specification allowed per age, people are still going to get their hands on ghost guns.

We just had a mass shooting here in Philly. I saw some videos, it literally just looks like a typical night in North Philly.

Those that want it will get it and it will still be easy for them to get.

Growing up, I worked at a beer distributor.
You have to be 21 to buy alcohol.
Every weekend, there were many parties that were well supplied with alcohol.
People find a way.
The crap that happened during prohibition is what I anticipate would happen if every single gun was made illegal today.

I do think an approach of improving the US in general will lead to solving gun problems.
No, there won't be a Maury equivalent therapist sitting on each corner to handle problems in the 'hood.

I don't have some end all be all solution, but I do think that 18 year old kids should not be able to get their hands on high capacity semi-autos. I'm down for a waiting period & background check on the buyers dime. I do like Mav1178's tiered leveling program for unlocking weapons as you grow older, but it all falls back into how people will get around it to get what they want anyway.

[Future240]

Originally Posted by collegekid

A lot of good points made in here recently.
There is no real blanket solution, because "someone else will".

Plenty of illegal substances out there that I can get my hands on without issue.
No matter what you guys do to make specific laws regarding gun specification allowed per age, people are still going to get their hands on ghost guns. .

This is why banning certain fire arms does not work. First too many in circulation to make it feasible. Two, criminals gone criminal. Prohibition has NEVER worked. All you do is make a black market.

Like right now there is a bill from a democrat to tax AR15's at 1000%
https://www.businessinsider.com/demo...tration-2022-6

How many of us would rush out to buy as many AR15's and lowers we could to sell them once the bill took effect?

A 700 rifle would be worth $7000. Plus all it would do is keep guns out of the hands of the poor.....

Meanwhile tactical AK47's would sky rocket in popularity.

Handguns would still be the primary means of killing people and we would have gotten no where.

Yay America

[collegekid]

I'll raise a question:

How is it even possible to be unbiased in today's world?

Now, I attended a seminar 5 years ago, and one speaker said "We should try to WOW an idea to life instead of HOWing it to death". Speaker then went on to imitate a nagging wife saying "How are ya gonna do this, n HAO are ya gonna do that?!"

I'm explicitly saying I'm not doing that. Just a legitimate question.

I myself have struggled to stay unbiased. I tried to be open to anything but as time goes on and my hairs gray, I find myself being polarized one way or another, trusting absolutely no one.

We have a "Disinformation Governance Board" and I already don't trust them. My questions always go back to: (Isn't limited to government bodies)
-Who created you?
-Who do you report to?
-Who is invested in you?
-Who benefits from your actions?
- Can you provide accurate accounting of why your costs are as such?

I'm in Philadelphia, so naturally that will be a talking point. I'm still on topic, but stay with me through this example.

PA sales tax is 6%. Philly added 1% on top of it starting in 1991. Then it added another 1% in 2009, which was supposed to be temporary for only 3 years. It was supposed to help our budget, provide funding for schools, etc.
NOPE. Didn't do crap. Schools are still insanely underfunded, infrastructure is significantly worse. Politicians got a 5.67% raise though.

With that, HOW in the hell am I supposed to believe that this new proposed agency/form of government intervention is going to do a damn thing besides suck up more money while leaving us with the same problem?

[Future240]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/06/new-...tic-rifle.html

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by Future240

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/06/new-...tic-rifle.html

What are the prospects of this getting challenged and eventually making it to the Supreme Court?

[Future240]

Originally Posted by Phlip

What are the prospects of this getting challenged and eventually making it to the Supreme Court?

400%

The supreme court will also write an opinion something along the line of

"The court holds to owning a firearm is a constitutional right. Upon birth each child should be assigned a rifle or shotgun and upon turning 21 then they can buy a handgun. Therefore this law is unconstitutional and should be remove from the books. Kathy can get fukt"

[Future240]

So I saw the article and thought to myself, its huffpost so they are probably making it sound worse than what he sa---nope he went there.

“We do have a gun violence problem in this country, and it’s gang violence.” Masters told “The Jeff Oravits Show” podcast in April in comments that were spotted this week by The Daily Beast. “It’s people in Chicago, St. Louis shooting each other. Very often, you know, Black people, frankly,” Masters said. “And the Democrats don’t want to do anything about that.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/blake...b016c4eefaddcb


I will point to a reddit comment I read

Okay so let's say for the sake of this bad faith argument that gun violence is statistically more pervasive among a particular ethnic/religious community. How on earth is that an argument to ignore the problem?

Statistically, the opioid/heroin epidemic has killed white Americans at a far higher rate than any other group. What if during his presidency Obama had made a statement that the opioid/heroin epidemic was a "white people issue" and that "it's the responsibility of white community leaders to fix this problem"?

Of course he would have faced backlash, because functioning democracies don't choose to solve or ignore crises based on the ethnic or racial make-up of the victims.

[KA24DESOneThree]

It's not just the AR-15 age limit, it's microstamping and expanded red flag laws.

Microstamping is why you can't get anything later than a Gen 3 Glock in California unless you buy an ex-LEO gun. It traces back to the lawful purchaser, which may be helpful if a thief left fingerprints at a theft scene, commits a crime where they discharge the weapon and leave the brass, and are found with the weapon on them at time of arrest.

However, given the ability of kids to turn a run-of-the-mill G17 into a G18 replica, it's entirely likely that anyone would just hop on a site and order a factory replacement firing pin with no microstamping.

My guess is that the gun owner advocate groups are treading carefully right now. The media is keeping up an onslaught of mass shooting coverage despite it being typical for the areas that experience high crime.

We keep moving away from facts as a nation and the best way to ensure our feelings don't get in the way is to keep our politicians based in fact.

Originally Posted by collegekid

We have a "Disinformation Governance Board" and I already don't trust them.

had. they realized it was too 1984

Originally Posted by feito

lol, same talking points must have been used against machine guns before they were unconstitutionally banned, now against semi auto rifle, next will be handguns. Give an inch, take a mile, similarly as we've seen with homosexuality and how they are now forcing their mental illness into public education, they'll soon be looking for a complete disarmament. gtfoh
Nope, gun laws are over restricted as they are already. Keep digging deeper for the real problem. This wasnt a problem before with similar or even more laxed gun laws.
Funny how these shootings always seem to benefit the left's agenda when they already have bills on the table ha?
Oh btw, fjb.

^ indeed. they've done a wonderful job of lousing things up. they are very competent failures.

[nick_d_240sx]

But it's true. Scream racist all you want, doesn't change the fact.

That useless gun law won't do a damn thing about gun crime. But hey, you did something right? And banning body armor?

The Red Flag law in New York will be expanded to allow more people, including health-care professionals, to file risk orders that could lead to weapons confiscations from potentially dangerous people. And it requires, rather than allows, law enforcement to seek an order if credible information is provided.

Semi-automatic rifles, which already difficult to obtain in New York, will added to the list to the weapons requiring a permit and will only be available to those over age 21.

Another bill would ban the sale of body armor to people outside law enforcement or other state-designated professions, and it will add microstamping to bullets ? which can better trace their origin. Social media companies will be required to improve their policies around how they respond to hateful conduct on their platforms, as well as ?maintain easily accessible mechanisms? for the public to report people.

?We will be ready to defend these laws against challenges,? Attorney General Tish James said at the news conference with Hochul and other Democratic leaders.

It's the equivalent to throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks.

Supreme Court appears likely to void New York's gun permit law

[feito]

lol, same talking points must have been used against machine guns before they were unconstitutionally banned, now against semi auto rifle, next will be handguns. Give an inch, take a mile, similarly as we've seen with homosexuality and how they are now forcing their mental illness into public education, they'll soon be looking for a complete disarmament. gtfoh
Nope, gun laws are over restricted as they are already. Keep digging deeper for the real problem. This wasnt a problem before with similar or even more laxed gun laws.
Funny how these shootings always seem to benefit the left's agenda when they already have bills on the table ha?
Oh btw, fjb.

[KA24DESOneThree]

who hurt you

[Ichi-Go]

It should be illegal to drive cars over 20 years on public roads.

Why should the public be paying for the roads so cars with inferior emissions and safety equipment put everybody at risk?

Look at the automobile deaths previously posted. Crumple zones, autotensioning seatbelts, side airbags have come a long way in the last couple decades.

There is no right to drive an old car. If you want to participate in society just buy a safe car like a civilized person. Obviously no one is saying we should be forced to get rid of our cars. You could still tow it behind a modern safe truck to car shows and track events.

[BOROSUN]

Originally Posted by Ichi-Go

It should be illegal to drive cars over 20 years on public roads.

Why should the public be paying for the roads so cars with inferior emissions and safety equipment put everybody at risk?

Look at the automobile deaths previously posted. Crumple zones, autotensioning seatbelts, side airbags have come a long way in the last couple decades.

There is no right to drive an old car. If you want to participate in society just buy a safe car like a civilized person. Obviously no one is saying we should be forced to get rid of our cars. You could still tow it behind a modern safe truck to car shows and track events.

i classified my car as a weapon. So, its under the 2nd. fJB

also the ...10th

[KA24DESOneThree]

The "Protecting Our Kids Act" proved that gun control is about control and not about truly protecting children.

A step too far and now I'm back to where I was- no compromise until there's good faith movement on the government's behalf regarding addressing the root psychological causes of spree shootings and violence in areas with high poverty incidence.

Also loving the idea that people are seeing the current administration trying to repair ties with an anti-freedom, violent group of petrothugs in Saudi Arabia. I understand that geopolitics is a nuanced field but goddamn, MBS is a piece of shit.

$5/gallon gas in 2008 is the same as $6.79 gas now. The only difference is that, adjusted for inflation, a barrel of WTI crude was $190 back then versus ~$120 today.

[Future240]

Even if not true I bet 5.56 will still go up

https://www.newsweek.com/white-house...ilians-1717433

[KA24DESOneThree]

It wouldn't be beyond this administration to use the Defense Production Act to do something like that.

It feels like it wouldn't be beyond any modern administration.

[Phlip]

So where I live, next to I-40 there is a women's clinic (you know what that means) right next to a takeout joint that HAPPENS to have the best damned wings on this side of town. This is less tan a mile and a half from where I live. The parking lot to the clinic is privately-only accessible via a secured fence for a reason. With that said, I have become used to having to deal with pictures of purportedly aborted fetuses when I was really only trying to cop ten chicken wings and a small fried rice.
These bitches tend to REALLY turn the shit up on Saturdays. When I shake my birthday party hangover and clean up my crib Saturday afternoon, I may try to go and get pics.

[biasword]

can we just admit already that the US is simply too large (landmass and population) for 1 unifying federal government?

i have no idea what to do with that information, but clearly is the problem

[Phlip]

Americans are in an abusive relationship with their own government and can't leave.

[Future240]

Further proof some republicans are no longer "conservative"

An elected leader wanting the church to leader the government. She must forget there is more than one religion. I bet she'd be one of the first ones to bitch if a islamic majority took over and tried to ban pork.

https://www.newsweek.com/lauren-boeb...lorado-1719760

[CrimsonRockett]

Originally Posted by Future240

Further proof some republicans are no longer "conservative"

An elected leader wanting the church to leader the government. She must forget there is more than one religion. I bet she'd be one of the first ones to bitch if a islamic majority took over and tried to ban pork.

https://www.newsweek.com/lauren-boeb...lorado-1719760

My brother and I randomly drove through her current home town of Rifle, CO while on our way to Steamboat Springs. A town with roughly 10,000 residents and hours between their next major city. 88% white population. The amount of signs plastered all over for her was the immediate red flag.

These people need to mind their own business. I don't see them lining up at adoption centers or taking in foster kids in waves.

[feito]

Meh, i lean right, not on this topic thou. Im actually quite on the opposite side, there should be a clinic on every corner of the projects, damn irresponsible poors reproduce like rabbits and nothing good ever comes out of it. You can't have your cake and eat it too thou....

[KA24DESOneThree]

^ this comment right here, officers

[feito]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

^ this comment right here, officers

lol, u need a rape whistle there buddy? lol, that is, for when the truth hurts you... i mean, im on your side on this, arent i? the poor want to abort? by all means please!! unfurtunately, i know it aint the poor and stupid who take the most advantage of that freedom, why would they say NO to an extra free check...
some idiot neg repped me for my previous comment acusing me of being racist being that i didnt even mentioned race in my comment xD they read "projects" and "poors" and their little brains automatically make assumtions i guess. oh the irony, then again, he/she/they (xD) probably voted for that "if you dont vote for me you aint black" and "poor kids are just as bright as white kids" babbling idiot. how we let that racist pedophile with dimentia ever get elected and how there are actually some idiots out there who support him is well beyond me

[KA24DESOneThree]

You're not on my side. Being pro-choice for classist ideals isn't the same as being pro-choice for bodily autonomy ideals.

Government is a public service and as such should provide value. It's providing the most value to the wealthy- it keeps them safe, its method of economy is biased toward leveraging wealth to create more wealth, its system of providing a redress of grievances is biased toward wealth.

It's providing little value to the poor- they're born to poor parents, subjected to poor living conditions, go to poor schools, work at jobs that keep them poor, deal with a legal system that's biased against the poor. It's layers of poor on the bottom, and to get to the top you have to frogger your way from layer to layer while tired, while experiencing either daily trauma or some form of trauma response, while hungry or without proper nutrition, without access to the same services that kids in wealthier neighborhoods have access to, with higher incidence of health problems due to polluted water or air.

A government's expenses are less if you handle the costs up front rather than later on- assisting parents during those first eighteen years can mean the government is off the hook afterward, and usually sees a positive ROI.

Our system, if you can call a loose conglomeration of bad science, graft, good intentions, and lip service that, could be overhauled. It's possible. But it requires a level of thoughtfulness and expertise that is not currently possible. A level of societal cohesion that's not currently possible. Your comments are proof.

[feito]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

Your comments are proof.

Are our president's COMMENTS proof of it too and do you condemn him for it? Im guessing you dont support him either, right?