Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[highfigh]

Steve, I don't think we're that far apart in how we regard firearms. It's the fine details that separate us. Maybe it's the lower level of gun violence up here, but I refuse to worry about the boogie man around the corner. Regardless, I shall bow out of this discussion, as I don't see anything productive coming from my participation.

Since your world is so different from the places in the US where so many shootings occur (and you can bet that most of us wish the US was as peaceful), read the Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee and other newspapers online. Don't just look at the shootings- most are committed between criminals and people who know each other but the vast majority have had several instances of contact with law enforcement. Instead, look at the car-jackings, armed robberies, home invasions, PO'd former employees going back to their former place of work, etc.

 

[psbfan9]

Since criminals have ignored laws since the beginning of time.
What new law would criminals suddenly follow?

Ever heard of Australia? What about Brazil? They both had sharp decreases in rates of firearm deaths immediately following the implementation of gun reform.

Laws against rape, murder, and theft, are rarely followed by rapists, murderers, and thieves, but the fact that such people exist in society is the reason behind such regulations.

If we were to accept that a law is justified only if it has a 100% compliance rate then we could systematically dismantle every existing law until nothing remains. Laws against murder, rape, and theft would be abandoned out of fear that criminals wouldn’t follow them, and that they would thus hurt law-abiding citizens who ostensibly murder, rape, and thieve out of self-defense.

To think that the inconvenience of gun reforms such as background checks, waiting periods, and assault weapon bans is more burdensome than the death of thousands of innocent civilians each year reflects an odd sense of what matters in the world.

Below is an excerpt from J.Ludwig's paper about gun control and violence: Which you can read here

“even imperfect efforts to restrict gun availability to high-risk people can reduce illegal gun use on the margin, even if these regulatory barriers can be overcome in a number of ways by those who are determined to obtain a gun.”

 

[Chu Gai]

I have no problems with background checks and waiting periods. Has Ludwig ever commented upon some of the information, culled from various sources, here? But really, that s&!@hole Brazil?

 

[KEW]

You might consider that if you go looking for a study to "prove" something, you'll probably find what you're looking for. The reality is there's no 100% (or even 50%) reliable measure of how often firearms are used in self defense, because no one is really attempting to track it, nor are all incidents reported.

Aside from the lack of reliable statistics on the subject,

I am kind of changing subjects, but why do you think the NRA lobbied so hard (successfully) to get CDC studies of gun violence banned?

There is something insidious about it being made illegal to research one of the significant causes of deaths in this country.
I guess the cigarette companies missed the boat because they didn't get research involving cigarettes and second-hand smoke banned before it was too late.

 

[Steve81]

I am kind of changing subjects, but why do you think the NRA lobbied so hard (successfully) to get CDC studies of gun violence banned?

Fear of their motives, and a desire to avoid opening up a debate on firearms as a public health issue presumably.

There is something insidious about it being made illegal to research one of the significant causes of deaths in this country.

As I understand it, it wasn't a matter of law so much as funding. Obviously some research has happened by other agencies and interested 3rd parties, and the FBI releases raw data on violent crime.

 

[KEW]

As I understand it, it wasn't a matter of law so much as funding. Obviously some research has happened by other agencies and interested 3rd parties, and the FBI releases raw data on violent crime.

Here is a fairly thorough account of why CDC is not researching gun violence:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

 

[KEW]

Fear of their motives, and a desire to avoid opening up a debate on firearms as a public health issue presumably.

The motive of the CDC is to reduce deaths.
Bingo on avoiding a debate on firearms as a public health issue!

 

[Chu Gai]

The motive of the CDC is to reduce deaths.
Bingo on avoiding a debate on firearms as a public health issue!

That's oversimplistic, Kurt. Here is the CDC's mission statement. On the role of guns in society, this is an issue which they may not have sufficient expertise in when it comes to evaluating data. That is because they are not the ones conducting empirical research where they design experiments or studies that are capable of teasing out the root causes of something like this.

Correlation is not causation. Just because I can find a positive or negative relationship between two things does not inherently mean that one is influencing or responsible for the other. That's oversimplistic but that's what websites, reporters, and politicians do. Now, psbfan made mention that taking guns off the streets in Australia resulted in fewer deaths. Now, even simplistically, I think it would be hard to argue against the premise that if there were truly 0 guns there would be 0 deaths from guns. But a good question to ask would be whether death rates were already declining prior to any buy-backs. Anyone who has read Freakonomics would come to understand that it takes a lot of work and sophisticated data analysis to answer questions.

From this link, I direct your attention to Footnote No. 9 which I quote in its entirety.

9 The CDC study examined gun and ammunition bans, waiting periods, background checks, lock-up your safety laws, plus much more. The inescapable conclusion was that the "evidence was insufficient" to show that such gun restrictions reduced crime rates. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Early Childhood Home Visitation and Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (October 3, 2003), vol. 52(No. RR-14):14-18.] It should be noted that Dr. John’s Lott research—made widely available in More Guns, Less Crime (see supra note 4)—was part of the data examined by the CDC. The agency concluded there was no evidence to support the idea that "shall issue" carry laws reduce crime. Despite the agency’s vote of no confidence in Lott’s data, his research has been verified by other independent works, such as the one published in the Stanford Law Review. [Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, "Confirming ‘More Guns, Less Crime,’" Stanford Law Review (April 16, 2003), vol. 55:1313.]
This law review article by Plassmann and Whitley cites several other studies showing that concealed carry laws have made a positive impact on crime rates—in some cases, finding benefits much greater than what was reported in Lott’s research. Those studies include the following: William Alan Bartley & Mark A. Cohen, The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis, 36 ECON. INQUIRY 258, 258-65 (1998); Stephen G. Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Laws, AM. ECON. REV., May 1998, at 475-79; John R. Lott, Jr. & John E. Whitley, Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime, 44 J.L. & ECON. 659, 659-89 (2001); Tomas B. Marvell, The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession, 44 J.L. & ECON. 691, 691-714 (2001); Carlisle E. Moody, Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness, 44 J.L. & ECON. 799, 799-813 (2001); David B. Mustard, The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths, 44 J.L. & ECON. 635, 635-58 (2001); David E. Olson & Michael D. Maltz, Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships, 44 J.L. & ECON. 747, 747-70 (2001); Florenz Plassmann & T. Nicolaus Tideman, Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say, 44 J.L. & ECON. 771, 771-98 (2001); Eric Helland & Alexander Tabarrok, Using Placebo Laws to Test "More Guns, Less Crime": A Note (Univ. of Chi. Graduate Sch. of Bus., Working Paper, 2002).

So, we can see where the CDC took a stab at this but their null conclusion appears at odds with numerous studies that employed principles of economic data analysis.

 

[Rickster71]

Ever heard of Australia? What about Brazil? They both had sharp decreases in rates of firearm deaths immediately following the implementation of gun reform.

Laws against rape, murder, and theft, are rarely followed by rapists, murderers, and thieves, but the fact that such people exist in society is the reason behind such regulations.

If we were to accept that a law is justified only if it has a 100% compliance rate then we could systematically dismantle every existing law until nothing remains. Laws against murder, rape, and theft would be abandoned out of fear that criminals wouldn’t follow them, and that they would thus hurt law-abiding citizens who ostensibly murder, rape, and thieve out of self-defense.

To think that the inconvenience of gun reforms such as background checks, waiting periods, and assault weapon bans is more burdensome than the death of thousands of innocent civilians each year reflects an odd sense of what matters in the world.

Below is an excerpt from J.Ludwig's paper about gun control and violence: Which you can read here

“even imperfect efforts to restrict gun availability to high-risk people can reduce illegal gun use on the margin, even if these regulatory barriers can be overcome in a number of ways by those who are determined to obtain a gun.”

I understand that you're very emotional / passionate about the subject. It's a horrible thing to lose a friend in Orlando as you did and as my wife and I did on Sept 11th 2001.

I don't have any problem with the existing laws being enforced.... never have.

I've heard of Australia......
That country has a tiny population compared to the USA, 318,892,103 vs 22,507,617.
Their "Murder" rate has not gone down, only the inanimate object used to kill has changed.
Australia's 92% White and 7% Asian demographics are no where as diverse as in the USA..

You mentioned, "Laws against rape, murder, and theft, are rarely followed by rapists, murderers, and thieves"
I agree and you've made my point for me.
New laws are just Feel Good laws.
They are demanded by people in an emotional state and are implemented by a desperate Government that's trying to coverup the fact it's ineffective against terrorism.

 

[Chu Gai]

The gov't is ineffective against a lot of things with the exception of striving to get reelected.

 

[Rickster71]

Well, if Mateen shouldn't have had access for firearms, you definitely shouldn't have access to a death ray.

If I may add to the list.
Alex shouldn't have access to any cake, pie, ice cream.... or chocolate in any form.

 

[GO-NAD!]

If I may add to the list.
Alex shouldn't have access to any cake, pie, ice cream.... or chocolate in any form.

And, never, ever let him get wet...

 

[herbu]

You took that out of context. More, and not unexpected, filth from the extreme right.

1. "Out of context"? Your video proves it was exactly in context.
2. "filth from the extreme right"? I am sorry for you my friend.

The conservatives here have taken 2 positions:
A. If there is a problem that needs to be addressed and the majority of perpetrators have something in common, it makes sense to look at that commonality.
B. "Criminal control" would be far more effective than "gun control".

A. In my experience, whether the problem is murder, drugs, immigration, education, the economy or what have you, it is the "extreme" left that always finds the commonality and fault is the Republicans. I have yet to see them agree the fault lies with the bad actors. The bad guys were made that way through no fault of their own, due to the policies of the Republicans. That is incredible to me.

B. As long as you coddle and make excuses for the lawbreakers, they will continue to break the law. The left is already making excuses for that evil sob in Orlando. If you commit a crime with a firearm there should be a mandatory looong prison sentence. No parole. If you kill someone illegally with a firearm, you're put away for ever. Period. You can never stop insane people. But making a national issue of one instance and ignoring the same losses every week in our cities is confusing to me. Why are we lenient with the laws we have, yet so eager for new laws?

Do you really believe conservatives, (half the population), are dirty, rotten, evil, stupid bastards?

 

[herbu]

Oh Canada!!! So this is what you do when you can't get a gun?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/21/axe-throwing-club-wants-liquor-license.html

 

[Steve81]

Well, I've had my fill on this topic, but I'll leave with a few thoughts.

The motive of the CDC is to reduce deaths.

Unfortunately it's never that simple. The NRA would argue they're fighting to reduce the deaths of innocent people as well. Simply reporting hard data ala the FBI is one thing, but interpreting that data is always prone to bias with such a divisive topic (and that applies to the NRA as well). Going back to the Harvard studies that GO-NAD linked to, one of the items was how in a survey of 5800 12-17 year-olds in California, they found that more adolescents were threatened by a firearm than used one in self defense. Maybe that seems alarming, but it should hardly be surprising given that 12-17 year-olds aren't supposed to own firearms or carry them in the streets for personal protection. One should always have some grains of salt ready given the old saying of "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Given that the CDC is the "Centers For Disease Control & Prevention" and not "The Centers For Violence Control & Prevention", it's not altogether surprising that the NRA would question their motives for expanding from studying bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens (or cigarettes, which cause/contribute to a multitude of diseases) to firearms.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Oh Canada!!! So this is what you do when you can't get a gun?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/21/axe-throwing-club-wants-liquor-license.html

Well, Americans can still get the real thing, even if they can't get the emoji.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/rifle-emoji-dropped-unicode-9-0-update-apple-microsoft-1.3645884

 

[Chu Gai]

As many have undoubtably seen or heard, members of Congess are having a sit-in on the house floor in protest concerning the passage of gun legislation. Leaving aside matters of motivation, I direct you to this link.

Now look carefully at the pictures. In particular, look at the pictures of the various foods that have been brought in. See it? No? As the First Lady speaks to the obesity of the country and champions healthy eating choices, where is the outrage over what they're eating? Candy, pizza, donuts, sundry hot trays, none of which you'll ever see in public schools. I'll bet some of these porkers even voted or are in accord with the healthy eating mandates. Good for thee but not for me?

 

[psbfan9]

1. "Out of context"? Your video proves it was exactly in context.
2. "filth from the extreme right"? I am sorry for you my friend.

The conservatives here have taken 2 positions:
A. If there is a problem that needs to be addressed and the majority of perpetrators have something in common, it makes sense to look at that commonality.
B. "Criminal control" would be far more effective than "gun control".

A. In my experience, whether the problem is murder, drugs, immigration, education, the economy or what have you, it is the "extreme" left that always finds the commonality and fault is the Republicans. I have yet to see them agree the fault lies with the bad actors. The bad guys were made that way through no fault of their own, due to the policies of the Republicans. That is incredible to me.

B. As long as you coddle and make excuses for the lawbreakers, they will continue to break the law. The left is already making excuses for that evil sob in Orlando. If you commit a crime with a firearm there should be a mandatory looong prison sentence. No parole. If you kill someone illegally with a firearm, you're put away for ever. Period. You can never stop insane people. But making a national issue of one instance and ignoring the same losses every week in our cities is confusing to me. Why are we lenient with the laws we have, yet so eager for new laws?

Do you really believe conservatives, (half the population), are dirty, rotten, evil, stupid bastards?

Again, as usual, you're wrong.
She was speaking to how we should deal with the aftermath of terror. In particular, this tragedy. Anyone not trying to twist or politicize her words can see that. Well most anyone.

“We stand with you to say that the good in this world far outweighs the evil, that our common humanity transcends our differences, and that our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love,” Lynch said. “We stand with you today as we grieve together, and long after the cameras are gone, we will continue to stand with you as we grow together in commitment, in solidarity, and in equality.”

As you and others on the right refuse to see this was terror brought by a mentally ill individual who was a self loathing closeted gay man. Who a few months ago pledged alliance to an enemy of isis.
You, yourself have made disparaging remarks about gays on this forum. And that is what she was talking about when she referenced "love and unity".
I understand your an elderly southern 'gentleman' and certain freedoms are hard for you to understand because the world is progressing too fast for you to keep up, but that's the way it is.


"Do you really believe conservatives, (half the population), are dirty, rotten, evil, stupid bastards?"

This is unworthy of an answer. You, you, are the one that constantly makes references to 'libs' in derogatory tones. So I can ask you the same question about 'libs'.

 

[Chu Gai]

He may have been gay, maybe even bisexual which for a Muslim who has a father and probably more loathing of homosexuality presented a troubling dilemma for Mateen. Yet to think his faith does not play a role is mistaken IMO.

 

[lsiberian]

Do you really believe conservatives, (half the population), are dirty, rotten, evil, stupid bastards?

To be fair Conservatives have a poor track record.
It was conservatives that started the Drug War with the sole purpose of destroying black communities(Nixon). It was conservatives that doubled down on the Drug War in the 90s(Bush and Clinton) with absurd mandatory minimums further destorying minorities. It was conservatives who got us involved in Iraq and mismanaged the situation horribly creating the angry groups we are dealing with now(Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.). They also failed to stop the biggest terror attack in US History.(Bush Jr.) Conservatives created the situation that brought us ISIS(Bush Jr.). Conservatives are the one who create voter ID laws and close driver's license office in black communities(Alabama). Conservatives are the ones who sentence black men to longer sentences than whites. Conservatives have really wrecked a lot of things.

Of course Liberals have their own list of stupid failures. Obamacare(You just made it cost more), Social Security(Gonna run dry before I retire), Social Assistance(Hard to get on and stay on if you want to improve your life), Student Loans(Caused Tuition prices to go through the roof), FHA(Caused Home prices to increase too much), Socialism of any kind(this never works unless your in Germany).

You see I'm screwed in my own country because I get to choose between the folks that created ISIS or Socialists. Where is the reasonable person? Why can't we have a reasonable candidate? I seriously get to choose between a failed business man who acts like a bafoon or a women who puts the C in Corruption and wants us to ban violent video games which have been shown to reduce violence FWIW.

FWIW I'm a moderate and have always tried to vote for who I thought was the best person for the job. I do typically lean conservative, but I tire of the false information used to prop up unreasonable positions on either side of the isle.

The NRA shouldn't be writing our gun control policies. We simply need reasonable measures that make sense. I think regulating guns like cars makes the most sense. Guns are as dangerous as cars and should be treated like them IMO, but each community obviously needs different laws. New York laws would never work out here for farmers who need firearms to protect their livestock and farm land.