Beto O’Rourke interrupts briefing, echoing US debate on guns

[Bradskii]

And now you see what the problem is with what you thought was such a good idea when you suggested it in your post.

But that determination is next to worthless.

 

[wing2000]

Who knows...he does strike me as sort of an "attention-getter", but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was possibly sincere.

The issue is that both sides use these types of events to score political points or as an opportunity to trot out their narrative, so it's tough to tell.

Yes, both sides do. For example, normally after such events, law enforcement spokes people give the press briefings...not the governor of the state.

 

[cow451]

Fortunately consistently not doing the wrong thing is a strategy of the entire right. The left should try it a few times.

Doing nothing is a "wrong" strategy.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Doing nothing is a "wrong" strategy.

It is, but in some cases doing nothing is "less wrong" than the "something" some parties want to do.

On the topic of school shootings, in my opinion, "nothing" is probably better than 80% of the proposals I've heard.

One side is proposing measures that are largely rooted in optics, have been shot down a million times, likely wouldn't pass court muster, and wouldn't solve the problem.

The other side is tossing out ideas like "let's arm the public school teachers" (after just getting done demonizing teachers as "agents of the leftist mob" and implying that they're "indoctrinating kids with the woke agenda")

 

[ThatRobGuy]

O'Roake has always seemed like an attention-seeker. His race for governor didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. His presidential campaign seemed to presume that Democrats were so desperate they would just get behind anybody with a pulse.

He is very much a "sound bytes" kind of guy. His moment in the sun was saying "hell yes we're going to take your AR15's" (to attempt get a pop from a democratic crowd in a primary debate), while forgetting that not every democratic voter shares that position.

He makes the mistake that a lot of politicians make that I've harped on, which is "playing to the crowd you already have" instead of "playing to the crowd you want to get"

 

[Bradskii]

He makes the mistake that a lot of politicians make that I've harped on, which is "playing to the crowd you already have" instead of "playing to the crowd you want to get"

That I like.

 

[cow451]

It is, but in some cases doing nothing is "less wrong" than the "something" some parties want to do.

On the topic of school shootings, in my opinion, "nothing" is probably better than 80% of the proposals I've heard.

One side is proposing measures that are largely rooted in optics, have been shot down a million times, likely wouldn't pass court muster, and wouldn't solve the problem.

The other side is tossing out ideas like "let's arm the public school teachers" (after just getting done demonizing teachers as "agents of the leftist mob" and implying that they're "indoctrinating kids with the woke agenda")

I rest my case.

 

[disciple Clint]

Doing nothing is a "wrong" strategy.

Not fixing what is not broken is in fact a very good strategy, if the liberals have not proven anything else they have certainly proven the disastrous results of fixing what was working perfectly well.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I rest my case.

Is there particular politician or pundit that's tossed out an idea or proposal that you've thought was a "good strategy" (as in, better than doing nothing at all and actually viable)?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not fixing what is not broken is in fact a very good strategy, if the liberals have not proven anything else they have certainly proven the disastrous results of fixing what was working perfectly well.

On the topic of gun violence...I don't think I'd necessarily agree with your assessment that things are "not broken"

Just the numbers on gun deaths and gun violence, alone, in the US (when compared to other developed westernized countries) shows that there's clearly something that needs to be improved.

If everything was working perfectly well, our numbers would be more closely in-line with theirs (even ones that are more gun-friendly like Switzerland and Czech Republic).

It's just that the proposals & responses that have been tossed out are things like the following -

From the Left:
A) optics driven (ban the scary looking guns people have seen in movies)
B) based on outcomes of other nations that don't share the same culture and history with guns (IE: let's do what the UK and Australia did)

From the Right:
A) shifting the focus to mental health, then offering no solutions to address mental health (and in some cases, rejecting measures that would increase mental health access via public spending)
B) suggesting that we should arm teachers (who don't want that)


From Both:
A) Generic platitudes like "Even one is too many" or "Offering Thoughts and Prayers"
B) Accusing the other side of "using a tragedy to promote a political agenda" (while simultaneously doing that very thing, themselves.

 

[Bradskii]

On the topic of gun violence...I don't think I'd necessarily agree with your assessment that things are "not broken"

Just the numbers on gun deaths and gun violence, alone, in the US (when compared to other developed westernized countries) shows that there's clearly something that needs to be improved.

If everything was working perfectly well, our numbers would be more closely in-line with theirs (even ones that are more gun-friendly like Switzerland and Czech Republic).

It's just that the proposals & responses that have been tossed out are things like the following -

From the Left:
A) optics driven (ban the scary looking guns people have seen in movies)
B) based on outcomes of other nations that don't share the same culture and history with guns (IE: let's do what the UK and Australia did)

From the Right:
A) shifting the focus to mental health, then offering no solutions to address mental health (and in some cases, rejecting measures that would increase mental health access via public spending)
B) making suggesting


From Both:
A) Generic platitudes like "Even one is too many" or "Offering Thoughts and Prayers"
B) Accusing the other side of "using a tragedy to promote a political agenda" (while simultaneously doing that very thing, themselves.

Forget about banning guns. Let people have whatever they want. You want an anti-tank gun? A bazooka? A surface to air missile launcher? Who cares? Just make sure that they are only used in certain circumstances. And you have to make sure that whoever is buying them is a fit person to own one.

I thought it was agreed that those with guns should be 'well regulated'.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Forget about banning guns. Let people have whatever they want. You want an anti-tank gun? A bazooka? A surface to air missile launcher? Who cares? Just make sure that they are only used in certain circumstances. And you have to make sure that whoever is buying them is a fit person to own one.

I thought it was agreed that those with guns should be 'well regulated'.

Obviously some of the things you describe are "quasi-unavailable" due to cost aspects...

But the position you describe somewhat resembles the policy of the Czech Republic with regards to "type of firearm" and "where you can have it"

Gun law in the Czech Republic - Wikipedia

They have concealed carry
They allow you to own an AR-15 (the link I posted shows a Prague gun store where a woman is shopping for one)
They don't have "gun free zones" in the way we have them

But they put a lot of focus on upstream "quality assurance" we'll call it.

I think they've realized the pragmatic position that an AR-15 in the hands of a person who's been licensed, vetted by their doctor, and able to pass a written and practical test is safer than banning that platform, and letting almost anyone have a handgun (like what we do).

While Czech Republic is closer to our culture than Switzerland, this video from Switzerland is informative and humorous

Edit**
Had to remove the video because there was a "naughty word" in it, but if you go on youtube and put in
"Switzerland: So Many Guns, No Mass Shootings | The Daily Show"
...it should be the first result.

At the end of the day, that's really all that matters...is the person trained, are they sane, and do they have a good understanding of the object they're carrying around. I'm a lot less worried about about a well trained, competent AR-15 owner than I am a person who just bought a cheap 38 special revolver, but has next to no experience (or is possible suffering from some sort of mental condition)

I've mentioned more than once on CF that if the US is looking for a country to emulate (given our gun culture), it shouldn't be the UK, Australia, or Iceland...it should be the Czech Republic.

 

[disciple Clint]

On the topic of gun violence...I don't think I'd necessarily agree with your assessment that things are "not broken"

Just the numbers on gun deaths and gun violence, alone, in the US (when compared to other developed westernized countries) shows that there's clearly something that needs to be improved.

If everything was working perfectly well, our numbers would be more closely in-line with theirs (even ones that are more gun-friendly like Switzerland and Czech Republic).

It's just that the proposals & responses that have been tossed out are things like the following -

From the Left:
A) optics driven (ban the scary looking guns people have seen in movies)
B) based on outcomes of other nations that don't share the same culture and history with guns (IE: let's do what the UK and Australia did)

From the Right:
A) shifting the focus to mental health, then offering no solutions to address mental health (and in some cases, rejecting measures that would increase mental health access via public spending)
B) suggesting that we should arm teachers (who don't want that)


From Both:
A) Generic platitudes like "Even one is too many" or "Offering Thoughts and Prayers"
B) Accusing the other side of "using a tragedy to promote a political agenda" (while simultaneously doing that very thing, themselves.

The solution is simple stop blaming the gun and start enforcing laws that put violent people in prison where they belong. If gun law worked Chicago would have the lowest death by gun in the nation But that is not the case now is it?
As far as comparing our nation to other nations, other nations do not allow people to shoot people and end up back on the streets over and over and over again. Funny concept lock up the violent people and less people will be so quick to use violence to resolve disputes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The solution is simple stop blaming the gun and start enforcing laws that put violent people in prison where they belong.

We have a little thing called due process...which means that we can't just start preemptively locking people up if they haven't been convicted of a crime yet. In the case of many of the types of people who commit mass shootings, it's their first violent crime.

Unless you're suggesting that you're okay with red flag laws? (IE: if a school counselor says they noticed violent tendencies in a student when they were teen, we disqualify them from future purchases)

If gun law worked Chicago would have the lowest death by gun in the nation But that is not the case now is it?

Laws like that tend to only be effective pre-proliferation.

Which is why I'm not in favor of people proposing Chicago-style gun laws, as the effect will be very little once guns are already on the streets.

And it's fair to point out that gun laws are only as effective as the neighboring gun laws. For instance, one of the highest sources of guns recovered at crime scenes was a place called Westforth Sports in Gary Indiana.

I wouldn't expect strict gun laws to have much impact if lax gun laws are only a quarter tank of gas away

As far as comparing our nation to other nations, other nations do not allow people to shoot people and end up back on the streets over and over and over again.

Do you have any facts and figures about that?

Recidivism is certainly a problem, and I'm aware many who engage in some violent crimes often reengage in them upon release...but short of issuing a life sentence for every violent crime (which paints a wide brush), not sure how one would propose addressing that aspect.

For instance, a guy who goes into a convenient store, punches the clerk, and steals a bunch of stuff has engaged in a violent crime, but I don't know that we can start issuing life sentences for that.

Other nations also have a very different prison culture than we have with a greater focus on rehabilitation over punishment. Many here in the US who want to get "tough on crime" would probably turn their nose up at the Norwegian prison system.

 

[ottawak]

A) optics driven (ban the scary looking guns people have seen in movies)

The reasoning for this is pretty clear, even though it may be specious. It is clear that the single biggest barrier to any kind of gun law reform, sensible or otherwise is the group who demand the right to stockpile pretend army guns in secret from the government for potential use against it. It doesn't take much to make the leap that an easy way to disarm their objections is by disarming them. It wouldn't work, of course, but you can certainly see where that idea is coming from.

 

[disciple Clint]

We have a little thing called due process...which means that we can't just start preemptively locking people up if they haven't been convicted of a crime yet. In the case of many of the types of people who commit mass shootings, it's their first violent crime.

Unless you're suggesting that you're okay with red flag laws? (IE: if a school counselor says they noticed violent tendencies in a student when they were teen, we disqualify them from future purchases)



Laws like that tend to only be effective pre-proliferation.

Which is why I'm not in favor of people proposing Chicago-style gun laws, as the effect will be very little once guns are already on the streets.

And it's fair to point out that gun laws are only as effective as the neighboring gun laws. For instance, one of the highest sources of guns recovered at crime scenes was a place called Westforth Sports in Gary Indiana.

I wouldn't expect strict gun laws to have much impact if lax gun laws are only a quarter tank of gas away
View attachment 316525



Do you have any facts and figures about that?

Recidivism is certainly a problem, and I'm aware many who engage in some violent crimes often reengage in them upon release...but short of issuing a life sentence for every violent crime (which paints a wide brush), not sure how one would propose addressing that aspect.

For instance, a guy who goes into a convenient store, punches the clerk, and steals a bunch of stuff has engaged in a violent crime, but I don't know that we can start issuing life sentences for that.

Other nations also have a very different prison culture than we have with a greater focus on rehabilitation over punishment. Many here in the US who want to get "tough on crime" would probably turn their nose up at the Norwegian prison system.

If you are unable to look at Chicago and not understand that the reason we have gun violence is because we do not enforce our laws, I am not going to be able to help you the facts are obvious. Regarding red flag laws I think that properly written they could be helpful, however written with the intent of being able to abuse those laws in an effort to evade due process need to be considered and guarded against.

 

[Bradskii]

Regarding red flag laws I think that properly written they could be helpful, however written with the intent of being able to abuse those laws in an effort to evade due process need to be considered and guarded against.

Then be constructive. Tell us how they should be written in a way that will help.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you are unable to look at Chicago and not understand that the reason we have gun violence is because we do not enforce our laws, I am not going to be able to help you the facts are obvious. Regarding red flag laws I think that properly written they could be helpful, however written with the intent of being able to abuse those laws in an effort to evade due process need to be considered and guarded against.

Chicago is the "easy to cherry pick" example...not saying correlation equals causation, but it just seemed to conspicuously look like Chicago became the favorite target of the GOP (and the "see gun laws don't work" narratives) after Obama took office and people realized he was from there.

...and I'd be curious as to what laws they're not enforcing?

And it should be noted that while Chicago has some higher-end gross numbers (due to their large population size, they're 3rd place), when you adjust for per capita rates, they're actually not as high on the list as some people seem to think.

They're certainly not a "shining example" either, but they're far from being the most dangerous city in America.

Here are the top 15 cities with the highest murder rates (in order)

1. St. Louis, MO (69.4)
2. Baltimore, MD (51.1)
3. New Orleans, LA (40.6)
4. Detroit, MI (39.7)
5. Cleveland, OH (33.7)
6. Las Vegas, NV (31.4)
7. Kansas City, MO (31.2)
8. Memphis, TN (27.1)
9. Newark, NJ (25.6)
10. Chicago, IL (24)
11. Cincinnati, OH (23.8)
12. Philadelphia, PA (20.2)
13. Milwaukee, WI (20.0)
14. Tulsa, OK (18.6)
15. Pittsburgh, PA (18.4)

A lot of those cities are in "Red States", and a few even have republican mayors.

Are all 15 of these cities failing to enforce laws?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then be constructive. Tell us how they should be written in a way that will help.

Even when reasonable prescriptions are made for them, they often receive a ton of push-back, even when it's coming from a source they adore.

One of the few times I saw Trump's die hard base temporarily criticize and bash him was when he urged legislators to enact certain red flag laws, and when he talked about raising the AR-15 age from 18 to 21.

"Red flag" laws: Second Amendment advocates warn Trump about support for gun reform measure - CBS News

 

[disciple Clint]

Chicago is the "easy to cherry pick" example...not saying correlation equals causation, but it just seemed to conspicuously look like Chicago became the favorite target of the GOP (and the "see gun laws don't work" narratives) after Obama took office and people realized he was from there.

...and I'd be curious as to what laws they're not enforcing?

And it should be noted that while Chicago has some higher-end gross numbers (due to their large population size, they're 3rd place), when you adjust for per capita rates, they're actually not as high on the list as some people seem to think.

They're certainly not a "shining example" either, but they're far from being the most dangerous city in America.

Here are the top 15 cities with the highest murder rates (in order)

1. St. Louis, MO (69.4)
2. Baltimore, MD (51.1)
3. New Orleans, LA (40.6)
4. Detroit, MI (39.7)
5. Cleveland, OH (33.7)
6. Las Vegas, NV (31.4)
7. Kansas City, MO (31.2)
8. Memphis, TN (27.1)
9. Newark, NJ (25.6)
10. Chicago, IL (24)
11. Cincinnati, OH (23.8)
12. Philadelphia, PA (20.2)
13. Milwaukee, WI (20.0)
14. Tulsa, OK (18.6)
15. Pittsburgh, PA (18.4)

A lot of those cities are in "Red States", and a few even have republican mayors.

Are all 15 of these cities failing to enforce laws?

Well you have missed the point. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws of any city and yet it has done nothing to reduce gun deaths. the logical conclusion: gun laws do not reduce gun violence because criminals do not obey the law, that is about as simple as things can get and yet people keep trying to repeat a solution that has more than proven to have failed. When will people wake up and stop with the call for gun laws that do nothing to reduce deaths.