There is a very interesting article today in the Washington Post examining the exponential rise in sales and prominence of the AR-15 â the rise beginning in 2005.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 29, 2023 - 8:29am
kurtster wrote:
. . . The map that was posted below regarding the assault rifles ban looks different when you apply the above premise. The ban took effect in 1994 and lasted until 2004. Incidents still increased during the ban, showing little effect. Using the premise above regarding social media, the use of which grew exponentially since 2004, a much more meaningful correlation is applied. Guns as far as I know did not increase exponentially in the same time period. . . .
There is a very interesting article today in the Washington Post examining the exponential rise in sales and prominence of the AR-15 â the rise beginning in 2005.
bit of a thread jack here, but I agree that this black and white thinking is a big source of the problem. It looks to me like it is a product of your two-party system.
If you introduced some kind of proportional representation 90% of this bickering would disappear more or less overnight.
Thanks. Regarding your thought of a fix, I would rather see term limits imposed on Congress. 10 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. The person may serve in both for a total of 22 years.
This alone will break up the concentration of power. The parties will survive but the dynasties within the parties will end and with that the iron grip they hold on their respective party that stifles change and reinforces and rewards for towing the position required by these dynastic groups. It would go a long way to help restore trust in the legislative body. That people with bad ideas will only be around for so long as opposed to forever.
A current example of these dynastic forces at work is over Tik Tok. Not sure if you have followed all the brouhaha over here about it. In this instance all the dynasties on both sides have joined forces to take advantage of the situation to come up with a law to deal with it that makes the Patriot Act look harmless. They have inserted all kinds of things that transfers power and authority over to the bureaucracy including making up their own rules and definitions of what they are able to do. The premises for investigating individuals for suspect activities are vague and dubious, primed for political abuses of power. More freedoms are lost in the pursuit of "security" and "safety" with no redress.
This ties into the way guns and gun laws are in play over here. There is very little trust in those who have the power and ability to come up with a reasonable solution. And here we are.
And to one of Beaker's points, the Mother Jones article added another dimension to this conversation that is being ignored here, at least in this thread, is the role of social media in these mass shootings. I do not as a rule like MJ but this is a well thought out article.
The media faces a growing challenge in how its content is spread and recycled. When I asked various law enforcement and forensic psychology experts what might explain America’s rising tide of gun rampages, I heard the same two words over and over: social media. Although there is no definitive research yet, widespread anecdotal evidence suggests that the speed at which social media bombards us with memes and images exacerbates the copycat effect.
The map that was posted below regarding the assault rifles ban looks different when you apply the above premise. The ban took effect in 1994 and lasted until 2004. Incidents still increased during the ban, showing little effect. Using the premise above regarding social media, the use of which grew exponentially since 2004, a much more meaningful correlation is applied. Guns as far as I know did not increase exponentially in the same time period. Who is in control of the social media in general ? It's a rhetorical question. It sure isn't the right.
. islander wrote:
If only there were a way to look at available data, and maybe present it in a way that visually made sense. Then it might be easier to see the impact. Of course, we can't account for every possibility, so why do we even have laws? Why don't we all just arm ourselves to the teeth and take out anyone we disagree with? It would all be so much more simple.
They control everyone by the virtue of the power they hold and are able to execute over the population. They control you, as a loyal party voter. Its D, right or wrong. Not to ignore it works the same way on this side. However the democratic party is more centralized, organized and more monolithic as voters than any other party, imo.
What unwarranted assumptions ? That the organized left really wants guns confiscated and is only pretending to be open to compromises ?
bit of a thread jack here, but I agree that this black and white thinking is a big source of the problem. It looks to me like it is a product of your two-party system. If you introduced some kind of proportional representation 90% of this bickering would disappear more or less overnight.
Yeah, it's one of those purple dots of that era. I lived in the area at the time and went to a neighboring school ~ a decade earlier, so I knew people in that community and got to see how shocking an event that was.
The point you were trying to make is the ban had no effect. The graph I posted (borrowed from much further downthread) showed that it did have an effect. But now you will argue that it was imperfect, so it was pointless.
So. You now presume - incorrectly - to know what point I was trying to make, and further what I will next argue. I know you're a smart guy, but jesus open your eyes already.
Which part of the embedded Tweet with links to two different stories and "How the Media Inspires Mass Shooters" did you not understand?
islander wrote:
I'll point out that we now have people who have survived multiple school shootings. We have reporters covering shootings that bring up trauma of the shooting they experienced in school.
We will never agree. I'll never understand how you and so many others can have a total lack of empathy to justify your need for a gun (and I even support you having a gun, I just want some pretty basic rules around when and how you have it, and heaps of responsibility and LIABILITY to go along with it).
Once again, you presume to know how I think. You obviously have your mind made up - on many things here. You are right on one thing though - it's very unlikely that you and I will ever agree on something.
I'm sure you recall the Columbine tragedy was in 1999.
Yeah, it's one of those purple dots of that era. I lived in the area at the time and went to a neighboring school ~ a decade earlier, so I knew people in that community and got to see how shocking an event that was.
The point you were trying to make is the ban had no effect. The graph I posted (borrowed from much further downthread) showed that it did have an effect. But now you will argue that it was imperfect, so it was pointless.
I'll point out that we now have people who have survived multiple school shootings. We have reporters covering shootings that bring up trauma of the shooting they experienced in school.
We will never agree. I'll never understand how you and so many others can have a total lack of empathy to justify your need for a gun (and I even support you having a gun, I just want some pretty basic rules around when and how you have it, and heaps of responsibility and LIABILITY to go along with it).
If only there were a way to look at available data, and maybe present it in a way that visually made sense. Then it might be easier to see the impact. Of course, we can't account for every possibility, so why do we even have laws? Why don't we all just arm ourselves to the teeth and take out anyone we disagree with? It would all be so much more simple.
If only there were a way to look at available data, and maybe present it in a way that visually made sense. Then it might be easier to see the impact. Of course, we can't account for every possibility, so why do we even have laws? Why don't we all just arm ourselves to the teeth and take out anyone we disagree with? It would all be so much more simple.
I don't know anyone on the left in America that thinks confiscating guns is a realistic possibility
You say the democrats are unwilling to compromise but when any compromise proposal like banning a certain class or style of gun or banning large magazines comes up the right shouts "Slippery Slope!" and shoots it down (see what I did there)
The Democratic party is not looking to confiscate guns. Pushing that policy would be political suicide. It would also face oceans of legal challenges.
Democratic party leaders and voters want to ban sales of assault-style weapons like AR-15s. AFAIK there is no serious proposal to confiscate assault-style weapons that citizens legally own.
Kurtster wrote: "However the democratic party is more centralized, organized and more monolithic as voters than any other party, imo."
Wow. No. The Democratic party is a hodgepodge of groups loosely and sporadically allied. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are good points of evidence that the party is not monolithic in leadership or in voter support.
Nor do licensed gun shops here. Some do care, of course, perhaps most of them. But locally, if you're not drunk to the point of incoherence, you're a customer. I've told this story before but a friend's brother successfully bought and used a pistol on himself despite the family, the girlfriend, and the guy's shrink calling the gun shop the brother was known to frequent and said "he's in crisis; we've taken all of his guns and are seeking to have him picked up for 72 hours; please don't sell him a new gun." No can do, lady, Obama's gonna take our guns! When Trump got elected, he sold his shop because he knew he'd have to work for a livingâthat "Obama's gonna take our guns" mantra made him rich.
Tragic story. Not to make light of it, but he sold too early as gun sales hit historic levelâs during the pandemic
ps Colorado has legislation to deal with this issue, informing gun shops not to sell because of health issues, and making it easier to sue shops for negligence.
of course, opposed by every republican because it was too broad and overreachingâ¦without offering any alternative proposals
I don't know anyone on the left in America that thinks confiscating guns is a realistic possibility
You say the democrats are unwilling to compromise but when any compromise proposal like banning a certain class or style of gun or banning large magazines comes up the right shouts "Slippery Slope!" and shoots it down (see what I did there)
Don't forget - defend yourself from the tyrannical government who protects your 2nd amendment rights...
kurtster wrote: You can say that you are willing to compromise, but your leaders are not and they control you because you elect and keep reelecting them. And you wonder how we got to where we are today.
They control everyone by the virtue of the power they hold and are able to execute over the population. They control you, as a loyal party voter. Its D, right or wrong. Not to ignore it works the same way on this side. However the democratic party is more centralized, organized and more monolithic as voters than any other party, imo.
What unwarranted assumptions ? That the organized left really wants guns confiscated and is only pretending to be open to compromises ?
I don't know anyone on the left in America that thinks confiscating guns is a realistic possibility
You say the democrats are unwilling to compromise but when any compromise proposal like banning a certain class or style of gun or banning large magazines comes up the right shouts "Slippery Slope!" and shoots it down (see what I did there)
I didn't say “Mental health issues are more the common denominator.” I said that death was the common denominator. . . .
Oops. That was someone else who posted that. My mistake. As to the rest of your post, you once again paint with an entirely too broad brush, make a number of unwarranted assumptions, and form “narratives” that fit your narrative. We on the left of the political spectrum are controlled by those elected to office and you and those on the right are not. Really?
I didn't say that. Not even close. This is what I said :
kurtster wrote:
You can say that you are willing to compromise, but your leaders are not and they control you because you elect and keep reelecting them. And you wonder how we got to where we are today.
They control everyone by the virtue of the power they hold and are able to execute over the population. They control you, as a loyal party voter. Its D, right or wrong. Not to ignore it works the same way on this side. However the democratic party is more centralized, organized and more monolithic as voters than any other party, imo.
What unwarranted assumptions ? That the organized left really wants guns confiscated and is only pretending to be open to compromises ?
Nor do licensed gun shops here. Some do care, of course, perhaps most of them. But locally, if you're not drunk to the point of incoherence, you're a customer. I've told this story before but a friend's brother successfully bought and used a pistol on himself despite the family, the girlfriend, and the guy's shrink calling the gun shop the brother was known to frequent and said "he's in crisis; we've taken all of his guns and are seeking to have him picked up for 72 hours; please don't sell him a new gun." No can do, lady, Obama's gonna take our guns! When Trump got elected, he sold his shop because he knew he'd have to work for a livingâthat "Obama's gonna take our guns" mantra made him rich.
That's terrible. In a just world, that guy & his gun shop would be sued into oblivion for lack of care/due diligence etc. But second amendment...
What a bizarre world where there's lawyers everywhere & everyone is litigious, but second amendment or the politicians won't take it on as it will inflame 50% or more of their base.
