Any chance for a reasonable discussion about firearms laws? (v.2023, Dialectic Bubbaloo)

In reply to Antihero :

The problem is people want to be "right" and damn the discussion. No one is willing to open their mind and consider their position may not be the correct one, while calling everyone else closed minded. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The basis for quality of life is things like housing and medical care costs vs wages. When costs for the same housing and medical care go up faster than the wages for the same work, that is pretty much the definition a reduction in the quality of life. No amount of streaming Netflix on our phones can make up for that.

Well, technically:

Quality of life (QOL) is defined by the World Health Organization as "an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns". Standard indicators of the quality of life include wealth, employment, the environment, physical and mental health, education, recreation and leisure time, social belonging, religious beliefs, safety, security and freedom.

Looking around, if be skeptical that any of these have been improving for the 'average' American... And certainly not our perceptions of them.

 Post COVID inflation alone has done enough to reduce QOL, but we were dealing with a lot of silent little crises beforehand; the cost of poverty, the need to own a car to live, lack of cheap housing... lots of systemic issues that have been problems for decades that only now are becoming more obvious as COVID tore all the bandaids off.

bobzilla said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

70-80% getting re-arrested isn't good enough for you? I guess there's nothing I can provide you. 

Local LEO's are frustrated because they have arrested the same person twice in the same day for the same aggravated assault. To the point they haven't even been able to finish their internal reports on the arrest before needing to write a second. They see the same crimes repeated over and over by the same people that are released over and over. Where does that stop?

As the links I provided showed, your prisons are too full of offenders for them to go in. Again I'm asking how it relates to your catch-and-release comment, because you claimed "and in most cases being perpetrated by repeat offenders that have benefited from the catch and release programs" which I'm showing is an issue that can't be solved until you fix issues like overcrowding.

In reply to Toyman! :

This is why a powerful central government is a bad thing. You can't influence it, control it, or even significantly change it. For that you need a weak national government and a powerful state and local government. Which is the entire point of the Constitution. 

 And hand over the vacuum of power to corporations or opposing governments like China? Lol. Lmao, even.

Also how do you go from talking about electing better officials to then claiming we can't even touch the fed? 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

which I addressed here: 

bobzilla said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

non-violent felons I think could be helped more in a work release type system that keeps them from jail but still serving a sentence for their crime.

To take a step further, we could legalize recreational drugs, release those minor offenses like possession etc (again, non-violent). This would free up room for the people that have proven they cannot be released to society without causing further harm. VIOLENT felons should not be released. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to Antihero :

The problem is people want to be "right" and damn the discussion. No one is willing to open their mind and consider their position may not be the correct one, while calling everyone else closed minded. 

Well, I tried but even someone who I consider to be more open minded than most dismissed any idea that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment could be open for debate.

At this point, this thread is like looking at road kill... 

So it appears everyone agrees more gun laws won't stop criminals.  True.  
 

Laws only work In a moral society of citizens.  Morals are in rapid decline and citizens that respect the laws are also in decline.  Both are issues that could be addressed.  

If that were the case, why does Australia have less gun violence than the USA? 

Is their society more ethically developed than ours? Impressive for a former Prison Colony! 

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to Antihero :

The problem is people want to be "right" and damn the discussion. No one is willing to open their mind and consider their position may not be the correct one, while calling everyone else closed minded. 

Well, I tried but even someone who I consider to be more open minded than most dismissed any idea that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment could be open for debate.

At this point, this thread is like looking at road kill... 

Hey at least this time we aren't being lied to about "No one's taking your guns". Now at least they are out in the open about what they truly want and aren't talking to us like we are 5. We are 6 and a half damnit. 

If I had a bunch of guns, I'd be all about banning the sale of new guns. That would make certain guns in circulation an investment. 

pheller said:

If I had a bunch of guns, I'd be all about banning the sale of new guns. That would make certain guns in circulation an investment. 

Plus they'd want as much ban-talk as possible even if it's all made up; drives good sales after all! At least until us goofy 3D Printer owners make good enough copies to wreck the market for kicks

pheller said:

If that were the case, why does Australia have less gun violence than the USA? 

 

Is their society more ethically developed than ours? Impressive for a former Prison Colony! 

Then we should send our criminals to Australia.  

In reply to Driven5 :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The basis for quality of life is things like housing and medical care costs vs wages. When costs for the same housing and medical care go up faster than the wages for the same work, that is pretty much the definition a reduction in the quality of life. No amount of streaming Netflix on our phones can make up for that.

Part of the problem is that we are comparing apples and oranges.
 

Housing- we expect bigger houses with more features. We spent years telling young people not to go into the trades, and now we have labor shortages. We made it more difficult/expensive to build new houses. It's important to compare like for like situations. A house in a small town is not the same as a house in a growing town with lots of employment and recreation, yet that is the comparison often made when people say "houses are getting too expensive where I live Vs. what my parents  paid." We had a whole thread on this. 

Medical care- We just redid our whole health insurance system. We called it "The Affordable Care Act." We increased the premiums of "those that can afford it" to provide care for those who cannot. So who can't afford it now? Also, are you comparing like for like care? Medical care was cheaper decades ago, but we can treat so much more now. 

Technology is very much a tool that can increase your QOL. Lots of people have used it to build wealth that they otherwise would not have. And entertainment is most certainly a component of quality of life. Now, it can easily be argued that technology can also make your life worse, but that is in the hands of the individual. Even too much money can make your life worse. 

Well, technically:

Quality of life (QOL) is defined by the World Health Organization as "an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns". Standard indicators of the quality of life include wealth, employment, the environment, physical and mental health, education, recreation and leisure time, social belonging, religious beliefs, safety, security and freedom.

Looking around, if be skeptical that any of these have been improving for the 'average' American... And certainly not our perceptions of them.

But most of that is the responsibility of the individual. The tools and opportunities are there. If they chose to not use them, so be it. It's a free country. But don't come crying that you don't have the quality of life that you "deserve." Really, most people in the history of civilization would not believe the opportunities squandered by the average American today, and would not have much sympathy. 
 

I will say that the word "perception" is important. There is so much division today, and so many people telling others that they have this and that to be angry about. That they should be unhappy because others have more than them, and it's not their fault. They have no control of their situation, they are just along for the ride. It's flat out wrong, but I get how it can change someone's perception. It's easier to believe that you are not responsible for your own outcome than to accept responsibility. I believe this kind of thinking poisons society. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to Antihero :

The problem is people want to be "right" and damn the discussion. No one is willing to open their mind and consider their position may not be the correct one, while calling everyone else closed minded. 

Excellent point, you should tell the class about a post with a different viewpoint than yours that has made you change your opinion on something, so we all have an example to follow. 

pheller said:

If that were the case, why does Australia have less gun violence than the USA? 

 

Is their society more ethically developed than ours? Impressive for a former Prison Colony! 

I've never been to Australia but based on numbers alone, I'd be hard pressed to say they are not more ethically responsible at this point.  

gearheadmb said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to Antihero :

The problem is people want to be "right" and damn the discussion. No one is willing to open their mind and consider their position may not be the correct one, while calling everyone else closed minded. 

Excellent point, you should tell the class about a post with a different viewpoint than yours that has made you change your opinion on something, so we all have an example to follow. 

Okay class.  I hadn't considered that Australia, a former prison colony, might be a more civilized place than the US until tonight. Most people are open to new ideas and thoughts. It's the people that place social kudos and political correctness above all else that are most close minded, and there are plenty of them.  
 

Pretending that everyone that doesn't agree with you is popular, but it's not based on facts.  Society no longer values truth.  That's is currently and going to lead to major problems.

Appleseed said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

You'll be back. You can't possibly leave anything this juicy alone.

Didn't make it 24 hours :)

In reply to Steve_Jones :

Simply irresistible.

Australia keeps coming up, but no one has mentioned the gun laws there.  A massacre in 96 caused huge changes in the laws and ownership.  

Within 12 days of the Port Arthur massacre, all six Australian states agreed to enact the National Firearm Agreement (NFA) establishing a national registry of firearm owners and a buyback program so that Australians could sell their guns to the government, and placing a complete ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

The NFA, which still applies today, requires Australians to wait 28 days before they purchase a gun, as this is the time required for extensive background checks. Applicants must obtain a licence and permit, be over 18 years old, provide documentation on where they will store the weapon and complete firearms safety training. Most notably, they need to provide a “justifiable reason” for owning the gun, which, unlike in the US, does not include self-protection.

In the past 25 years, approximately one-third of Australia’s firearms have been bought back by the government and destroyed, reducing the total number of gun-owning households by half.

Wheee! This thread has been fun.

Here's my conversational hand grenade.  We need more guns and less restrictions.  Overpopulation is our number one existential threat and shootings simply help delay the inevitable.  Individually each victim is a tragedy but as a statistic, they help out (less traffic, less pollution, less consumption of resources).    I know, fully sociopathic viewpoint and it's written with that full knowledge, but I'd invite everyone to use it as a chance to consider ALL the ramifications of violence as they lob statistics back and forth from their entrenched perspectives.

More violent criminals on the streets equals more demand for firearms.  Guns aren't the problem, and they're not the best solution.   Fix the problem.

And just some mathy bits.  Australias buy back program got some 640,000 guns out of circulation (what an adorable little number).  And got something like half the guns they have.  This cost Australia 628 million dollars (near enough to $1,000 per firearm).

If we in the US were to try something similar and not adjust for inflation, rounding up 200 million guns (something like half) would cost us 200 BILLION dollars and still leave a couple hundred firearms in circulation.  The bang-bang genie is so far out of the bottle that it really doesn't bear thinking about trying (fruitlessly) to jam it back in.

In reply to gearheadmb :

Excellent point, you should tell the class about a post with a different viewpoint than yours that has made you change your opinion on something, so we all have an example to follow. 
 

I'm looking at things a bit differently due to this discussion. I've been thinking a lot about perception. While I was aware that people have their own perspective, I for the most part dismissed opinions formed from an inaccurate perspective. But I'm realizing, that accurate or not, those perspectives shape the individual's reality. While this has always been the case, I believe the manner and speed of which these perspectives are formed are changing. It used to be that perspectives were formed from personal experience and from seeking out information. Today people are bombarded with unsolicited  opinion telling them what they should think and feel, most of it negative. They are being told that they deserve to be successful, and if they are not then it's because other people are preventing them from it, and they should be angry. I think that trend has a much greater impact on the increase in gun violence than guns themselves. 

KyAllroad said:

If we in the US were to try something similar and not adjust for inflation, rounding up 200 million guns (something like half) would cost us 200 BILLION dollars and still leave a couple hundred firearms in circulation.  The bang-bang genie is so far out of the bottle that it really doesn't bear thinking about trying (fruitlessly) to jam it back in.

Less than a quarter of the cost of the Iraq War and would likely save more American lives. 

I dont think a buyback program would have any problem succeeding...but it's the ban on sales that would fail in a heartbeat. 

In reply to pheller :

Know what would save many many more? Keeping violent criminals away from the public. about 14k lives per year I believe is the figure.