• Cyburbia is a fun, friendly, big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account, or use your email address.

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

MD Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
1,958
Points
25
The Democratic party is so lost and out of touch with moderate, pragmatic, everyday people it's not even funny. The election is literally there for the taking and they will totally blow it.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,299
Points
43
And another round of debates are done. How do you think they did, who do you think were the winners, what was expressed last night that you like, and most importantly, do you think that anything said last night will help one of the beat Trump?
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,419
Points
39
I couldn't watch because my MIL is a rabid Red Sox fan - I watched it by reading my twitter feed - looks like another night of discombobulation
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,949
Points
24
And another round of debates are done. How do you think they did, who do you think were the winners, what was expressed last night that you like, and most importantly, do you think that anything said last night will help one of the beat Trump?
Well it looks like Harris got roasted pretty hard by Gabbard and brought up a few skeletons that many folks were probably not aware of, including me. It was the type of stuff that will definitely cause her to lose the farther left voters, so she's probably done IMO.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,812
Points
40
And another round of debates are done. How do you think they did, who do you think were the winners, what was expressed last night that you like, and most importantly, do you think that anything said last night will help one of the beat Trump?
It was clearly the attack Joe Biden approach. Harris looked bad, but Booker looked okay. Yang was certainly unique. Everyone else was invisible.

The D's need to make sure the next debate has only enough people to have one debate. Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Pete need to be on the stage at the same time. Biden needs to be able to articulate why Warren and Sanders and medicare for all isn't pragmatic and won't ever get voted in.

Biden looks like he is trying to win moderates and has the general election on his mind. Everyone else is trying to out-democrat the other democrats. Although I am sure whomever wins the primary will move to the center, it is really hard to watch the Democrats yell at each other (and even use Obama as a "not liberal enough" person) about who is living in the past and not looking at a dramatically more progressive future.

Hopefully 10 or more of the D's will drop out over the next month. That way we only have to look at 10 candidates and can really see what they believe in. Biden still looks like the only person who can beat Trump at this point in my mind. Maybe Mayor Pete if he can get to the general. I see Harris / Warren / Sanders getting killed in the midwest, where the D's need the most votes.
 

MD Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
1,958
Points
25
They're not trying to "out-democrat" the others. They're trying to out-crazy the others! Some of the crap these folks are spewing is insane.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,734
Points
39
No one is talking about what is really important. The children! Someone think about the children! But seriously, maybe stop trying to go farther right or left and bring us back to center.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,812
Points
40
They're not trying to "out-democrat" the others. They're trying to out-crazy the others! Some of the crap these folks are spewing is insane.
I would certainly argue that medicare for all is not going to get passed. We just had this argument in 2010. And we got Obamacare. Which was passed with D's in the House, Senate, and Presidency. If you think we are going to get something more progressive than that passed with a likely R senate, you are crazy. Moving past the can it be passed argument, most people don't want to lose what they have. They want more, but not at the expense of paying higher taxes. What Warren / Sanders refuse to say is that EVERYONE will pay higher taxes, but they will see savings from X, Y, and Z. That is still higher taxes, which is not palatable to most people.

An immigration policy that doesn't fix anything and instead looks like you are prioritizing immigrants over Americans (which personally I understand the nuance of this statement, but most do not) isn't going to get you any voters either. If you are fighting tooth and nail to get more rights for immigrants (i.e. lowering the legal threshold for crossing into our country illegally) but aren't really fighting for stronger protections of the American voter in West Virginia or Wisconsin who feels like they are disenfranchised, it is easy to see why the D's won't get more votes. Immigration is a loser for the D's when they try and let everyone be part of the party. They have to draw a line (which Biden tried to do, but was maimed) somewhere. Unfortunately, many of the D's are afraid to say anything remotely like a policy to fix a problem, they just want to be as far away from Trump on this position as they can. Which again is understandable, but they won't win with that mindset.

As for other policies, we didn't really see much discussion on it at the two D debates because healthcare and immigration took so much air out of the room. Unfortunately for the D's both these policies keep their base happy, but in no way expand their tent as they need to do. This is about the electoral college and winning. You have to win lots of states. You can't just win the coasts. If Florida and Texas turn it may be a different argument going forward, but that doesn't look like it will be a quick change for 2020 to see the benefit from.

They aren't all crazy (in my opinion) they are just terrible at detailing their policy positions. I do think there are probably 7-12 candidates who either have only one policy position (CLIMATE CHANGE! UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME! MEDICARE FOR ALL! etc.) and have no real chance of winning. I appreciate Biden for brushing off these folks who are just talking crazy and to look to be a Presidential figure who isn't going to bicker over impossible thoughts.

Warren said “I genuinely do not understand why anyone would go to all the trouble of running for president just to get up on this stage and talk about what’s not possible.” Maybe because they want to win, not just have fun and throw grenades at others? Or because they understand that in politics you have to win to get any policy approved. You can't be everything to everyone, but you can try and find middle ground that will get you enough votes to win, without being a complete liar. Come on D's find that line.
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,419
Points
39
I think the focus should be on jobs -

climate change" jobs for solar panels, water treatment, stuff like that

They have to relate all this stuff to how it makes your day to day life better by jumping on their bandwagon

something we all learn pretty quickly as planners is it doesn't matter if you're right, it matters what people perceive...
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,299
Points
43
I would certainly argue that medicare for all is not going to get passed. We just had this argument in 2010. And we got Obamacare. Which was passed with D's in the House, Senate, and Presidency. If you think we are going to get something more progressive than that passed with a likely R senate, you are crazy. Moving past the can it be passed argument, most people don't want to lose what they have. They want more, but not at the expense of paying higher taxes. What Warren / Sanders refuse to say is that EVERYONE will pay higher taxes, but they will see savings from X, Y, and Z. That is still higher taxes, which is not palatable to most people.

An immigration policy that doesn't fix anything and instead looks like you are prioritizing immigrants over Americans (which personally I understand the nuance of this statement, but most do not) isn't going to get you any voters either. If you are fighting tooth and nail to get more rights for immigrants (i.e. lowering the legal threshold for crossing into our country illegally) but aren't really fighting for stronger protections of the American voter in West Virginia or Wisconsin who feels like they are disenfranchised, it is easy to see why the D's won't get more votes. Immigration is a loser for the D's when they try and let everyone be part of the party. They have to draw a line (which Biden tried to do, but was maimed) somewhere. Unfortunately, many of the D's are afraid to say anything remotely like a policy to fix a problem, they just want to be as far away from Trump on this position as they can. Which again is understandable, but they won't win with that mindset.

As for other policies, we didn't really see much discussion on it at the two D debates because healthcare and immigration took so much air out of the room. Unfortunately for the D's both these policies keep their base happy, but in no way expand their tent as they need to do. This is about the electoral college and winning. You have to win lots of states. You can't just win the coasts. If Florida and Texas turn it may be a different argument going forward, but that doesn't look like it will be a quick change for 2020 to see the benefit from.

They aren't all crazy (in my opinion) they are just terrible at detailing their policy positions. I do think there are probably 7-12 candidates who either have only one policy position (CLIMATE CHANGE! UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME! MEDICARE FOR ALL! etc.) and have no real chance of winning. I appreciate Biden for brushing off these folks who are just talking crazy and to look to be a Presidential figure who isn't going to bicker over impossible thoughts.

Warren said “I genuinely do not understand why anyone would go to all the trouble of running for president just to get up on this stage and talk about what’s not possible.” Maybe because they want to win, not just have fun and throw grenades at others? Or because they understand that in politics you have to win to get any policy approved. You can't be everything to everyone, but you can try and find middle ground that will get you enough votes to win, without being a complete liar. Come on D's find that line.
I watched a bit of it last night and I have mixed thoughts. I do think that each of them expressed little bits of genius for politics and programs that could stand a chance. I agree they missed the mark with environmental policies. However when the crazy outshines the brilliance, everyone will mark them as crazy.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,734
Points
39
I really wish politics would get back to boring policy stuff that might actually impact me and not so much the flashy stuff. Yes, everything affects me, but using the cold logic of some voters:
1. Climate change - how does the weather affect me? next
2. Abortion - I'm a man - next
3. Gun control - we all know that ain't changing anytime soon, next
4. Immigration - I'm not exactly worried that an immigrant is going to steal my job and it's not like my taxes will go down with fewer immigrants using the system. Plus I'm not in a cage in Texas (I know it's cold)
5. Economy - I guess it indirectly effects me, but what exactly are you going to do?
6. Health care - That actually might effect me. Maybe go for a detailed plan to go from the mess we have now to universal health care. It ain't an over night thing.
7. Taxes - now you're talking my pocket book. I'm okay with taxes, I just like to know what it's being spent on and why should I pay for some people in Detroit because the city can't support itself. Maybe they could move down here.

It's cold thinking, but maybe relate stuff down to the voter that they might care about it. And yes, my actual thoughts on each subject is a little more deep than I just put out.

What I would really like to see happen is some kind of immigration reform and some kind of health care reform. I would also like to see some special interest/lobby reform. I'm not really seeing any of the details from this crew. I think Biden has ideas and maybe one or two others, but most of them have put in their bid for VP or cabinet positions and they can leave now.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,812
Points
40
What I would really like to see happen is some kind of immigration reform and some kind of health care reform. I would also like to see some special interest/lobby reform. I'm not really seeing any of the details from this crew. I think Biden has ideas and maybe one or two others, but most of them have put in their bid for VP or cabinet positions and they can leave now.
I think it is hard to get details because they know they are going to get killed by the far left portion of the party for not being Democratic enough. Hence Warren's comments.

I think Mayor Pete has done a reasonable job of putting policies out there. Biden is running on Obama policies, which makes his fight easier. That is why you see Harris / Warren throwing things out to see what sticks. Say what you will about Bernie, the dude is consistent. He is too far left for this country, but he is the Ron / Rand Paul of the left. He is more interested in his policy than anything else. And he is consistently willing to do anything to see those policies enacted. There is something to respect in that, even though he has no chance of winning.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,299
Points
43
Do you think there is a chance of real reform when it comes to preventing mass killings. I know that anti-gun people are likely losing their freaking minds thinking that taking away some types, of all, guns is the answer to everything. But the reality is that is an extremely naive perspective as it does not treat the issue.

The bigger question is what are we going to do about mental health issues and racism/ hatred issues? We now live in a society where we make “safe spaces” for some people, but make it impossible for others to get treated. We live in a society where one might not agree with someone and is labeled racist, but we ignore someone who has made repeated threats towards a group on Twitter?

I completely support quality background checks for the purchase of all weapons, but I think this conversation needs to go beyond the method that was used to cause these horrific events and really dig into why did this happen and what can be done to get these people help/treatment/guidance/incarceration before they have an opportunity to take action.

Personally, I am going to contact my elected officials and ask them to fund mental health treatment and fund studies that look into why people conduct mass murder. If we understand why, we can then put things in place to keep it from happening again, regardless of the weapon.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,812
Points
40
So Dayton is my backyard. I have been in Ned Peppers. I knew A LOT of people who were in the Oregon District on Saturday night... thankfully no one was killed. The guy who blocked the door to Ned Peppers to stop the maniac went to high school with me.

I don't have answers, but I don't want my kids to live in a world where they can't go out to eat, go to the grocery, or go to a festival without having to be scared of getting shot. Mental health isn't the answer, as that won't stop it from happening. That is a piece, but it isn't a solution that the government can impose. Less video games isn't the answer, as that won't stop it from happening. That may be a piece, but it isn't a solution the government can fix.

The solution is make killing groups of people harder. I always hear about how other countries have mass killings even though they banned guns. Yes, but they are rare, and generally mass killings involve much fewer people. If you have a handgun it is MUCH HARDER to kill 9 people and injure over 30 in less than 20 seconds. 39 people were hit by bullets in less than 20 seconds. Think about that. Think about why that gun should exist in our society. Because the 2nd amendment? Because a couple people like to competition shoot with AR-15? We banned bazookas because of public health concerns. We can at a minimum ban assault weapons (and yes my definition is vast, I don't care if that takes away your semi-automatic rifle). These guns are a stain on our society and serve no reasonable purpose.

I am not anti-gun. I am not anti-2nd amendment. I am pro-night club. I am pro-festival. I am pro-place of worship. I believe our country can do better.

My heart hurts this morning.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
11,773
Points
37
My brother said he recently read an article where mental illness, video games purchases, access to fire arms & social norms were analyzed across several countries related to mass violence. While most issues were closely comparable to each other, the only factor with an wide margin was access to firearms. Our country has 4.4% of the world’s population & 42% of the world’s firearms.

We have become a country where no where is safe to go out for a stroll. I’m embarrassed to say I know to people who “are packing” in church.

Our legislature has failed us with “thoughts & prayers” as their only response. I see #massacremitch is trending for blocking the House bill passed in February to even go to the senate floor for discussion. While I think that pretty good, I also think it’s pretty sad.

I am NOT for full gun control. However weapons of mass destruction should be eliminated from the market. There is no practical reason that I can think of to own assault style weapons & high capacity magazines IMHO. Mskis, I appreciate your point of view but don’t wholeheartedly agree with it - & that’s okay too. I’m on hink’s side of the debate here.

I have friends in Dayton from my days in the private sector. I’m glad they are safe.
 

gtpeach

Cyburbian
Messages
1,993
Points
16
Mental health focuses won't stop dangerous people from acquiring guns. Because of the way rights work, we could only limit access to people that have confirmed mental health issues. And what quantifies a mental health issue that would prevent access? Depression? Anxiety? Autism? Body dysphoria? Any of those COULD contribute to factors that may make it dangerous for them to own weapons, but they're so commonplace that I think there would be some pretty serious pushback to preventing some of those folks from owning weapons.

How do you solve hatred or bigotry? I don't think we know. And electing people into office that are sympathetic to racist causes is certainly not going to do anything to move the bar towards solving the issue. But we know that we can make it harder for those folks to physically harm large groups of people in a short amount of time. For some reason, people keep clinging to the idea that the U.S. is different from every other country in that gun control measures won't be effective. Maybe it'll take time to get at least the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals, but if we don't start working towards that goal, we're never going to make progress.

I realize that this is unAmerican, but I've just about had it with the second amendment at this point. I feel like it has been mutilated and turned into an oppressive excuse to allow certain segments of the population to continue to bully and intimidate others. The way it is defended by the NRA is not in line with its stated intent.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,949
Points
24
We have become a country where no where is safe to go out for a stroll. I’m embarrassed to say I know to people who “are packing” in church.
But this doesn't seem to matter. The ones committing the mass shootings aren't people carrying weapons to church. They aren't using weapons that those people are typically packing. Assault rifles really have no place in the open market. They serve no real purpose besides recreational shooting, and they wouldn't be missed at all if they were completely banned. There is also the significant issue of gun registration. Hawaii and DC are the only two jurisdictions that require the registration of all guns. New York requires the registration of handguns. 8 states flat out prohibit gun registries. There are over 392 MILLION unregistered guns in this country. That is completely absurd to me. The US has an estimated 120 guns per 100 people.

It's easy to jump on the mental health train after these events, but truthfully, none of these people committing these acts would be getting treatment because they don't recognize that they are mentally ill. Even if they do, they do not care, and it doesn't appear that anyone else does either. I mean the Dayton shooter literally had a hit list in high school, but the only thing that prompted was his removal from the school. Yes, access to mental healthcare isn't as easy as it should be and it is stigmatized, and that needs to change, but it won't solve this problem.
 
Last edited:

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,734
Points
39
So we start by funding the CDC to do gun violence research. It's been banned by the NRA - I mean Congress since 1996. Simple and it doesn't "take anyone's guns".
The we start a national gun registry so the cops can do their job.
Then we register gun owners so the cops can do their job and maybe we stop one idiot from owning a gun and stop one shooting from happening.
Then I'm all for banning "assault" weapons. I know people will argue over what is and isn't an assault weapon. The AR-15 and similar firearms are assault weapons. I'm no expert to define them, but that specifically should be on the list. It's been used a few too many time it seems. I have no evidence, but you know it's not a hunting rifle or a hand gun so it really only has one purpose and shooting bottles off a fence ain't it. A politician with a backbone can figure out all the details of what we do with the ones that are out there.
The hard part, we get rid of the NRA. I was all for it when they taught gun safety back in the '80s. Now it's just a farce and more corrupt than our government.

To put the whole thing in a simple thought, I can regulate crazy or I can regulate guns. One is easier to do and violates fewer rights.

Personally, if we all want to act like the wild west, let's just go back to six shooters. At least then only a few people die.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,333
Points
30
Totally agree about the need for funded research through the CDC. The refusal to allow it reminds me of the refusal to investigate tobacco--everybody knew the answers were going to be bad, so those who stood to benefit from those answers remaining secret fought tooth & nail to prevent it.

I can't believe I'm linking an article to asshat Richard Florida, but I like his summary and I like his summary table of different types of gun laws as an easy reference.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/04/gun-control-firearms-law-deaths-shooting-state-data-research/586363/

Key points:
  • States with all three of the most effective measures—universal background checks, bans on violent offenders, and “may-issue” laws (which give police discretion in issuing concealed-carry permits)—had homicide rates that were 36 percent lower. States with two of these measures had 13-percent lower rates, and those with just one had 6-percent lower rates.
  • Measures that prohibit people who committed a violent crime from owning a handgun are associated with large reductions in homicide, 18 percent.
  • Four types of laws were associated with the suicide rate, but only two had statistically significant relationships with it after controlling for all 10: permitless carry laws and bans on junk guns (these laws prohibit the sale of handguns that fail to meet certain safety requirements). Junk-gun bans are associated with a 6.4 percent reduction in overall suicide rates, whereas not requiring a permit for concealed carry was associated with a 5.1 percent increase in suicide rates.
  • The most effective gun-control measures are those that regulate who has legal access to guns as opposed to what kinds of guns they have access to, the study concludes. Especially effective are measures that restrict the access of people with a history of violence.

Focusing on who does and doesn’t have access to guns—especially violent offenders—appears more effective, and more politically feasible, than trying to limit access to this or that kind of firearm. Sure, they might get a knife, but a knife is a far less efficient killing machine. Likewise, people hell-bent on committing mass shootings or even committing suicide may still access illegal firearms. But it is more difficult and creates additional variables & interactions that are likely to raise red flags.

Another law that has a lot of appeal to me is criminal negligence charges for making firearms accessible to minors due to not taking a series of appropriate steps to maintain safe storage. Likewise, I like the idea of requiring liability insurance for guns, not unlike requirements to have liability insurance for other brutally efficient death machines (vehicles).

Also, white nationalist groups and websites need to be treated IDENTICALLY to Al-Quida, ISIS, etc. Likewise, their members should be treated identically to Al-Quida, ISIS, etc. as if they were actively operating on domestic soil. They are terrorist organizations and should have no quarter. It isn't free speech--it is treason as far as I'm concerned. And websites like 8chan are aiding and abetting, and their owners should be held liable through civil and criminal courts.
 
Last edited:

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,949
Points
24
So we start by funding the CDC to do gun violence research. It's been banned by the NRA - I mean Congress since 1996. Simple and it doesn't "take anyone's guns".
This is completely reasonable. The ONLY democratic candidate who's taken this same policy position is Marianne Williamson if you can believe that.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,299
Points
43
I 100% agree with having the CDC do gun violence research. Yesterday I heard an interesting statistic that less than 1% of those who are killed by a gun are part of a mass shooting. Look into the numbers for gang or drug related street violence, suicide, and domestic violence. I think finding particular thresholds on who should or should not have a gun is a better route than banning types of guns and that starts with a combination of research and background checks. I also think there should be a mandatory training on how to use and store a weapon safely.

Do we ban types of cars for going too fast? No, but 40,000 people die in car accidents in 2018. It is not about the car, it is about the driver. The speed limits are set based on conditions and people choose to obey the laws or not. It sounds like the shooter in Dayton had illegal magazines for his weapon. My guess is he was not about to follow the law and only use standard magazines.

In terms of banning types of guns... Ok, you pass a law to prohibit citizens from having any semiautomatic weapons. There are estimates that there are over 100 million of these currently in use or possession. How do you go about going around collecting these? Even if it is "modern sporting rifle" which is any semiautomatic rifle... there are about 20 million of these. Do you think that people intent on committing a crime are just going to turn their guns over to authorities? Lets say 1/4 are police issue... that is still 15 million.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,734
Points
39
Don't be the guy that compares apples to oranges and yes we do ban cars that don't have proper safety precautions and we do ban drivers that can't handle them. I can modify the crap out of my Mustang, but I still have to have certain safety features. Cars and drivers are also licensed, registered, and insured. If you want to use the same illogical argument law breakers will be lawbreakers so we shouldn't do anything about it, but we instituted seat belts and enforcement campaigns that have cut car crash fatalities dramatically. More people would prefer not to break that law due to education than enforcement now - maybe not so back in the '60s. So we use the research to start making reasonable laws to regulate guns or people or however you feel like framing it. The result should still end up fewer gun related injuries/deaths. It's not like we're going to get rid of the problem, but it's a start.

I like what SR put up. Statistics don't lie and we could use more of that. At least as a start.
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
17,677
Points
57
Do we ban types of cars for going too fast? No, but 40,000 people die in car accidents in 2018. It is not about the car, it is about the driver. The speed limits are set based on conditions and people choose to obey the laws or not. It sounds like the shooter in Dayton had illegal magazines for his weapon. My guess is he was not about to follow the law and only use standard magazines.
Speaking of comparing cars and guns, I think following the driver's license / vehicle registration model for guns is ideal for gun control.

* Want to own or shoot a gun? Get a license. Just like driving a car, you have to take a course on gun use, safety, marksmanship, and etiquette, Concealed and open carry, in states that allow it, would require more advanced licenses, just like a CDL.

* Want to buy a gun? Go ahead! Buy as many as you want. However, you have to register the gun (and its unique bullet fingerprint) with the state, and have insurance (loss and liability). Just like a car, you'd have to renew the registration annually,

* Want to sell your gun? Same process as if you're selling a car. The seller and owner would both need to validate the sale with the state. it would be a crime to sell a gun to someone without a license.

The United States does not ban cars for going too fast. However, the Federal government (and most states) have minimum roadworthiness standards for motor vehicles. The Feds ban cars that don't meet certain safety or environmental standards. Ever wonder why you don't see new Citroens, SEATs, Peugeots, or Nissan Skylines for sale in the US? It's because they don't meet US safety and emissions standards. You can have a CDL with hazmat, tanker, and tandem endorsements, and it would still be illegal for you to register a Skoda Superb or Lada Niva with your state DOT. Yes, there's exceptions for diplomats, very limited road testing by auto companies or journalists, foreign nationals visiting the US for less than a year, "classics" more than 25 years old, etc., but otherwise, forget it. You'll never have a Toyota Hilux, Wuling Hongguang, or Zamboni 446 in your American driveway.

Anyhow, the Feds should be able to ban guns that either don't meet minimum safety standards, are used to circumvent security measures, or which are weapons of war or mass destruction. Make a gun with that 3D printer you bought on Alibaba? Fine. Will airport security or a run-of-the-mill metal detector find it? Brave enough to shoot it to get that bullet fingerprint for registration?

"But what if I feel threatened, I don't have a license, and I need a gun RIGHT NOW?" Well, what if you need to take a drive across the country or get to the hospital RIGHT NOW, but you don't have a car or license? There's options. Don't have a gun? Leave town. Have friends come over in shifts. Install a security system. Subscribe to a panic button service. Have 911 on speed dial. Buy pepper spray.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,949
Points
24
In terms of banning types of guns... Ok, you pass a law to prohibit citizens from having any semiautomatic weapons. There are estimates that there are over 100 million of these currently in use or possession. How do you go about going around collecting these? Even if it is "modern sporting rifle" which is any semiautomatic rifle... there are about 20 million of these. Do you think that people intent on committing a crime are just going to turn their guns over to authorities? Lets say 1/4 are police issue... that is still 15 million.
Good point, and one I haven't really considered. Honestly, I have no clue how that'd work.

Speaking of comparing cars and guns, I think following the driver's license / vehicle registration model for guns is ideal for gun control.

* Want to own or shoot a gun? Get a license. Just like driving a car, you have to take a course on gun use, safety, marksmanship, and etiquette, Concealed and open carry, in states that allow it, would require more advanced licenses, just like a CDL.

* Want to buy a gun? Go ahead! Buy as many as you want. However, you have to register the gun (and its unique bullet fingerprint) with the state, and have insurance (loss and liability). Just like a car, you'd have to renew the registration annually,

* Want to sell your gun? Same process as if you're selling a car. The seller and owner would both need to validate the sale with the state. it would be a crime to sell a gun to someone without a license.
Honestly, this is just common sense. I have no idea how the gun problem got this out of hand. All of these things are logical and should have been the law decades ago. I don't see the argument against it.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
12,574
Points
40
Good point, and one I haven't really considered. Honestly, I have no clue how that'd work.
Buy back program, then destroy. Should be much cheaper than a 1/4 of the Defense Dept budget. And more worthwhile.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,812
Points
40
In terms of banning types of guns... Ok, you pass a law to prohibit citizens from having any semiautomatic weapons. There are estimates that there are over 100 million of these currently in use or possession. How do you go about going around collecting these? Even if it is "modern sporting rifle" which is any semiautomatic rifle... there are about 20 million of these. Do you think that people intent on committing a crime are just going to turn their guns over to authorities? Lets say 1/4 are police issue... that is still 15 million.
Okay so we have a requirement that all of those types of weapons are registered as existing non-conforming weapons. If they are not, then you get a fine / jail when one is found. If someone has one that isn't registered by a certain date it is taken as illegal and the person is fined or put in jail. It is that simple. People can choose to break the law if they please.

This isn't difficult. It just requires our government to give up the idea that people have a right to have any type of gun they please. Move the line from bazooka to semi-automatic gun. Do not allow their manufacture.

I say this with the understanding of the above information. I firmly believe less guns are safer than more guns. I have no issue with people wanting hand guns or sporting guns or shot guns or whatever else floats your boat. We aren't talking about taking 97% of peoples guns. We are talking about a small fraction of a percentage of people who own these guns. And even if we were talking about 20% or 40% I would still believe this is important.

---

Dan, you have said it very well. Registration and licencing is key. We shouldn't have anyone in the country with a gun that the government doesn't know about. If you are scared the government is going to come after you or your gun you are delusional. The government can kill you with a drone whenever they like if that is what you are scared of. Your semi-automatic weapon isn't going to protect you like the 2nd Amendment thought you could do. Mainly because when it was written they didn't understand technology. I say anyone can keep and use a muzzleloader without a permit or registration. Like the Founding Father's Wanted!!!
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,949
Points
24
Buy back program, then destroy. Should be much cheaper than a 1/4 of the Defense Dept budget. And more worthwhile.
Would this be a mandatory program or just "we really wish you'd bring these in please!". A mandatory program would be political suicide IMO.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,812
Points
40
A mandatory program would be political suicide IMO.
**Please note, you doesn't mean you AG, it means the collective you. All love ;)

Why? Do you honestly believe that more than 50% of people would even be affected? I could see the slippery slope argument, but even that is weak when we are clearly talking about a specific gun or ammo capacity, etc. If you think the government really wants to take handguns or shotguns you aren't following the arguments. I am not aware of any rational politician saying that we should ban all guns.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
12,574
Points
40
Would this be a mandatory program or just "we really wish you'd bring these in please!". A mandatory program would be political suicide IMO.
Mandatory within the context of Dan's and Hink's regulatory process and % impact statements outlined above.
 
Last edited:

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,734
Points
39
Would this be a mandatory program or just "we really wish you'd bring these in please!". A mandatory program would be political suicide IMO.
There you go considering the feelings of some politician. Poor Congressman Bob won't be reelected because he supported the program. Congress has let us down for years and has let us down particularly on this issue. I wish congressman Bob wouldn't get reelected and maybe get someone who will give a F$@% about the citizens out there and real policy reform over what I consider political key jangling of issue that don't really matter - sorry my ranting is going beyond the gun control thing which we all know nothing will come out of this and we'll all discuss it when the next shooting happens in a few weeks.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,949
Points
24
**Please note, you doesn't mean you AG, it means the collective you. All love ;)

Why? Do you honestly believe that more than 50% of people would even be affected? I could see the slippery slope argument, but even that is weak when we are clearly talking about a specific gun or ammo capacity, etc. If you think the government really wants to take handguns or shotguns you aren't following the arguments. I am not aware of any rational politician saying that we should ban all guns.
I'm just saying that the ones who would be affected are the same types who would make a significant (violent) issue out of it, folks like Ammon Bundy. Most rational people don't have a stock pile of AR-15's lying around, and wouldn't have an issue with a mandatory buyback. I certainly understand that the government isn't out to take handguns and shotguns, and I don't think it's a slippery slope issue to require a buyback of weapons defined as assault rifles, but as a whole, we on this forum represent a minority of voters. There are plenty of people out there who vehemently disagree with any form of gun control. Hell, their argument is more "arm everyone and the problem solves itself" than anything else. That's a major issue that isn't really discussed either. Gun culture in this country is completely out of control. I'm talking primarily about far right radicals, people like the Oath Keepers.

As to the political suicide comment, I don't care about the feelings of any politician, and I agree they've let us down on the gun control issue. But it's the exact reason why a mandatory buyback is unlikely and gun control continues to be an issue people talk about but refuse to do anything about. They refuse because they don't want to jeopardize that senate/house seat. I suppose that's indicative of a larger problem though (namely that a "career politician" shouldn't be a thing).
 
Last edited:

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,299
Points
43
In some places, Dan's suggestions are partly implemented and I think the following is fine:
  • Background check and pass training to purchase any weapon.
  • All weapon translations must be done through an FFL and the purchase of all weapons is tracked through an FFL database.
  • Most people who have a CPL or the like, already have some level of insurance.
So, I guess I am not seeing where the disagreement in those is...

BUT:
As I noted again and again, we need to do something to better understand why these events happen and find ways to get these people the help they need. You can ban all the guns you want, but people out to hurt themselves or hurt others will continue to do so with what ever means are available be it vehicles, explosives, knives, or something else that we have not even considered yet.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,812
Points
40
Now the f&cking moron thinks the mass shooting took place in my hometown...Toledo

To be fair, which I am not often, Biden said Texas and Michigan.

With that said he still is terrible at being a shoulder when bad events happen. He just doesn't come across and genuine or empathetic.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,078
Points
35
I try to take 45 in the smallest doses I can possibly manage, so it wasn't until Colbert last night that I saw his remarks. Talk about a dead fish - I'm sure the man has no empathy whatsoever. It almost makes me feel bad for his kids.
















Almost.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,333
Points
30
I'm trying to remember some of my gun statistics, but I do remember this one:

more than 50% of the guns in the U.S. are owned by 3% of the population.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,333
Points
30
I wonder what percentage owns a gun and what percentage owns more than one?
Those are pretty easy statistics to find... you're a smart guy:

Link

Link

Smartass response aside, I dug through some of the stats & their sources and can summarize them as:

About 30% own guns, and it is strongly concentrated geographically. Of that 30%, they own three guns on average. Half of them own 1-2 guns. That means about 15% of the American population owns 1-2 guns, and about 15% owns 3 or more guns.

Incidentally, Americans are estimated to own 40% of the guns ON THE PLANET.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,812
Points
40
Gun collectors aside, most people I know who own guns own lots of kinds of guns. A shotgun or two, a hand gun, a pistol, etc. I don't know anyone who is a prepper, or scared of the government, but I would imagine it is that percentage that owns LOTS of guns.

I think this article is apropos. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/republicans-fear-extinction-in-the-suburbs-over-gun-control-1.1297594

I also got this email this morning from a pro-gun group (again I am not anti-gun, just certain guns):

"I'm on my way to the Statehouse in Columbus right now.

This morning at 9:00am, Governor DeWine is going to be holding a press conference detailing his plans to "do something" in response to the Dayton Killer.

Sadly, he won't be calling for laws that actually save lives or restore rights, like Stand-Your-Ground or Constitutional Carry.

It is widely expected he will unveil or release details of the "Red Flags" Gun Confiscation legislation he has had his staff working on for the last several months.

I'll report back to you exactly what happens at this press conference, but I wanted to make sure you saw our email from yesterday, which is below.

Please read through it and when you are done, take action! "
That is the stupidest email I have ever read. It not only is stupidly incorrect, but the idea that anyone doesn't support red flag laws is asinine. For context, this is the email from yesterday:

In case you missed it, at a press conference earlier this morning President Trump announced his full support for ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ legislation in the wake of the Texas and our Ohio shootings that took place last weekend.

This is the very same legislation being pushed by the radical left and weak-kneed moderates in Washington D.C. and state legislature all over the country!

And unless gun owners push back with everything they have, this bill will sail through Congress and be signed into law, forever weakening our right to keep and bear arms in America!

I’ll explain what a ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ is down below in case you’ve not heard about it, but whatever you do, please fire off the two PRE-WRITTEN EMAILS that I’ve prepared for you immediately!

>> SEND PRESIDENT TRUMP YOUR PRE-WRITTEN EMAIL HERE <<<
>> SEND SENATOR ROB PORTMAN YOUR EMAIL HERE <<<
These emails take just seconds to send, so please take action immediately and share these links with every gun owner you know!

Remember, a ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ law is much worse than a ban on the AR-15, magazines that hold over 10 rounds, or anything else.

That’s because a ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ would allow virtually anyone who doesn’t like you to be able to make up a bogus complaint –- allowing a liberal judge to order your firearms to be confiscated.

Before you’ve been charged.

Before you’ve been indicted.

Before you've been tried.

And before you’ve been convicted...of anything!

And it would happen in secret, via ex-parte’ court hearings that you would know nothing about and would not be able to attend -- obliterating your ‘due process’ rights!

This is already the law in liberal states like California, New York, and Maryland, and if we don’t fight back, Ohio may soon join these ranks!

Senator Sherrod Brown is already a YES vote on Red Flags.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,299
Points
43
Those are pretty easy statistics to find... you're a smart guy:

Link

Link

Smartass response aside, I dug through some of the stats & their sources and can summarize them as:

About 30% own guns, and it is strongly concentrated geographically. Of that 30%, they own three guns on average. Half of them own 1-2 guns. That means about 15% of the American population owns 1-2 guns, and about 15% owns 3 or more guns.

Incidentally, Americans are estimated to own 40% of the guns ON THE PLANET.
Actually no... there are general estimates, but we don't really know. (LINK)
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
4,832
Points
28
Gun collectors aside, most people I know who own guns own lots of kinds of guns. A shotgun or two, a hand gun, a pistol, etc.
Ditto, and they are generally** fanatical about gun safety.







**I can neither confirm nor deny that drunk skeet shooting has occurred at unofficial work team gatherings.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
11,773
Points
37
tRump gives a 10 second hollow call for unity in a tone deaf staff written speech.

Within a couple hours he’s off on another Twitter trirade.

Nothing should surprise me anymore.

—————————————————————

On another note, Julian Castro’s brother tweeted out names of tRump donors in SanAntonio who gave the maximum allowed to his campaign. Boy has he received flak for this. What these snowflakes don’t realize is that information is public record.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,812
Points
40
tRump gives a 10 second hollow call for unity in a tone deaf staff written speech.

Within a couple hours he’s off on another Twitter trirade.

Nothing should surprise me anymore.

—————————————————————

On another note, Julian Castro’s brother tweeted out names of tRump donors in SanAntonio who gave the maximum allowed to his campaign. Boy has he received flak for this. What these snowflakes don’t realize is that information is public record.
I am not a fan of Trump, but I don't think it is a good idea to make information (even if it is public) more obvious. All that is doing is putting those people more at risk for doing what they are constitutionally able to do. If you don't like that those people gave money then talk about Trump taking all this money, but don't put the individual people on blast.

I think we need to keep context to make sure that when the D's do something wrong we don't just say it is okay.

With that said, it looks like the Dayton shooter was potentially a far-left activist. I think when shootings are clearly about race or about hatred (like El Paso) we need to talk about it as such, but we need to be careful not to push identity politics on all shooters (the Dayton shooter didn't have a racist agenda, he seems to just have been batshit crazy). He also was a supporter of Sanders and Warren. My point is that we should stop trying to pinpoint blame on the R's or D's and find ways to work together to fix the problem.

Ohio is changing its mind on gun control though, which is surprising and refreshing. Mike Turner (whose daughter was in the Oregon District when this happened) now supports banning semi-automatic weapons and red flag laws. I know it is sad that it requires something to happen close to home or to your family for you to "get" it, but I appreciate that people can stand up for changes.

Here is to hoping we actually see laws get passed and we begin our movement towards a safer society.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,949
Points
24
With that said, it looks like the Dayton shooter was potentially a far-left activist. I think when shootings are clearly about race or about hatred (like El Paso) we need to talk about it as such, but we need to be careful not to push identity politics on all shooters (the Dayton shooter didn't have a racist agenda, he seems to just have been batshit crazy). He also was a supporter of Sanders and Warren. My point is that we should stop trying to pinpoint blame on the R's or D's and find ways to work together to fix the problem.
It has something to do with his sister I think. There's video of them together at a bar a few hours before the shooting and she was killed in it. IMO she was the target and the rest of the victims were unfortunately collateral damage.

It is interesting to see a far-left activist get national coverage though. You never hear about them, and they are absolutely just as dangerous as the right.
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,398
Points
32
It's much more complicated than guns and mental illness. Read this article, it has a very interesting take that ties many of these killers together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan
Top