Continuation Today's Mass Shooting (2)

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Darat

And to do that successfully it has to acknowledged that this decades old problem is going to take decades to improve.

This is a very important observation. Most of the arguments against change are that they will not work immediately, but looking at trends, it would be beneficial to introduce changes even if they take years to take effect.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Planigale

This is a very important observation. Most of the arguments against change are that they will not work immediately, but looking at trends, it would be beneficial to introduce changes even if they take years to take effect.

There are so many guns and attitudes are so ingrained, that it will not take decades to solve, it will never be solved.

If it was solvable in decades, then the USA would be in a better position than it is now, 24 years after Columbine and 11 years after Sandy Hook. Instead, not only is there no sign of improvement, if anything, it is getting worse.

[Kestrel]

One of our two main political parties believe that the solution to gun violence is more guns. They bought into the good guy with a gun myth.

In fact many of the worst mass shooters bought their guns legally. They were assumed to be good guys up to the moment they opened fire. A rational society would examine the rules for buying firearms and consider changes. But guns are more like a religion to many American conservatives.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Nessie

There are so many guns and attitudes are so ingrained, that it will not take decades to solve, it will never be solved.

You mean attitudes like yours.

It might not work, but then again, it might. The status quo isn't working so, it seems doing something else is a reasonable course of action.

Quote:

If it was solvable in decades, then the USA would be in a better position than it is now, 24 years after Columbine and 11 years after Sandy Hook. Instead, not only is there no sign of improvement, if anything, it is getting worse.

That's because nobody is trying. It would take real political bravery and there's nobody in American politics that has the guts.

I am reminded about the segment on the Daily Show that John Oliver did comparing the USA with Australia. He asked several politicians and pundits what makes a successful congressman. Two of the Americans answered "getting re-elected". If that's a general principle in American politics, it's no wonder the USA is so ****** up.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

You mean attitudes like yours.

It might not work, but then again, it might. The status quo isn't working so, it seems doing something else is a reasonable course of action.


That's because nobody is trying. It would take real political bravery and there's nobody in American politics that has the guts.

I am reminded about the segment on the Daily Show that John Oliver did comparing the USA with Australia. He asked several politicians and pundits what makes a successful congressman. Two of the Americans answered "getting re-elected". If that's a general principle in American politics, it's no wonder the USA is so ****** up.

In fairness, getting reelected means in theory that your constituents are happy with your performance, and want you to continue to represent them. It's shorthand for "doing your job well".

In practice, of course, voters overwhelmingly pull the lever for the party, not the candidate. So those cynical representatives would be right: the name of the game is to pet your yellow dogs and nudge the swing voters. If you want to actually make a change, make some money and buy your representatives, like the tradable commodities they have demonstrated themselves to be. Politics are about working the saps. Good people don't often succeed on that playing field.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

In fairness, getting reelected means in theory that your constituents are happy with your performance, and want you to continue to represent them. It's shorthand for "doing your job well".

In practice, of course, voters overwhelmingly pull the lever for the party, not the candidate. So those cynical representatives would be right: the name of the game is to pet your yellow dogs and nudge the swing voters. If you want to actually make a change, make some money and buy your representatives, like the tradable commodities they have demonstrated themselves to be. Politics are about working the saps. Good people don't often succeed on that playing field.

Its worse than that. In some districts, yes, you need to sway the independents to keep your seat. But increasingly so, its all about not getting primary'd. Its why there are so many nutso GoP reps. It doesn't matter who gets the nom, if they have an R next to their name they are winning the general.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Registration is not a joke, it is necessary in order to make some of the other measures work. You can’t do safety checks on gun owners’ homes if you don’t know who the gun owners are.

Making people take classes is not a joke. It might not stop all gun owners from doing stupid things, but it will stop some.

Limiting the amount of bullets is a joke. If people must own firearms, they need to be proficient in their handling and use. That means getting lots of practice in at the range.

Back in the day, I had to pass a written test as part of gaining a firearms licence.

The test included questions like this:

While carrying a loaded and cocked shotgun, you need to cross a five strand barbed wire fence, do you:

(a) throw the loaded and cocked shotgun onto the ground on the other side; or,
(b) prop the loaded and cocked shotgun against the wire of the fence; or,
(c) unload and uncock the shotgun and carefully slide it under the fence before crossing?

The SSgt gave me back the test 10/10 correct and I said: "This test is terrible, someone who had never even seen a gun before could pass it."

He said: "Roughly nine out of ten applicants fail the test. Some fail many, many times."

So yes, simple steps can have effect.