Well, this can be said about pretty much everything in our society. But your point is taken, for sure. It’s never ok for this to be the case, particularly when we’re talking about something directly relating to the Constitution.
Good to know! I agree with this.
Can you elaborate on this, specifically on a federal level? What do you think WOULD be effective? You’re obviously way more educated than all or most of our politicians on the subject, what makes sense to you? The things you listed (stronger punishments for offenders, mental health care/education improvement) are ABSOLUTELY things we agree on, but those would be happening on a state level, presumably. I guess the educational class proposition could be implemented on a federal level, but most gun-related crimes aren’t federal crimes, and mental health care is almost entirely done on a state level… although I suppose the federal government could allocate funds specifically for this purpose, and distribute it to states, and let the states devise their own programs.
Agreed, again. I think mass shootings are absolutely something we need to figure out as a society, because they are such a uniquely American problem, but I think that what you’re talking about is a bigger problem.
I’ll end with a question… from what I’ve read, the Uvalde police have now said that the reason they did not enter the classroom sooner was because the shooter was, essentially, too well armed. So, my question would be, do you think the average person should be able to be ‘equally’ armed as police officers? Is there an issue there? I’m guessing your answer to this will be yes. If that’s the case, would you say that this reasoning of the Uvalde police for not entering sooner is then a shitty one? I’m hoping your answer to this is also yes. I think there’s a big problem if police don’t have the ability to take out an active shooter just because he has good guns, lol.
@Bauber where were you when I started my Gun Policy in the USA thread? I could have used some help with that!
I wanted to add a few thoughts on this.
Do you like the idea of 9 unelected government agents, appointed for life, making laws in the USA? I don’t, but that’s what has been unfolding for decades now. For the last few decades we’ve had liberal judges dictating laws that liberals support, but that pendulum swung away from liberals. This should be an “aha” moment for why legislating from the judicial bench is a terrible way of conducting civics.
If you don’t want to see the USA partially governed by 9 unelected lifetime appointees, you should agree with the majority opinion on Dobbs v Jackson. You should also agree with Clarence Thomas’ opinion that other rulings made on similar reasoning should be struck down. Not because you don’t want any woman anywhere to get an abortion for any reason. Not because you want to deprive married gays of tax benefits that were designed to incentivize child-rearing couples. Not because you think sodomy ought to be outlawed.
You should agree with Clarence Thomas because he has a clear understanding of the court’s role, the legislature’s role and the executive branch’s role. You should agree with Clarence Thomas because his opinion grants tremendous power back to the we, the people, to decide these issues on a state level as intended. You should agree with Clarence Thomas because he has the long term vision necessary to preserve a functioning republic.
Being an amateur history enthusiast, the notion of the Supreme Court creating legislation like they did in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey and then justifying it through a series of mental gymnastics strikes me as how medieval clergy operated on behalf of the ruling monarchs. In other words, it is downright Byzantine.
Yes, m’lord, we’ve managed to discover the illegitimate basis of Apokaukos’ claim to his authority. We had to translate the original documents through three different languages, but I believe the end product provides you with the justification you need to pursue your political priorities with the full support of the clergy.
Same shit, different millennia. Power-hungry narcissists are doing what they do.
On a federal level, I think the best thing would be to shore up the NICS system or really completely overhaul it. It is outdated, too many things fall through the cracks, etc. The big issue is how hard it is to stop criminals with more laws. That only punishes the law abiding. Like me for instance, the government has everything on me. Fingerprints, all my addresses, credit report, pictures, EVERYTHING. Of course being a FFL holder that is expected.
Now, the only thing that deters crime is a high enough level of punishment. More laws do not deter crime. STOP BEING SO LIGHT ON OFFENDERS. You have to increase the punishment to the level that deters the behavior. If that is death? So be it. Otherwise you will never address or stimmy the constant gun crimes. Even then you probably won’t. Most guns used in crimes are not bought - they are stolen. A big chunk of the problem is cultural and socioeconomic and you can’t legislate either of those - especially to the unwilling.
Really to me more laws are not the answer. There has to be a cultural change or you can keep putting more thickness to the legal code and getting the same results.
Yes, I think they should be equally armed. One thing that has always baffled me from the left in particular is saying police are bad and evil, yet in the same turn wanting only police to have weapons or for police to have overwhelming weapon power comparably. I am like what…
All of their answers for not acting are shitty. Even if you are outgunned - you still act where children are concerned. And they are full of shit about being outgunned. He had a common rifle all police carry in their patrol cars these days.
Now if he had like a mounted 50 cal or a saw - yeah I get it.
No, it isn’t. And comments like this are extremely unproductive. I think it’s obvious that bauber and I are having a conversation that’s meant to understand the points of view on each side, and I’d like to keep this thread civil.
Bringing up “perspective” after implying that
half of the country - and the majority of its young people - are “hell bent on ripping society apart” demonstrates a profound lack of it.
I mean, criticize policy and results all you want, but do you honestly believe that your friends, coworkers, and neighbors on “the left” are participating in politics with that intent?
This ignores so many other factors that makes an inner city different than a suburb or rural area.
How come those suburbs that have policy created by liberals haven’t been destroyed. It kinda seems like it might not be the policy, but perhaps other factors.
In my state the urban areas are all governed by liberals. The suburban and rural areas though are governed by both liberal and conservatives. How come the liberal governed suburban and rural areas fare so much better in things like education, household income, nature / park access compared to the conservative run areas? It’s almost like it isn’t liberal policy, but perhaps something different in those urban areas.
I think incarceration is a short term fix. Eventually, more and more prisons will need to be built because there will be a never ending supply of criminals.
When looking at inner cities and ghettoes, which produce more than half of the people responsible for violent crime in America as well as the school mass shooters, who tend to not come those environments and whose numbers will probably increase, I don’t see much hope.
Not the same as you. I’ve been to the rougher parts of Minneapolis. Phillips neighborhood is pretty rough. I’ve heard gun shots while there on several occasions.
The population is just on average more violent. They are on average much more poor. I don’t think liberal or conservative policy would make much of a difference (if we are keeping the same individuals in the area).
One example of liberal policy that has improved a lot of areas in Minneapolis is the zoning changes, and infrastructure changes that made gentrifying these areas appealing. A lot of the gentrified areas are now areas people want to go to. They have things like galleries, breweries, cool restaurants. But that policy involved displacing some of the population.
I make a distinction between liberals / leftists. Old school libs are great.
Were just in a period in human history where it just so happens to be the left that’s pushing insane ideology and division more. It was the right at times but the pendulum has swung. Too far imo. Given enough it’ll self correct or swing too far right.
There’s a big difference between saying things like this, and saying ‘leftists WANT bad things to happen’. I’m perfectly fine with discussing failed policies. That’s completely ok. But just saying that people on the left are awful people is tiresome, and again, doesn’t further the conversation at hand.
I recognize that I don’t have the perspective you do. I don’t share Bauber’s perspective on a lot of things. But our conversations don’t get reduced to ‘your side sucks’.
Absolutely. I live in Dallas, plenty of that here. Dallas, and Texas as a whole, has been red for a long time. It’s only been VERY recently that Dallas has become more blue, and our ghettos have existed long before that.
Perhaps there are things that have been poorly handled by politicians and people in power on both sides? Is that such a crazy idea?