Political Roundtable Part XXX

[popper]

Just for the sake of argument, assume we will never be able to confiscate the many millions of guns currently present in the country.

Logical fallacy that is partly driving the argument.

Too many guns are out there, therefore don't stop the sale of guns or try to greatly reduce their number.

Either way, I would create a mandatory insurance policy for anyone that wants to own a gun. Any victim of gun violence would then be remedied through the courts. Don't have insurance, then the gun can rightly be confiscated.

Any new purchases of guns would require background checks and ongoing insurance.

End immunity for firearm companies. That’s welfare to a particular industry.

Set a date for all guns to be “Smart guns” that tie to the mandatory insurance and can be turned off if there is something like domestic violence or mental illness.

Some of this makes sense. I'm all for reducing the number of guns out there so not sure what the logical fallacy is.

Agree with background checks as long as the government destroys the records after approval.


I have no problem with liability insurance for gun ownership although I doubt those with nefarious intent would purchase it. I think most career criminals purchase their weapons on the black market so no need to insure. I think my blanket liability policy already covers liability for accidental discharge. Doesn't make sense to me that if someone breaks in to my gunsafe, steals a weapon and murders someone that I'm somehow responsible.

Smart guns are an excellent idea

[popper]

Oh yeah it's a very common finding actually, for example:

https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/

It's why one of the most dangerous situations for cops are domestic violence situations. Wife beaters are not just horrible, contemptible people - they're most likely to become dangerous murderers.

The study ties a large percentage of mass shootings to perpetrators of Domestic Violence which is a valuable piece of information to know in order to avoid future carnage. I guess one can infer that toxic masculinity is part of the motivation but it doesn't really talk about that. Nevertheless I learned something new today so thanks. I'm confused a bit about whether or not there's a federal law that prohibits convicted DV perpetrators from possessing a gun. If not, there should be.

So when you hear about red flag laws that's what they're talking about.

Aren't those state laws? If so I'd be in favor of a federal replacement.

[Fairview4Life]

Doesn't make sense to me that if someone breaks in to my gunsafe, steals a weapon and murders someone that I'm somehow responsible.

I would suggest that if you weren't negligent in storing your gun, you probably wouldn't be found liable. But if you left it loaded on top of a bureau and it got stolen, you would be.

But there's also a not so crazy idea that if someone is able to steal your gun, that is actually your fault. It's ok to treat guns differently than other things.

[Wizardspride]

And to think millions of people voted for this guy...and would do so again.

Read on Twitter

?t=mlddfsnFTNk7F1q_Ab3jsw&s=19

[dobrojim]

Read on Twitter

?t=kZCSmoCWLeIF7CvLU0yofg&s=19

move along

no systemic racism here

[dckingsfan]

Just for the sake of argument, assume we will never be able to confiscate the many millions of guns currently present in the country.

Logical fallacy that is partly driving the argument.

Too many guns are out there, therefore don't stop the sale of guns or try to greatly reduce their number.

Either way, I would create a mandatory insurance policy for anyone that wants to own a gun. Any victim of gun violence would then be remedied through the courts. Don't have insurance, then the gun can rightly be confiscated.

Any new purchases of guns would require background checks and ongoing insurance.

End immunity for firearm companies. That’s welfare to a particular industry.

Set a date for all guns to be “Smart guns” that tie to the mandatory insurance and can be turned off if there is something like domestic violence or mental illness.

Some of this makes sense. I'm all for reducing the number of guns out there so not sure what the logical fallacy is.

Agree with background checks as long as the government destroys the records after approval.

I have no problem with liability insurance for gun ownership although I doubt those with nefarious intent would purchase it. I think most career criminals purchase their weapons on the black market so no need to insure. I think my blanket liability policy already covers liability for accidental discharge. Doesn't make sense to me that if someone breaks in to my gunsafe, steals a weapon and murders someone that I'm somehow responsible.

Smart guns are an excellent idea

The logical fallacy is that we can't somehow reduce the number of guns out there or the number of guns sold - which is specifically the purpose of gun manufacturers.

The vast majority of the recent crimes committed with guns came from new purchases.

Yes, it does make sense that if someone steals a gun and uses it in a crime you are responsible. Your policy would cover you if that was the case. But most guns that are stolen aren't secure because there are limited ramifications.

But let's be clear - the gun lobby and the Republican party are blocking ANY legislation that would decrease the number of guns being manufactured for sale in the US.

So, the "what would you do..." becomes a rhetorical question. If you want to do ANYTHING - the Rs must be the minority party.

Otherwise, a few kid deaths are a small sacrifice... and let's be good with that.

[dobrojim]

The gun manufacturers want it both ways. They want neither any regulations
nor any responsibility for the foreseeable results of their business.

[pancakes3]

on a macro level, the question is, do you care enough about this to vote accordingly. there's been 0 gun control proposals from the right, and the only solutions proposed are either 1) thoughts and prayers; and 2) arm the teachers.

even when the Right was claiming that this is a "mental health issue" there was 0 movement on proposing legislation that addresses mental health. it's all smoke and mirrors, or more accurately empty bs.

and you can see it on other issues too. for voter ID's, the claim is that we need to pass voter ID laws, but no provisions to provide voters with the proper ID. they punt on the issue of what ID is necessary and just rely on state-issued driver's licenses as a proxy for voter ID, but as a legal framework, if you're concerned about people not voting with the proper voter ID, step 0 should be to provide said ID's.

for climate change, the rallying cry of the right is always "not enough evidence to support climate change" but wholly ignores the other issues re: switching to clean energy that have nothing to do with climate change: sustainability in resource extraction; cleaner air; cleaner water; minimal waste; cheaper per kilowatt-hour generated, etc.

the GOP's policy positions have no substantive merit on its own, other than to oppose what Democrats want. As I've said a number of times, politics is about compromising on the means to achieve ends. the current political discussion is just reactionary, in that the GOP will treat every single Dem proposal as facially invalid and not worth addressing. It's completely polarizing, and is reliant on voting inertia and fearmongering.

Going back to the gun issue, the question is simple, and people generally agree - guns are a problem in this country. Dems have proposed all sorts of legislative measures: 1) limit mag size; 2) universal background checks; 3) gun manufacturer liability; 4) taxes; 5) ending the tradeshow loophole; 6) implement buy-back programs; and on and on and on.

Republicans just keep shooting these ideas down (no pun intended) and have offered 0 legislative proposals of their own. If anything, Republicans have stoked this fire even more, and making it increasingly easier to own guns. Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative justice, called out the NRA in the 90's as perpetrating fraud on the american people in advancing the argument that the 2A guarantees private ownership of guns. It's facially obvious, Burger's words and not mine, that the 2A states that 1) it was only intended for the arming of militias; and 2) even within the militia clause it allows for any number of regulations or else it would not be a "well regulated" militia.

And I don't expect voters to be constitutional experts but it doesn't take much to see that a country where anyone who wants a gun gets a gun is a bad decision. and it also doesn't take much to see that the 2A is an amendment in and of itself, and is not immutable gospel as to the rights afforded to the citizenry. if it's a bad law, constitutional or otherwise, it can be changed. shrugging and saying "well it's in the constitution so it must be good" is cowardly and lazy.

[dckingsfan]

The gun manufacturers want it both ways. They want neither any regulations nor any responsibility for the foreseeable results of their business.

Classic case of externality...

[Dark Faze]

Held hostage by half the country on this and I don't see it changing.

[Zonkerbl]

Doesn't make sense to me that if someone breaks in to my gunsafe, steals a weapon and murders someone that I'm somehow responsible.

I would suggest that if you weren't negligent in storing your gun, you probably wouldn't be found liable. But if you left it loaded on top of a bureau and it got stolen, you would be.

But there's also a not so crazy idea that if someone is able to steal your gun, that is actually your fault. It's ok to treat guns differently than other things.

Generally speaking, the problem with liability insurance is that you are not responsible for crimes committed after someone steals your gun. You're not responsible for damage inflicted by someone who stole your car either. Liability insurance is for damage you are personally responsible for.

We know that the very act of buying a gun increases risk of death, from a number of sources:
1) Suicide. It's a lot easier to commit suicide with a gun, and suicide is not victimless - your family and friends are harmed
2) All criminals are law abiding until they commit a crime. Many homicides are committed by previously law abiding people
3) Sometimes children steal guns from their parents, or use their parents' gun in a crime. Is the parent responsible?
4) And then all the normal stuff. Straw purchases, when someone without a criminal record buys guns for a criminal, often under duress. Guns purchased at trade shows where background checks aren't required. Informal sales of used guns. Theft by a stranger.

So the argument is, knowing that the average incremental death cost associated with simply the act of buying a gun is, say, $5000 (I'm just pulling a number that seems big out of the air), impose that tax on guns. That doesn't get tied up in questions of liability.

Or, you could say "If you buy a gun, and somebody (ANYBODY) dies from a bullet from that gun, we're holding you responsible for the very act of purchasing a gun, no matter what the law says" and then require liability insurance to pay out $10 million every time someone dies from a gun (suicide or crime or accident or whatever). Then let the market determine how much insurance premiums have to be. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if it would work. But that's the idea anyway. Some experiments find the insurance premium would be very low, like $50/year, so I don't know how much of a deterring effect it would have. Seems to me it should be more in the order of magnitude of car insurance to really work.

[Zonkerbl]

I don't have a problem with guns. But 400 million is obviously too many. We have to bring that under control somehow.

I don't think the conservatives necessarily have to cooperate with us. They forced anti-abortion SCOTUS judges on us, so the Constitution is no longer legitimate. I don't feel any obligation to cooperate with them or the decisions handed down by their illegitimate court. If they think states rights are so important, then let the states with lots of urban areas decide how they want to regulate guns in cities, and just ignore whatever the SCOTUS says. If they can force forced birth on us, we can force gun control laws on them.

If the Republicans want to game the system, let's game it right back. Let's punish them for choosing "betray" instead of "cooperate," like we're supposed to. A few decades of tit for tat and they'll come crawling back begging to cooperate. If we just lay down and let them steamroll us they're just going to keep doing it.

They don't want to secede, they need to suck federal subsidies from our rich teats. Let them secede. I don't care. We have all the ports, they have what - farms? 1% of US GDP? I look forward to importing food from our good friends in Mexico and Canada. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. Our 200 year long experiment in Democracy ended in failure, and the Conservatives are responsible. So, tear it down and try again.

But when they come crawling back begging for forgiveness, and they will if we show we're really serious, I'm going to have conditions.

Read on Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

I think it says something about how corrupt the Republican party is that it never occurred to them that bribing the ref to throw the game for them might be considered by some to be unfair

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=YU2Yu1C7Hq2_EXpB5V2VkQ&s=19

[Zonkerbl]

Even if it's true, so what? Why get mad about it? Persuade them that your side is right. If it's not, you have no right to complain.

[Wizardspride]

Even if it's true, so what? Why get mad about it? Persuade them that your side is right. If it's not, you have no right to complain.

You're not going to "persuade" people like that.

[Zonkerbl]

Even if it's true, so what? Why get mad about it? Persuade them that your side is right. If it's not, you have no right to complain.

You're not going to "persuade" people like that.

I mean, persuade the immigrants that being a Republican is awesome. Nate said Republicans tried to reach out to Hispanics and they failed. I imagine that's true, since the one good thing Democrats have done over the last several decades is make sure a rep from the Dem party was there at the swearing in ceremony. That really makes an impression - the Dems were there, the Republicans were not.

And the crazy thing is, there's no reason for that to be true. The Dem party was dominated by unions until the aughts, and union guys HATE immigrants. And latinos are pretty religious, there's absolutely no reason for the Republicans not to bring immigrants from over the southern border to their side. And the world would be a really different place if the Republicans had actively courted the immigrant vote for the last several decades. I mean, the Republicans ended up getting what they wanted, which is apparently the destruction of trust in democracy and the fanning of authoritarianism. Congratulations guys!

[Pointgod]

I think the Democratic party is 75% racist and pat themselves on the back for not being 100% racist. I stand by each of my points. I don't find anything you said at all persuasive, basically just put your fingers in your ears and yelled "lalalala" at every one of my arguments.

Personally I think it’s ludicrous to say that the party with the most black members, especially in senior leadership positions and had the first black President racist. It’s pretty obvious what a racist party looks like and it’s the Republican Party. Your argument is pretty much Democrats haven’t passed the policies I want and the reason is because of racism without actually providing compelling evidence. Biden hasn’t decriminalized marijuana because racism. Democrats haven’t codified abortion laws because racism. Democrats didn’t pass gun reform because racism. Obamacare unquestionably helped black people who were disproportionately uninsured but because it wasn’t Medicare for all it’s racism. And on and on. There’s a lot more complexity than you want to acknowledge and the fact is that I have hard time calling the party that has AOC, Cori Bush, Jamal Bowman fundamentally racist. The reason more left leaning policies haven’t passed is that congress is not overwhelmingly left leaning. Progressives have no one but themselves to blame for not getting more left leaning members of Congress elected. Where were they in the midterms during the Obama years?

You're flat out wrong that the moderate Dems, the voting bloc that controls the party, is not pro war on drugs. Biden is one of its PRINCIPAL AUTHORS. He refuses to legalize marijuana, or even consider it. That's racist man.

If congress passes a law to legalize marijuana, Biden will sign it. He can’t unilaterally legalize it through executive order. That’s simply not true.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1529/decriminalize-marijuana/

The MORE Act is one of several legislative proposals to decriminalize marijuana possession that haven't reached a vote. U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a bill in November that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, allowing states more latitude to set their own laws. Mace's bill had four co-sponsors as of early January.

And Democrats ABSOLUTELY WORSHIP COPS. Pay attention! If "defund the cops" is such a bad *slogan,* why are all the moderate dem proposals only about cop *reform,* which absolutely addresses exactly none of the problem? Why are there no reform options being proposed by the Dems that actually defund the cops and reallocate those funds where they are most needed?

Come on man, you're better than this. The problem in the Democratic party is deep seated racism that prevents them from embracing the policies that will help encourage their core voting blocs to turn out and vote. We absolutely need to start with defunding the cops. That needs to be our four decades long project, just like abortion was for the GOP.

If your argument that the Democrats worship cops is that they won’t throw their support behind the Defund the Police slogan, then not sure I buy that argument. What’s your interpretation of defunding the police? It’s just not a popular slogan, even if the underlying policies behind it are.

First off most people have a negative reaction to hearing Defund the Police. And that includes black people the backbone of the Democratic Party.

That survey, commissioned by the Detroit Free Press and USA Today, presented a list of eight issues and asked residents which was the biggest one facing the city. White respondents were slightly more likely to choose police reform than public safety. But Black respondents named public safety as their top concern, and they ranked police reform last. White residents opposed defunding the police, but Black residents rejected it even more decisively.

Across the political spectrum, there’s a consensus for requiring officers to wear body cameras, mandating independent investigations of officer-involved shootings, and creating a national registry of police misconduct records. By 2 to 1, the public supports banning chokeholds and no-knock search warrants. In a survey of more than 1,800 Americans, conducted in April and May by the Associated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 60 percent of respondents said police supervisors should be penalized for racially biased conduct by their officers; only 15 percent disagreed.

One of the worst things to propose, politically, is defunding the police. Americans reject that idea by about 40 percentage points. Democrats and people of color are against it. The only idea that’s less popular is abolishing the police, which, in an Economist-YouGov poll taken this month, lost by 45 points among Black Americans, by 64 points among Democrats, and by 76 points among all voters.

The problem with threatening to defund police is that the public likes police. Cops have a strong favorable rating, even among liberals. Activists who think police departments are overfunded—or that some of their money would be better spent elsewhere—would be wise to choose less confrontational language, such as advocating for “redirecting” money to mental health or other community services. In polls, that language earns the support of around 35 percent to 40 percent of Americans, but half of the public is still against it. Softening the language again, by promising to shift the money “gradually,” gets a little more support but still doesn’t reach 50 percent.

The lesson for activists and politicians is clear: Don’t talk about defunding police. Instead, talk about investing in alternatives, and make those alternatives work. Then we can have a conversation about how many cops we need to handle the work that remains. And in the meantime, rather than getting bogged down in a debate over defunding, we can talk about how to make law enforcement work better.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/police-reform-polls-white-black-crime.html

This is the challenge with purity tests in politics. If given the choice between:
1. Talking about reinvesting in communities, police accountability and keeping police away from non emergency issues or
2. Just yelling defund the police

Progressives will choose option 2 even if it provides zero net benefit. It’s not racist that the Democratic Party hasn’t made defunding the police a central message, it would be an absolutely **** stupid thing to do. This is only a good idea with people that are too deep into Twitter.

[Zonkerbl]

I think the Democratic party is 75% racist and pat themselves on the back for not being 100% racist. I stand by each of my points. I don't find anything you said at all persuasive, basically just put your fingers in your ears and yelled "lalalala" at every one of my arguments.

Personally I think it’s ludicrous to say that the party with the most black members, especially in senior leadership positions and had the first black President racist. It’s pretty obvious what a racist party looks like and it’s the Republican Party. Your argument is pretty much Democrats haven’t passed the policies I want and the reason is because of racism without actually providing compelling evidence. Biden hasn’t decriminalized marijuana because racism. Democrats haven’t codified abortion laws because racism. Democrats didn’t pass gun reform because racism. Obamacare unquestionably helped black people who were disproportionately uninsured but because it wasn’t Medicare for all it’s racism. And on and on. There’s a lot more complexity than you want to acknowledge and the fact is that I have hard time calling the party that has AOC, Cori Bush, Jamal Bowman fundamentally racist. The reason more left leaning policies haven’t passed is that congress is not overwhelmingly left leaning. Progressives have no one but themselves to blame for not getting more left leaning members of Congress elected. Where were they in the midterms during the Obama years?

You're flat out wrong that the moderate Dems, the voting bloc that controls the party, is not pro war on drugs. Biden is one of its PRINCIPAL AUTHORS. He refuses to legalize marijuana, or even consider it. That's racist man.

If congress passes a law to legalize marijuana, Biden will sign it. He can’t unilaterally legalize it through executive order. That’s simply not true.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1529/decriminalize-marijuana/

The MORE Act is one of several legislative proposals to decriminalize marijuana possession that haven't reached a vote. U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a bill in November that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, allowing states more latitude to set their own laws. Mace's bill had four co-sponsors as of early January.

And Democrats ABSOLUTELY WORSHIP COPS. Pay attention! If "defund the cops" is such a bad *slogan,* why are all the moderate dem proposals only about cop *reform,* which absolutely addresses exactly none of the problem? Why are there no reform options being proposed by the Dems that actually defund the cops and reallocate those funds where they are most needed?

Come on man, you're better than this. The problem in the Democratic party is deep seated racism that prevents them from embracing the policies that will help encourage their core voting blocs to turn out and vote. We absolutely need to start with defunding the cops. That needs to be our four decades long project, just like abortion was for the GOP.

If your argument that the Democrats worship cops is that they won’t throw their support behind the Defund the Police slogan, then not sure I buy that argument. What’s your interpretation of defunding the police? It’s just not a popular slogan, even if the underlying policies behind it are.

First off most people have a negative reaction to hearing Defund the Police. And that includes black people the backbone of the Democratic Party.

That survey, commissioned by the Detroit Free Press and USA Today, presented a list of eight issues and asked residents which was the biggest one facing the city. White respondents were slightly more likely to choose police reform than public safety. But Black respondents named public safety as their top concern, and they ranked police reform last. White residents opposed defunding the police, but Black residents rejected it even more decisively.

Across the political spectrum, there’s a consensus for requiring officers to wear body cameras, mandating independent investigations of officer-involved shootings, and creating a national registry of police misconduct records. By 2 to 1, the public supports banning chokeholds and no-knock search warrants. In a survey of more than 1,800 Americans, conducted in April and May by the Associated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 60 percent of respondents said police supervisors should be penalized for racially biased conduct by their officers; only 15 percent disagreed.

One of the worst things to propose, politically, is defunding the police. Americans reject that idea by about 40 percentage points. Democrats and people of color are against it. The only idea that’s less popular is abolishing the police, which, in an Economist-YouGov poll taken this month, lost by 45 points among Black Americans, by 64 points among Democrats, and by 76 points among all voters.

The problem with threatening to defund police is that the public likes police. Cops have a strong favorable rating, even among liberals. Activists who think police departments are overfunded—or that some of their money would be better spent elsewhere—would be wise to choose less confrontational language, such as advocating for “redirecting” money to mental health or other community services. In polls, that language earns the support of around 35 percent to 40 percent of Americans, but half of the public is still against it. Softening the language again, by promising to shift the money “gradually,” gets a little more support but still doesn’t reach 50 percent.

The lesson for activists and politicians is clear: Don’t talk about defunding police. Instead, talk about investing in alternatives, and make those alternatives work. Then we can have a conversation about how many cops we need to handle the work that remains. And in the meantime, rather than getting bogged down in a debate over defunding, we can talk about how to make law enforcement work better.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/police-reform-polls-white-black-crime.html

This is the challenge with purity tests in politics. If given the choice between:
1. Talking about reinvesting in communities, police accountability and keeping police away from non emergency issues or
2. Just yelling defund the police

Progressives will choose option 2 even if it provides zero net benefit. It’s not racist that the Democratic Party hasn’t made defunding the police a central message, it would be an absolutely **** stupid thing to do. This is only a good idea with people that are too deep into Twitter.

I stand by what I say. That's what's so ridiculous about it - the party with the most black voters endorses policies that are 75% racist. Why?

Blind cop worship is blind cop worship and it is fundamentally racist. I stand by that statement.

The fact that the phrase "defund the cops" is unpopular while all the underlying policies are popular just reinforces my assertion. Thank you. There's nothing wrong with the words "defund the cops" except that it implies less than 100% cop worship.

And hey, if the Biden administration were in fact pursuing "reinvesting in communities, police accountability and keeping police away from non emergency issues" I would shut the hell up. The reason I feel the need to scream "DEFUND THE COPS" over and over at the top of my lungs is the Dem party is *NOT DOING IT.*

This is just a poll, it's not what the Dems are doing. It shows that these policies, if the Dems had the cojones to pursue them, would be popular. Why don't they? Present me proof that they are and I'll gladly - GLADLY - eat crow. Hopefully some state level dems are doing it, but is Biden? I don't expect much from Biden but at least he could talk about it. Moving the overton window is important. Words are important, if they make deeds possible. The GOP did it, it can be done.

[dobrojim]

The gun manufacturers want it both ways. They want neither any regulations nor any responsibility for the foreseeable results of their business.

Classic case of externality...

Privatize the profits; socialize the costs