The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[John Dule]

I frequently read about migrant rape gangs and terrorists plowing vans into crowds in Britain. But I assume you don't live in fear of those occurrences because, frankly, they're quite rare. The truth is that very few people in America actually have to think about gun violence on a daily basis. But that violence is the symptom of social ills, not the disease itself.

This is a completely ridiculous comparison. In 2017, 13 people were killed in vehicle-ramming attacks in the UK, and none since, a fraction of mass shooting deaths in the US in the same period. Vans are also much more difficult to kill 50 people at once with than guns, and have a much wider range of legitimate uses.

I was not comparing those incidents to all US gun deaths, but rather to "mass shootings," which account for a fraction of a percent of all gun deaths in America. The reason why I don't "live in fear" of gun violence is because I'm simply not in a demographic that gets exposed to it; the only thing I really have to fear is a mass shooting, an exceedingly rare type of gun violence. If you have time, I'd recommend taking a look at 538's infographic of gun deaths in America. The visualization of it helps put in perspective just how much mass shootings and police killings are dwarfed by other types of gun violence.

The media often uses sites like this one to push their hyperventilating panic about mass shootings. But just look at the methodology these people are using. Under the criteria used here (which is also widely used in news articles), any shooting that kills or wounds four people is considered a mass shooting. So when someone says there have been "twelve mass shootings in the US the past month" or something, bear in mind that they are not talking about Las Vegas-scale events. They are referring mostly to people being killed or wounded in drive-by shootings in South Central LA.

And I'm not saying this to diminish the suffering of the people who actually are victims of gun violence-- black and Hispanic people, in other words. My point is that the media focuses its attention on the "unexpected" types of violence that will grab headlines. White kids being shot in a school garners more attention and outrage than black kids being shot on the streets. That is a sick fact about our culture, and in order to actually address American gun violence in any meaningful way, it needs to stop.

Those states you mention also happen to have some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Of course the fact that they are wealthy is a big factor. But I don’t think you can dismiss gun control either.

The reasons you give as to why gun control doesn’t work are all pure speculation based on gut feeling. Evidence from every other country suggests they will. Is it possible they would be uniquely ineffective in the American context? Yes, but there’s no evidence to suggest that, and lots of these measures have such broad support (masked by the outsize influence of the gun lobby) and have such great potential benefits compared to minimal curtailment of freedom that they are absolutely worth a try.

None of what I said about those policies was "based on gut feeling." Those are all real proposals that have been dreamt up by Democrats (or people on this site), and the conclusions I drew from them, while by definition speculative, are based on past precedent. As we have learned from prohibition, abortion restrictions, and marijuana/prostitution bans, making something illegal does not stop people from doing it. It just turns the people who do it into criminals. And while it's fine to slap that label of "criminal" on people who actively harm others, I shy away from using that classification against people who are not directly affecting others with their actions.

The truth is that there is no evidence to suggest that widespread gun control-- that is, the radical proposals from the left-- will work in America. Widespread disarmament has never happened on such a scale in any other country, and no other first-world country has the cultural attitude towards guns that we do. The evidence that these measures might be successful in an American context is based solely on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Gun deaths decreased following this ban in the US, but it is questionable whether the actual cause was the ban or not, for the following reasons:

1) Following the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, gun violence decreased across the board. This means that gun deaths from handguns and shotguns dropped as well, despite the fact that these weapons were not covered under the ban.
2) After the ban timed out, gun deaths remained at their low levels and have never risen back up to pre-1994 levels. This suggests that the ban itself is not the cause of this decrease in violence.
3) The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban came about one generation after the legal availability of safe abortion across the United States. This is the confounding variable. When economically disadvantaged families are able to control the number of kids they have, you get fewer angry young men on the streets trying desperately to survive. This in turn leads to a reduction in crime-- a reduction, for the record, that has remained ever since. I know there is still some debate as to the cause of the drop in violence in the 1990s, but I think it is safe to say that the reduction had more to do with abortion than with Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban.
 

I have already said elsewhere that Biden should focus on other more pressing socioeconomic matters. But when there is the inevitable slew of mass killings that only America seems to be desensitised to among all the countries of the developed world, I absolutely do think he should act, and make this Dem trifecta the first ever to actually have some response to a mass shooting.

One last question: are you opposed to gun control on principle, or is it a pragmatic stance based on America’s specific circumstances? In other words, do you think European countries should loosen their gun laws, in spite of how successful and popular they are?

Again, I'm not saying that the Biden administration shouldn't respond to gun violence. I'm saying that it should respond to the gun violence that is most prevalent in our society, because that is the way to improve (and save) the most lives.

I am opposed to gun control measures for three reasons: strict constitutionalism, individual liberty, and pragmatism (and in that order). However, I support a handful of gun control laws that I think are more pragmatic and intelligent than the ones I listed earlier. I think that police, when called to the scene of a domestic violence incident, should be allowed to search the premises for firearms and to confiscate them (temporarily) as they see fit. I have no serious objection to background checks, although I should note that I don't think they work nearly as well as we all wish they did.

As for the European gun laws, I absolutely think it is ridiculous that handguns are banned in the UK. I seriously can't understand how such a law even exists, and there is no question that it cannot be applied effectively to the United States. But then again, this is also the country that forces you to pay for TV licenses... so...

You sure you’re a libertarian?

I almost always support equality of opportunity and oppose equality of outcome. I am not wedded to any particular ideology, but libertarianism happens to align the most with my beliefs.

[Alcibiades]

None of what I said about those policies was "based on gut feeling." Those are all real proposals that have been dreamt up by Democrats (or people on this site), and the conclusions I drew from them, while by definition speculative, are based on past precedent. As we have learned from prohibition, abortion restrictions, and marijuana/prostitution bans, making something illegal does not stop people from doing it. It just turns the people who do it into criminals. And while it's fine to slap that label of "criminal" on people who actively harm others, I shy away from using that classification against people who are not directly affecting others with their actions.

The truth is that there is no evidence to suggest that widespread gun control-- that is, the radical proposals from the left-- will work in America. Widespread disarmament has never happened on such a scale in any other country, and no other first-world country has the cultural attitude towards guns that we do. The evidence that these measures might be successful in an American context is based solely on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Gun deaths decreased following this ban in the US, but it is questionable whether the actual cause was the ban or not, for the following reasons:

1) Following the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, gun violence decreased across the board. This means that gun deaths from handguns and shotguns dropped as well, despite the fact that these weapons were not covered under the ban.
2) After the ban timed out, gun deaths remained at their low levels and have never risen back up to pre-1994 levels. This suggests that the ban itself is not the cause of this decrease in violence.
3) The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban came about one generation after the legal availability of safe abortion across the United States. This is the confounding variable. When economically disadvantaged families are able to control the number of kids they have, you get fewer angry young men on the streets trying desperately to survive. This in turn leads to a reduction in crime-- a reduction, for the record, that has remained ever since. I know there is still some debate as to the cause of the drop in violence in the 1990s, but I think it is safe to say that the reduction had more to do with abortion than with Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban.

The evidence from around the world is that drug prohibition has been an abject failure. The same cannot be said for gun control. Your premises for why gun control won’t work in America are purely that; premises, with very little solid evidence. The Assault Weapons Ban, in spite of its many loopholes, is an example of gun control working. Yes, you can argue it had a rather weak effect, but an effect nonetheless, and in my view any positive effect trumps considerations of freedom when it comes to assault weapons, whose sole purpose is to kill. There is no compelling reason why a law-abiding citizen would want or need one which outweighs the harm done by simultaneously opening up the market for them to people with more nefarious intentions.
 

I am opposed to gun control measures for three reasons: strict constitutionalism, individual liberty, and pragmatism (and in that order). However, I support a handful of gun control laws that I think are more pragmatic and intelligent than the ones I listed earlier. I think that police, when called to the scene of a domestic violence incident, should be allowed to search the premises for firearms and to confiscate them (temporarily) as they see fit. I have no serious objection to background checks, although I should note that I don't think they work nearly as well as we all wish they did.

I’m surprised that you list strict constitutionalism above individual liberty. You of all people should know better than to be afflicted by the blind worship of a 250-year-old document, the 2nd Amendment of which serves as a prime example of why it is in many cases woefully unsuited to the realities of the 21st Century. A country which is the only to guarantee the right to bear arms and yet does not guarantee the right to healthcare (which follows naturally from the right to life) is not a model to follow, in my humble opinion.

As for individual liberty, I appreciate we are coming from very different philosophical positions here. I am essentially following a Millian utilitarian perspective here, and I think that the freedom (primarily the freedom to live) that loose gun laws infringe upon is far greater and more important than the freedom they grant.

As for the European gun laws, I absolutely think it is ridiculous that handguns are banned in the UK. I seriously can't understand how such a law even exists, and there is no question that it cannot be applied effectively to the United States. But then again, this is also the country that forces you to pay for TV licenses... so...

I cannot think of one good reason why handguns should be legalised in the UK. It would create a lot of problems and make people much less safe, while solving or improving nothing. The status quo here on guns works absolutely fantastically.

[Battista Minola 1616]

@Alcibiades @John Dule

Your debate about gun policy and political philosophy is way too substantive and intellectually worthwhile to be performed inside the "Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts". I kindly suggest you to move the discussion somewhere else.

[Hammy]

This is compared to a rate of 38,000 vehicular deaths per year on US highways. Would lowering the speed limit everywhere result in fewer deaths? Would banning alcohol result in fewer drunk driving accidents? Probably. But as I'm sure you understand, freedom involves trade-offs, and society is better served if we direct our attention towards areas where we can do more good. The same is true with regards to guns.

Regardless of one's stance on the issue, comparing intentional acts of violence to accidents--many of which result from poor weather that people don't always have the option of not driving in--is intellectually dishonest.

Deaths are deaths. If 10,000 gun deaths every year mean we should sue the gun industry, then the 38,000 car deaths every year must mean we should sue the car industry.

The gun industry receives automatic blanket protection from all liability, something no other industry receives. At the very least the same standards should apply in both cases, which they presently don't.

[Alcibiades]

@Alcibiades @John Dule

Your debate about gun policy and political philosophy is way too substantive and intellectually worthwhile to be performed inside the "Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts". I kindly suggest you to move the discussion somewhere else.

Fair enough

[WMS]

You sure you’re a libertarian?

I almost always support equality of opportunity and oppose equality of outcome. I am not wedded to any particular ideology, but libertarianism happens to align the most with my beliefs.

Fair enough. Just not used to seeing libertarians adopt positions other than “you can starve in the streets as long as the government plays no role in it”

[Coolface Sock #42069]

You can just type 'incels'. It's a lot shorter than "young conservatives".

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Considering Pennsylvania hasn't had a black statewide politican of prominence in a long time (if ever? besides like Auditor General or something), this would be huge For Kenyatta. That could work in his favor.

Don't get the hype about Cartwright. Yeah, he did great in his district, but that's more reason for him to STAY there, b/c we'd lose that seat then if he'd lose. And I don't see Cartwright performing any different than someone like Lamb statewide. People may hate Lamb here for some reason, but PA is still very much a tossup, so I think he'd be an Ossoff-type statewide candidate (and I mean that in a good way)

I'm still not convinced Lamb will jump in though. Would make sense for him to wait for Attorney General, no?

I'm gonna be honest, I'd rather lose with Fetterman, Cartwright, or Kenyatta than win with Lamb. I cannot handle another Sinema sabotaging the Democratic agenda at every opportunity for "bipartisanship" points back home.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

You can just type 'incels'. It's a lot shorter than "young conservatives".

Kinda true tbh. There's a lot of overlap.

[VAR]

You can just type 'incels'. It's a lot shorter than "young conservatives".

Kinda true tbh. There's a lot of overlap.

You used to be a young conservative.

[Mr. Smith]

Considering Pennsylvania hasn't had a black statewide politican of prominence in a long time (if ever? besides like Auditor General or something), this would be huge For Kenyatta. That could work in his favor.

Don't get the hype about Cartwright. Yeah, he did great in his district, but that's more reason for him to STAY there, b/c we'd lose that seat then if he'd lose. And I don't see Cartwright performing any different than someone like Lamb statewide. People may hate Lamb here for some reason, but PA is still very much a tossup, so I think he'd be an Ossoff-type statewide candidate (and I mean that in a good way)

I'm still not convinced Lamb will jump in though. Would make sense for him to wait for Attorney General, no?

I'm gonna be honest, I'd rather lose with Fetterman, Cartwright, or Kenyatta than win with Lamb. I cannot handle another Sinema sabotaging the Democratic agenda at every opportunity for "bipartisanship" points back home.

Wrong thread, and the mods already did this to NE-02, NC, and PA in 2010 anyway.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

You can just type 'incels'. It's a lot shorter than "young conservatives".

Kinda true tbh. There's a lot of overlap.

You used to be a young conservative.

Yeah, well....

[Stuart98]

This Manchin majority simply isn't worth it. The biden nominees that have been confirmed would have been confirmed with or without his support, and he continually shows a lukewarm at best attitude toward the democratic agenda, including on covid related matters. At least with McConnell we'd know for sure that dem wins would be few, instead of getting all this false hope from closeted republican Joe Manchin.

[brucejoel99]

Really, just everything he has to say about Manchin in that thread belongs here (emphasis in bold):

Like I've previously pointed out, though, the man has never cast a deciding vote against the Democratic Party line over the course of his nearly 10 years in the Senate. That's just not changing now.

well this aged well. Any comment?

Well, last I checked, I missed the part where he's confirmed to be casting a deciding vote against the Democratic Party line by taking this stand, so my comment would be to f**king wait:

Remember guys, Manchin literally never votes against the party line when it matters, and it's stupid and naive to think that he will. I'm sure that he's only doing this because he knows there are loads of Republicans to pad the margin.

(This is sarcastic in case you can't tell)

Y'all, can we calm the f**k down for literally 5 seconds & just wait & see how this plays out a bit more. It's entirely possible that he's been told Tanden has at least 1 Republican vote (so, literally pick 1 of your Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins', etc.) & that this is therefore not a time where his vote actually matters. But thank you for your failed attempt at a burn, though, very cool!

Maybe (I highly doubt it), but I do note that Manchin is announcing this ahead of any R publicly saying they're a yes.

The problem with Manchin is that we should not have to get down on our knees and beg Murkowski (here) or the Budget Committee (in the case of the budget amendments that he provided deciding votes for) to cover for his misbehavior. He should know enough to provide the desired result himself.

I'm honestly sick and tired of treating someone who voted with Trump more often than not, voted for 80% of his judges, and already has or plans to cast several deciding votes against the dems in this congress, as a Democrat. We need to kick him out of the caucus.

I was following until the last paragraph. How in God's name would deliberately making McConnell Majority Leader again just to teach Manchin a lesson or whatever be preferable to the current situation?

This Manchin majority simply isn't worth it. The biden nominees that have been confirmed would have been confirmed with or without his support, and he continually shows a lukewarm at best attitude toward the democratic agenda, including on covid related matters. At least with McConnell we'd know for sure that dem wins would be few, instead of getting all this false hope from closeted republican Joe Manchin.

I'm honestly sick and tired of treating someone who voted with Trump more often than not, voted for 80% of his judges, and already has or plans to cast several deciding votes against the dems in this congress, as a Democrat. We need to kick him out of the caucus.

Sounds like a good way to ensure McConnell can block Covid relief and prevent Breyer from retiring.

Oh, haven't you heard!? Joe Manchin's just itching to kill the COVID relief stimulus package (that no legitimate Republican even supports) even though he's already come out in support of it, AND then he's gonna personally shoot Justice Breyer with his own NRA-provided shotgun just to open up his seat & save it for when McConnell returns to the majority leadership. Of course, even though Manchin is obviously a secret Republican at heart, he's doing all of this without switching parties & actually putting McConnell in charge so he can do all of these things - & more - that Manchin has made very clear in public that he doesn't actually wanna do. It almost makes TOO MUCH sense!!

Well if we can't kick him out, then we need to take away his committee chairmanship. This treachery should not go unpunished.

[AGA]

I was nourished by canned formula, and turned out pretty fantastic.

Breasts are sexual objects, and should not be used to feed infants.  That's just weird. 

[Stuart98]

I was nourished by canned formula, and turned out pretty fantastic.

Breasts are sexual objects, and should not be used to feed infants.  That's just weird. 

That reads as obvious sarcasm to me.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

I was nourished by canned formula, and turned out pretty fantastic.

Breasts are sexual objects, and should not be used to feed infants.  That's just weird. 

That reads as obvious sarcasm to me.

People on Atlas have a tough time picking up on that, that's why vitoNova gets a lot of undeserved hate.

[vitoNova]

I was nourished by canned formula, and turned out pretty fantastic.

Breasts are sexual objects, and should not be used to feed infants.  That's just weird. 

That reads as obvious sarcasm to me.

People on Atlas have a tough time picking up on that, that's why vitoNova gets a lot of undeserved hate.

They hate me cuz they ain't me.

[Santander]

I was nourished by canned formula, and turned out pretty fantastic.

Breasts are sexual objects, and should not be used to feed infants.  That's just weird. 

That reads as obvious sarcasm to me.

People on Atlas have a tough time picking up on that, that's why vitoNova gets a lot of undeserved hate.

Most of us have mild autism, so...

[Never Made it to Graceland]

I was nourished by canned formula, and turned out pretty fantastic.

Breasts are sexual objects, and should not be used to feed infants.  That's just weird. 

That reads as obvious sarcasm to me.

People on Atlas have a tough time picking up on that, that's why vitoNova gets a lot of undeserved hate.

Most of us have mild autism, so...

Hey, you said it not me.

And in fairness sarcasm can be tricky when you're reading as opposed to hearing someone's voice, regardless of who you are.

[vitoNova]

That wasn't sarcasm, BTW.  I don't do sarcasm.  I only do 100% Truth.

It's weird having junior and daddy both suckling the same teats. 

[Battista Minola 1616]

That wasn't sarcasm, BTW.  I don't do sarcasm.  I only do 100% Truth.

It's weird having junior and daddy both suckling the same teats. 

As I said some time ago in this very thread:

Any time a vitoNova post includes a percentage, you can guess that's not going to end well.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Considering Pennsylvania hasn't had a black statewide politican of prominence in a long time (if ever? besides like Auditor General or something), this would be huge For Kenyatta. That could work in his favor.

Don't get the hype about Cartwright. Yeah, he did great in his district, but that's more reason for him to STAY there, b/c we'd lose that seat then if he'd lose. And I don't see Cartwright performing any different than someone like Lamb statewide. People may hate Lamb here for some reason, but PA is still very much a tossup, so I think he'd be an Ossoff-type statewide candidate (and I mean that in a good way)

I'm still not convinced Lamb will jump in though. Would make sense for him to wait for Attorney General, no?

I'm gonna be honest, I'd rather lose with Fetterman, Cartwright, or Kenyatta than win with Lamb. I cannot handle another Sinema sabotaging the Democratic agenda at every opportunity for "bipartisanship" points back home.

Wrong thread, and the mods already did this to NE-02, NC, and PA in 2010 anyway.

PA and NC in 2010?  What are you even talking about?  Also, we lost NE-2 (twice) b/c Kara Eastman was a terrible candidate, not b/c anyone gives a **** what Brad Ashford thinks

[brucejoel99]

Yes but our because as a Senator political considerations would come into play. I wouldn't be willing to vote against any nominations from my party.

[Santander]

I was nourished by canned formula, and turned out pretty fantastic.

Breasts are sexual objects, and should not be used to feed infants.  That's just weird. 

That reads as obvious sarcasm to me.

People on Atlas have a tough time picking up on that, that's why vitoNova gets a lot of undeserved hate.

Most of us have mild autism, so...

Hey, you said it not me.

And in fairness sarcasm can be tricky when you're reading as opposed to hearing someone's voice, regardless of who you are.

Well, I arguably have a much worse condition than mild autism, so I'm allowed to say that.