Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GW Hayduke

  1. 14 minutes ago, XYZ said:

    The problem with gun control in the USA is, with 300 million firearms out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You could ban the sale of semi-auto rifles like in the 90s, but there would still be millions of them on the street that you could buy used.

    And when I say “ban” I really mean heavily regulating like we do with fully automatic weapons

  2. 9 minutes ago, XYZ said:

    The problem with gun control in the USA is, with 300 million firearms out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You could ban the sale of semi-auto rifles like in the 90s, but there would still be millions of them on the street that you could buy used.

    It would be a huge undertaking without a doubt. IMO we would ban certain firearms that we deem too dangeruous and offering little value to society, like your mention of semi-auto rifles. We would also institute a registration/licencining system to slow the rate of new firearms entering the population. We would institute a nationwide buy-back program focused on removing whichever firearms we want removed, maybe just unlicensed/unregistered firearms. Folks would have the option of registering or selling back their firearms.

  3. 10 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    No policy or social movement is going to “solve” this problem anytime soon.  This is a long term public health crisis.

     We can only hope to treat some of the symptoms in the short term with nominal legislation.

    Long term, we need a cultural/educational paradigm shift when it comes to mental health awareness.

     

    There might be an issue with defining the propblem. Lots of people think of it as only mass shootings. Our high frequency/magnitude of mass shootings should be dealt with; however, there is much more deaths/harm that result from our high nationwide rate of firearm-related deaths.

    We have a nationwide rate on par with third world countries. If you haven’t yet, I invite you to explore the below list and see where the US compared. Sort by overall or homicide. Note where our peers like Canada, Australia, and Europe rank at.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    I would agree that the problem is complicated and will require a multi-pronged approach to solve; however, any proposed solutions that do not include strong gun control and an effort to lower the number of firearms in our population has little chance of making a meaningful change IMO

  4. 2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

    What cracks me up about this whole debate about defending against tyranny of the government is that we are watching this administration push further and further into authoritarianism. And those that support him ARE the gun nuts. Looks like this precious militia is failing us. If the Founders truly meant the 2nd Amendment to be a fail safe against tyranny, then it is obviously a failure. So what’s the point of it anymore? We have constant mass shootings AND the militia is complicit with an authoritarian leaning piece of shit administration. 

    Yeah, it’s a failure. 

    Nice point. Firearms aren’t going to prevent tyranny. This isn’t colonial times. You aren’t going to reverse a zoning board decision with your AR. You aren’t going to pistol whip the tax man because you feel your taxes are too high. 

    The rule-of-law, a free and honest press, an informed and educated electorate, and our democratic processes are our protection against tyranny. Firearms don’t have a role in that

    • Like 7
  5. 15 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

    I like how there are all sorts of explanations (with no solutions) like mental health, video games, bullying, etc.  There are plenty of mentally ill people.  There are plenty of people who have been picked.  Plenty of people who have played video games.

    At the end of the day, all of these shooters are white guys with easy access to guns.

    Yes. Any strategy will need to address firearms if there is to be any hope to lower our rate of firearm violence and decrease the magnitude/frequency of mass shootings. 

    Australia’s approach to addressing their problem was effective.

    “In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated.”

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362

  6. 8 minutes ago, HoustonHorn said:

    And I haven't looked at the research, but does it show that people in other countries are trying to kill themselves as much as people in the United States, but they aren't as successful? Honest question.

    I don’t have a full answer to that question. I am familiar with a study that looked at the trends before and after Australia reformed their gun laws.  They found “a statistically significant acceleration in the prexisting downward trend for firearm suicides.” And “There was no evidence of substitution of other lethal methods of suicides.” However, I would like to see more on this topic

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362

    • Like 1
  7. 17 minutes ago, HoustonHorn said:

    Not a personal friend, but a friend of a friend killed himself by slicing his own jugular with a bowie knife. Not arguing against some gun reform, I think its needed. Just saying that is only part of the picture and figuring out why so many people are suicidal is probably a relevant pursuit as well. But people would rather argue back and forth over guns than have difficult discussions about underlying reasons.

    Sure. We want to mimize our rates of overall deaths. I think folks have established a strong link between access to a firearm and rate of suicide success

  8. 10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Perhaps I'm sensitive, as my nephew went to Academy, purchased a shotgun, and blew his head off.

    IMO we as a society should be interested in lowering our rates of overall deaths, overall deaths from firearms, homicides from firearms, and suicides from firearms.

    Too often I see folks say that we don’t need gun reform because most firearm-related deaths are from suicides. This is a dishonest point that doesn’t acknowledge that our society wants to lower suicide rates in addition to homicide by firearm rates. There is evidence that shows access to a firearm increases risks of successful suicides.

  9. 16 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

    No, those are all examples of restrictions for any type of firearm purchase, whether it's a handgun, a bolt-action hunting rifle, or an AR-15.

    The Brady Act mandated that FFL dealers run background checks on their buyers. At first, the law applied only to handgun sales, and there was a waiting period (maximum of five days) to accommodate dealers in states that did not already have background check systems in place. Those dealers were to use state law enforcement to run checks until 1998, when the NICS would become operational and come into effect. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled against the five-day waiting period, but by 1998 the NICS was up and running, administered by the FBI, and applied to all firearms purchases from FFL dealers, including long guns.

    Wiki

    Also, why shouldn't a "relatively normal person without a record" be able to purchase a handgun? -- provided none of the other examples of restrictions I gave apply. That certainly describes me!

    I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a gun lol. I’m defining a problem in the US, high rates of firearm violence and high frequency/magnitude of mass shootings, and that we should take a multi-pronged approach to minimize and mitigate.

    One of those approaches has to do with how we regulate firearms.

  10. 10 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

    This isn't accurate. Felony convictions are the most common restriction, but you can also be restricted for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, unlawful drug use/addiction, mental health, being a fugitive, dishonorable discharge from the military, open warrants, unlawful immigration status, etc.

    In fact, mental health care providers, police departments and family members can request for individuals to be placed into the NICS database for any number of documented reasons.

    I'm for strengthening background checks and making sure people don't slip through the cracks -- which is exactly what happened in some of these mass shootings -- but to say it's as simple as checking age and felony status is way off.

    You are correct. I believe the restrictions you mention are for the purchase of a handgun and for a concealed handgun license. Even so, it isn’t very restricted for handguns IMO. If you are a relatively normal person without a record, you can get a handgun. 

  11. 55 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    This isn't remotely close to being true.  There has never been more guns/ammo in this country - and yet homicide/gun crimes are at decade-low levels.  And access?  You used to be able to walk into any hardware/outdoor store in the country and walk out with any platform they sold.  Only restriction was age.  Or just get one from a catalog.  Most school had guns in them.  Shooting/marksmanship classes.  Guns in vehicles.  Unlocked gun cases in homes. 

    These isolated school shootings are unique and modern.  Columbine was the sub-5 minute mile.  Ever since that horrible tragedy, we've seen a torrent of copy-cat killers.  Meticulous, planned attacks on soft targets these little lunatics know can be pulled off successfully.  And now we're seeing IED's.  This is just the start.  

    I mis-quoted my above comment and didn’t include you.

  12.  

    42 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

    This is a good analogy. I like the analogy surrounding traffic fatalities a bit better.

    At one time, the rate of traffic accident deaths were determined by society to be too high. This was a complex problem with many causes, factors, and potential solutions.

    Over time, we implemented was a licensing system that ensured only people with the training, appropriate vision, and driving history would get behind the wheel. There was a registration and inspection system to ensure that vehicles are probably maintained (brakes, windshield wipers, etc.) and fees paid to the state for general safety efforts. There was a set of safety standards set for cars (seat belts, roll over standard, air bags, braking standard) and an industry of designers and vehicle testers. There was a set of road design standards (turning radius to speed, sight lines) and an industry of traffic enginneers. There were speed limits and limits on blood-alcohol consumption along with the enforcement element and public awareness element. 

    The point is that we had a complex problem and we implemented a broad range of solutions and the general goal of all those solutions was to lower the overall rate of traffic deaths.

    My understanding is that the only restrictions to purchasing a firearm are age and felon status. That’s about as unfettered as it can be. Virtually anyone who wants a gun, can get a gun. And as you pointed out, this has resulted in a lot guns.

    Your statement about our trend in violence compared to our trend in ownership isn’t presented accurately. Yes, the total number of firearms has been increasing (just like an overall population increase); however, the rate of ownership per household and per adult have consistently gone down. 1977 was a high point at 50.4% of households down to 31% in 2014.

    See table 1.

    http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS Reports/GSS_Trends in Gun Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

    I also argue that a downward trend in homicides since the 90s matches with the downward trend of other crimes, such as those related to property.

    Also, I will add that since 1999 the trend in homicides related to firearms has remained flat. 

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/%3famp=1

    Of particular importance, even if we pick a point in time like 1990 and say homicides have trended down (which ignores the flatline since 1999) it is still important for us to lower the rate of homicides and suicides from firearms. 

    A comparison of the US with other countries show us that we have the highest rate of firearm violence of all first world countries and are more in comparison with third world countries. I invite you to explore the below table and sort by Total or Homicides. Below are the rates of firearm related homicides per 100,000 per year for a few notable countries.

    - 0.06 UK

    - 0.18 Australia 

    - 0.21 France

    - 0.35 Italy

    - 0.61 Canada

    - 1.04 Israel

    - 3.72 Nicaragua

    - 4.22 peru

    - 4.62 USA

    - 4.78 Uruguay

    - 6.34 Mexico

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

  13. 7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    I'm stealing this comparison from somewhere else online but can't for the life of me remember where I first saw it, but our problem with gun violence is similar to the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak. At the time, we didn't know how cholera was transmitted, but a physician investigated an outbreak in London and based on his investigation he hypothesized that it was being transmitted through contaminated water, with a focus of infection at a specific public water pump. He convinced the authorities to disable the pump, and the outbreak ended. He didn't cure cholera, but he didn't need to to stop the outbreak.

    The ease of access to guns, and the ease with which people can use guns to commit horrific acts, are similar focuses of infection. As this epidemic spreads, it's only going to become clearer that mass shooters are frequently what we consider to be "normal" people, not mentally deranged maniacs with an unquenchable blood lust. Pretty much everyone has dark thoughts sometimes, and guns make it much easier to act on them than most alternatives do. It's easy to say that anyone who wants to do something like a mass shooting will find an alternative if guns are not available, but that isn't true. Guns are unique in the ease with which they enable someone to flip from a "normal" person to a killer.

    Taking guns away from everyone would stop this outbreak. It wouldn't end all violence, just as disabling the water pump didn't cure cholera, but it would stop the outbreak. That's not really politically possible and it's not something I would support, but anyone who thinks that the widespread availability of guns has nothing to do with the epidemic is simply wrong.

    This is a good analogy. I like the analogy surrounding traffic fatalities a bit better.

    At one time, the rate of traffic accident deaths were determined by society to be too high. This was a complex problem with many causes, factors, and potential solutions.

    Over time, we implemented was a licensing system that ensured only people with the training, appropriate vision, and driving history would get behind the wheel. There was a registration and inspection system to ensure that vehicles are probably maintained (brakes, windshield wipers, etc.) and fees paid to the state for general safety efforts. There was a set of safety standards set for cars (seat belts, roll over standard, air bags, braking standard) and an industry of designers and vehicle testers. There was a set of road design standards (turning radius to speed, sight lines) and an industry of traffic enginneers. There were speed limits and limits on blood-alcohol consumption along with the enforcement element and public awareness element. 

    The point is that we had a complex problem and we implemented a broad range of solutions and the general goal of all those solutions was to lower the overall rate of traffic deaths.

  14. 3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Excellent post.

    It's like any other "failure analysis."  There's almost NEVER one single cause.  Planes usually don't crash because of one failure -- they crash because 10 things in a row went wrong.  It takes a confluence of causes to lead to the ultimate failure.

    Multi-faceted causation.  Which requires multi-element solutions.  Not just your pet cause, or the distraction you want everyone to look at instead of some other element.

    Yes. The continuous use of the question “why” to drill down and find out all the root causes of an instance of failure or non-compliance can help frame the problem. 

    IMO “the problem” isn’t often defined well and drilling down can help, and with an ill-defined problem, the goals aren’t established well. Without goals, it’s hard to measure and compare solutions.

    IMO the broadest statement of our problem is the high overall rate of firearm deaths and the high frequency/magnitude of mass shootings. 

     

     

  15. I’m going to jump out on a limb. There isn’t a single major “cause” for the untenable frequency/magnitude of mass shootings. There isn’t one single major “cause” for the untenable rate of firearm-related violence in the US.

    I’m going to go a little further on that limb. There isn’t one single “solution” to either of these problems.

    However, anyone who isn’t willing to accept that the unfettered and underregulated supply of firearms in our population as one of the major reasons for our problems, please help me understand with a supportted rational. 

    • Like 5
  16. 29 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Not all on the left want "gun control at a pretty serious level", but the left has already given us the Assault Weapons Ban, and there is no reason to think they won't match or equal that if given the chance, with no sunset provisions.  The AWB held up pretty well in the courts.

    Because the right won't give an inch, the left is going to have the moral high ground every time there is another shooting, and the right won't have a seat at the table when we reach the tipping point (within 5 years).  I think, as I said, this is partly by design - the NRA will reap tremendous financial rewards if we get something approaching another AWB.

    And Trump is no protector of gun owners.  He's not a gun enthusiast, he's already said he's cool with cops taking your firearms without due process, and while he may occasionally let NRA members slob his knob, he very clearly favors cops and firefighters, based on what he posts on twitter and what he uses as his twitter banners.

    Also, there are currently jurisdictions in the US where assault weapons are currently banned and several cases have ruled it constitutional although the SC has seen to reason to take up the issue. 

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/22/does-the-second-amendment-really-protect-assault-weapons-four-courts-have-said-no/

  17. 1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

    I wish people would start with a basic determination of how many deaths are acceptable before they draw a line in the sand regarding policy decisions.

     

    39 so far this year.  So what, 100 for 2018?  Equal amount injured..

    100 kids dying in the US per year due to school shootings isn't enough for me to suggest we do anything about the 2nd amendment.  But 100 dying per year is probably enough for me to think about whether our background check policies/training requirements/age limitations make sense in terms of federal law.

    On the state level, states like California and Florida and Texas certainly can be looking at 20 per year.  Is that worth trying to pass some state laws that would pass muster under the current liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

    (It's always struck me that this is similar to airline terrorism deaths.  It never seems like we try to put in perspective how many lives elaborate TSA procedures are worth. 

    We certainly think everyone driving 70 and having cars is worth so many thousands of deaths per year.) 

    I think we'd have an easier time talking about the issue if we just agree that all of us have some sort of death tolerance in regard to the value of a broad 2nd amendment and gun regulations.

    These are relevant and important questions. And the answer will be based on our values.

    I feel that it is important to fully frame the “problem” before jumping to determine the need for a “solution.” There are 2 desperate problems IMO.

    One problem are the mass shootings. They are relatively rare but are shocking to the public. 

    The second problem is the USs overall rate of firearm related deaths, which is on par with third world countries. This high rate applies across the entire US results in many more deaths compared to the deaths resulting from mass shootings.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    Once the problem has been defined and agreed upon, a possible framing of goals for solutions could be:

    1) to minimize/mitigate the frequency and magnitude of mass shootings.

    2) to lower our overall rate of firearm related deaths.

    From here, the evaluation of different solutions is appropriate.

  18. 4 hours ago, GRHorn said:

    I’m not sure what you find wrong with the Federalist blurb. I also don’t get why people get so blinded by Trump that they cape for James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey and any other leaders of the military and intelligence agencies whose actions have led to massive destruction, loss of lives, and waste of trillions of dollars. 

    Clapper indicated that Trump’s victory is illegitimate.  That means almost nothing to me given his past.

    But, but is Donald Trump trustworthy?  Of course not.  But, given the choice between these two untrustworthy sides I call it a draw and say that if you want to negate a national election then the bar is very fucking high for that.  Much higher than some vague implications by some figures who have poor track records and could just as easily be trying to cover their own ass.  Sorry, but I bet the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with me.  Democrats and Never Trumpers are deluding themselves and should move to more standard ways to combat him than trying to negate his election. 

    Ps the football analogy is stupid. 

    Donald Trump's trustworthiness isn't relevant. Hardly anyone cares whether he says something. We should all know by now that the guy lies about virtually everything.

    I get that you don't like those intelligence officials because of whatever, although it is likely because you feel they are on the side of the deep-state.  I get it. 

    The issue that it is becoming apparent is that the 2016 election win by the Trump Campaign is illegitimate. 

    FACTS: There is evidence that the Campaign conspired with and received a heavy amount of assistance from Russian intelligence.  We now have evidence that the Trump Campaign was trying to conspire with an Israeli intelligence contractor. These efforts were to gain illegal support to win the 2016 election.

    You can think the OU/UT analogy is stupid but it shows that there are consequences for not following the rules and for conspiring.  Clapper is simply expressing what is becoming increasingly obvious, that trump's presidency is illegitimate. 

  19. 1 minute ago, Born to Run said:


    Interesting topic. I can’t think of a single gun nut I’ve know that didn’t drink an alarming amount and constantly fear some future confiscation of guns, race riot or home invasion. Cynicism, paranoia and probably racist undertones fueling the whole thing.

    I’m not talking your average gun owner like myself or so many others I know. I mean the real deal gun 24-7 on my hip and hoarding ammo variety.

    I knew a guy that had an Arsenal that covered the walls of a basement that included a 50 caliber fully automatic machine gun. He also had a tank and was a prepper. Guy was serious, smart, and would never mix alcohol with guns. 

  20. 2 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

    To continue with your analogy.  Lets say a laser was shined in the kickers eyes by a friend of the coaches son at end of the game and the kick was missed and we consider that cheating. Oklahoma would claim that the coaches son was in the crowd and without intention happened to be sitting next to a friend that shined a laser. Also, we could not really determine if the field goal was missed due to the laser. In addition, if you were Rudy you would say what is the big deal all coaches ask friends with lasers to bring them to the game and shine them in kicker's eyes, that is not cheating.

    Yes, Rudy has moved the goal post.

    what if there was a meeting between Oklahoma coaches/staff with the laser pointer kid ahead of the game. Then later the OK staff said the meeting was about concessions. But an email came out and it was about ways the kid could help OK win

  21. 1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

    https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/22/james-clapper-just-lied-again-about-his-previous-lies-about-nsa-spying/

    He also was involved in the faulty Iraq WMD intelligence assessment.

     

    And before you mention it, yes I realize that he is one of many people still involved with intelligence that took part in that.  Some like Bolton were brought back by Trump.  I think that’s shameful.

    There’s other examples, but suffice it to say Clapper is one of the main reasons that the American people do not trust the intelligence community.

    I get it. You don’t like Clapper and you have examples for why you don’t trust him. The Lying Liar piece from The Federalist is hot garbage btw. 

    However, considering Ad Hominem is an obvious weak position, what about his position do you take issue with?

    It boils down to whether trump’s victory was legitimate or not. Clapper has indicated it wasn’t legitimate.  He was DNI during the period of Russian attacks on our democracyand trump campaign’s probable conspiring. Imagine the Sooners beating us but then we realized they cheated. That win would be removed from the books

  22. The kneeling scandal is such fake outrage driven by right wing proponents as an effort further the identity wedge in political America. 

    • Like 1
  23. 1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

    What you had on the last page were people predicting a military coup to depose a president who was removed from office but refused to leave. Or a military backed dictatorship coming to power. Or some other form of fundamentally undermining the Constitution. If we're going there, the shit is going to hit the fan.  We are at any moment approximately 72 hours from total societal collapse. If it comes to that, and a despotic takeover of the federal government is in play to set that off, I'm going to go ahead and keep my ARs close by.   

    Sure. But self defense in the event of societal collapse is different from protecting against tyranny

  24. 3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Rule of law?  Yeah, that's showing out real well.

    A free press?  Our information distribution systems are broken. 

    Honestly informed electorate? LOFL.

    Democratic processes?  The institutions that we have turned over the execution of our democratic processes to are a corrupted tragedy of incompetence.

    So yeah, I think that I'll keep my ARs for the time being. 

    No one said those pillars aren’t currently under attack by something considered tyrannical.

    You can’t defeat fake news, stop Russian troll farms, protect the Mueller investigation, or push a Republican House/senate to provide meaningful oversight with an AR.

×
×
  • Create New...