smjjames

Also, given the vast scale of the problem, the only solutions to getting down to European (for example) levels are going to be drastic no matter what, unless you take the long vision and go for a proccess that would take many decades (and could be derailed at any time). People like to cite Australia, but they have about 25 million people compared to our 300 million. There are 400 million guns in the US and 20% of that (which was the Australia gun buyback I think?) is 80 million. We're dealing with the law of large numbers here. To take a somewhat different tangent on this, this article makes the point that politicians on both sides aren't taking into account the deeper sociological aspects of gun ownership. The study linked in the article. While I have no idea how that would translate legislatively and the fact that it's dominated by white males would skew things somewhat, having politicians try to look at it from a different angle than the usual is more the point they're making.

I meant in terms of taking it seriously and treat it like one would of some of the major public health issues. The CDC research should have been done over 20 years ago, but better late than never. TBH, I did take my 'contemporary' tangent and ran off with it in a more literal fashion than would apply legally.

Or maybe I'm not thinking of "ban all guns"? hm? While reducing the number of guns somehow is neccesary, there is no easy silver bullet answer (which is what the whole 'ban all guns' thing is, an attempt at applying a simple answer to a problem that is anything but) or one that involves mass gun grabs. I don't claim to know the absolute best way to solve it, but the starting point is going to be legislation like licensing and universial background checks and things most other countries do it, allowing the CDC to do the research and treat it like a public health issue (which some are saying we should treat it like), fully funding the ATF, and stuff like that. I know your stance on government and regulations, etc, but there are some things that can only be effectively done on the federal scale. Having federal gun laws that use the common denominator (or whatever everybody agrees on) for all 50 states would definetly help because I seriously doubt that any other nation has the same extreme of patchwork network of gun laws. The California shooter brought his legally from Nevada, you can have the strictest gun laws all you want, but if they can just go to another state, that just makes the laws ineffective. Exactly, except for the ashamed part (though I seriously doubt he's the only one who owns guns on the forum, just the most vocal on the politics threads).

*sigh* *rolls eyes hard in GDs face* edit: Whether sarcasm or not, doing that kind of BS isn't constructive and only deserves an eye roll response because it's used to kill debate then and there. There are certainly some who say we should do that because it's that desperate of a measure, but theres the constructive way to talk about it and the unconstructive way to talk about it.

I don't know whether that specific location was or not. However, that still doesn't exclude anybody outside who happened to have a gun. @Gromnir: Unfortunately for us (or in some ways, fortunately), the founders never defined what 'a well regulated militia' entails or how you should regulate it or ofer in any way of details. Their contemporaries probably understood what they were talking about, but as you state, it was written in a completely different era. As for what sort of weapons, if we restrict things to what was contemporary (which seems reasonable, right? Things like the AK and Uzis were still over a 100 years in the future at that point), we'd include weapons like the Kentucky rifle or similar modern weapons. As pistols go, well, it depends on how far you take the contemporary equivalent since modern single shot pistols are what Gromnir was probably referring to by 'saturday night special'. Though revolvers did exist, but didn't become widespread until 50 years later.

You mean 1/3 of current population, I checked it on wikipedia and it was about 106 million in 1920. You'd have to go back to the turn of the 20th century to have roughly a quarter of the current population.

I could see Obama doing that, but partisans are going to be partisans and not listen to him anyway. I'll counter your responses with "MOAR GUNZZZZZZZZ!!!1!!1!" and "What's needed is a good guy with a gun". Oh wait, but it took place in Texas where roughly 35.7% (give or take several tenths of a percent, I checked several sources) of the population own guns and it's an open carry state, thus you'd (statistically at least, actual numbers and expectations would vary) expect about a third of people at any given gun-ok location to have a gun. So, where were the 'good guys/gals with guns'? Rescuing kids in one case. The 'good guys with guns' who stopped the shooter (though the Texas one surrendered voluntarily) were cops, he didn't surrender because civillians with guns threw themselves at him like the NRA apparently believes happens in real life nor did he surrender because 'Oh wait, you've got a gun too *drops gun*'. It's not at you specifically mind, just the whole general attitude. On gun grabs, even if someone wanted to, the logistics would be hell because there are so many guns in the US. Didn't the assault weapon ban end in the early 2000's? Both though are just two factors among many. Chances are he'd probably be quietly cheering the other guy on, though the second guy is dead.

Heh, nice reference there HoonDing. @ The earlier discussion on the activists blocking a guys retirement: If they want it so bad, maybe they can offer to buy it from him? That way both sides will be happy, he gets to retire and the activists get to save the restaurant.

Illuminati! Sarcasm, obviously. Though for some and if you go into a philosophical discussion on free will, the answer would be God.

Just out of curiosity, if she was the VP on a ticket, would you vote for that one? It’s probably not likely since she doesn’t really fill a strategic geographical position (though neither did Biden), but that’s just one consideration out of many. *is curious as to how many VPs came straight from the House* I’ll prob check that in the morning though Yang certainly has ideas galore, but they’re kind of, well, scattershot, ranging from more mundane things that would better fit into big picture stuff to regular big policy stuff. Sounded like he is willing to go for the long haul, so, maybe could be aiming for an admin position somewhere. Not sure what though.

Heh, if any candidate had the potential to confound Trump in a debate, it’d definitely be Marianne Williamson. She definitely has potential, but the problem is that she can’t seem to articulate it into policy. If she can intellectually disarm an alt right randian cultist, then I don’t know why she can’t show the same in a debate, it’s like she can’t help but go into ‘woo woo’ mode. She needs to hire some real debate coaches and fire the current ones

I can see you're trying to make a pun on the name of Hungary to be edgy, HoonDing, but whatever pun you're trying to make out of Romania ruins it since you didn't actually make a pun out of it that goes with the pun on the name of Hungary.

@ktchong: That thing has got to be satire, the whole 'have a BA and two years experience in XYZ' is a total giveaway.

(I wish quoting a post would include the quote in the post if it exists) I assumed elerond meant a full blown clash of national armies war than the war of proxies (well, proxy-rebels and the government anyway) that is sizzling atm.

Didn't Hungary and Romania complain loudly about the flow during the Syrian crisis? I don't remember if Poland complained about the flow or not, but they definetly complained about taking their share of the asylum seekers as mandated by Germany as a bunch of countries (mostly Eastern European) didn't want to do that.

Only problem is, how do you reconcile that with the Schengen Area which is the basis for the free flow of things in the EU. In order to resolve that, you'd have to have non-porous borders, which kills the Schengen thing. Even if the EU did have some common immigration laws for border control, it'd probably be more of a guideline since that's probably the only way that some countries would ever agree to if there were common immigration laws for border control. Theres also the issue of shared load because the load is not poportionate, at all. Italy would rather the immigrants crossing the Med go to other countries than Italy all the time, for example and you had the balkan countries which got particularily overwhelmed during the Syrian crisis

Too bad Trump didn't run with that sort of attitude rather than FUD.

I might have been thinking of those who really hated each others guts. Good point on Gabbard, it's still pretty strange for those activists to be worried about third party challenges so early. It's possible that they were thinking of the rifts that have opened up (and some that haven't fully healed from 2016), but it's not something to worry about so early on.

Pfft, BS at those activists. It's WAY too early to be worried about some third party threat, and if there is a third party run by another Democrat, it'd likely indicate some kind of weakness or dissatisfaction with the nominee or splits within the party (as opposed to Trump putting the RNC in a chokehold). Though arguably, if Biden continues poor performance, somehow gets nominated despite that, and still does poorly in debates against Trump, I may very well consider voting third party. I suppose she might make a bid for VP, though a Harris-Gabbard ticket would probably be contentous, unless it's all posturing and no real ill will between the two. There have been President-VP pairs which didn't get along all that well, just not in the modern era.

Yeah, it went just about the way you'd expect from Congress. A closed door hearing might have been more informative and would deny the Republicans their chance to posture. Then again, they'd be freer to spin it as however they'd like, and the point of this was to try to get nuclear bombshells out of Mueller and publicly. Maybe they could have done better if they did it watergate hearing style. It's an opinion piece, but I'm pointing at how they could have done the hearing.

Weren't those for the National Popular Vote compact thing? It doesn't take effect until they have a total of 270 and they're still 74 short. It's not likely that it'll get applied to 2020 in time anyway. Also, the method is going to get legal challenges for sure, and theres already a possible electoral challenge coming up in Colorado.

Are you talking about the National Popular Vote thing? Not sure which states you mean.

To be fair, they couldn't have done that if it wasn't for the work that the government agencies did, the private companies wouldn't have the starting point to work from that they do now. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

They do have the option to cancel Brexit, but due to politics, that is a route they seem to refuse to consider. The Tories at least. If Labor or one of the other remainer parties had power, they'd probably cancel Brexit.

It was inevitable. Boris Johnson's Trumplikeness aside, there is still potential for fireworks as a good chunk of his party (and likely a good chunk of the rest of Parliament) are threatening to revolt if he tries to force through no-deal Brexit. To the point of having a plan that would involve the Queen, though it's more like leverage rather than actually going through with it. There's still a chance of course, of no-deal Brexit going through whether Johnson is trying to force it through or not.