Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 371: 13 Years Old, Mature Enough for FOX and Gaetz

(+) Yeah! (+)

red13n posted...

This is going to be relative to what you think is way less, to be honest.

Again, I would have to go into the exact numbers to be sure, but I would really guess it would be right about 10x. I would be utterly shocked if it was way less.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Further complicating the issue, a vast majority of the gun deaths in that figure I gave were suicides

These count on both sides of the issue, imo. A certain % can be prevented by not having mental health services and some can be prevented by not having guns.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Again, I would have to go into the exact numbers to be sure, but I would really guess it would be right about 10x. I would be utterly shocked if it was way less.

I would be willing to not do the math and just accept this(I would still wager it falls under, to get a true number we need to actually find some countries with better health care to compare death rates. But to get an even truer number we need to eliminate the effect of non-health care caused US poverty as well). As long as we're also willing to settle for chris' idea that preventable health care deaths dwarf gun deaths x10 is even further from the mark.

---

I'm going to also reiterate my position is not that our health care doesn't suck, or that its less of an issue than gun control.

My stance is we are more than capable of worrying about both at once because both are fucking horrifying.

---

I mean as someone who lost two uncles to suicide by firearm, I think we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time when it comes to addressing healthcare and gun violence.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean as someone who lost two uncles to suicide by firearm, I think we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time when it comes to addressing healthcare and gun violence.

My biggest issue is statement's like chris' marginalize a ton of issues. If you dont want to care about things insignificant compared to health care you are throwing a lot of causes under the bus.

---

red13n posted...

These count on both sides of the issue, imo. A certain % can be prevented by not having mental health services and some can be prevented by not having guns.

For sure, but it does lower the number your statement is working with even further by a good bit. We're no longer looking at 400k. We're looking at more like 200-250k, being generous, since at the core of you and Chris's argument, it's health care reform vs. gun control, and there's not much data out there to suggest gun control would greatly impact suicide numbers.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

there's not much data out there to suggest gun control would greatly impact suicide numbers.

I'm actually really curious on this because like mass shootings, theres a theoretical ease in the process when you involve guns.

---

red13n posted...

I'm actually really curious on this because like mass shootings, theres a theoretical ease in the process when you involve guns.

Well, I'm not even really getting into the question of "Would they still have committed suicide without a gun" and ease of action. It's just also a fact that the gun control that is aimed at the types of guns regularly used in mass shootings isn't going to have much impact on the types of guns regularly used in suicides. Carry laws aren't going to stop suicides, assault weapon bans aren't going to stop suicides, and in most cases, the person committing suicide already owns/has access to the gun used, so the impact of background checks isn't going to be as large, and so on.

---

red13n posted...

I'm actually really curious on this because like mass shootings, theres a theoretical ease in the process when you involve guns.

I can say in a purely anecdotal way that my two uncles owned guns and died, whereas when my dad attempted suicide he did so by a medication and lived.

To clarify my dad has never owned a gun in his life.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Well, I'm not even really getting into the question of "Would they still have committed suicide without a gun" and ease of action. It's just also a fact that the gun control that is aimed at the types of guns regularly used in mass shootings isn't going to have much impact on the types of guns regularly used in suicides. Carry laws aren't going to stop suicides, assault weapon bans aren't going to stop suicides, and in most cases, the person committing suicide already owns/has access to the gun used, so the impact of background checks isn't going to be as large, and so on.

I mean, I'm for way stricter gun laws than whatever is going to be proposed here that likely wont even get signed into law anyway.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Red tried to dunk on Tony because Tony said he doesn't want to enact stringent gun control in the past.

Ok Im glad someone else saw it AND understands my position.

For the record, Im for mandatory background checks, training, AND registration.

Its weird as hell to think I deserve anger over not wanting to ban all guns in a country that had a civil war over owning people. Youre willing to wager the gun nuts (and the entire Republican Party) just hand them over?

Common sense gun reform. Healthcare. Now.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Its weird as hell to think I deserve anger over not wanting to ban all guns in a country that had a civil war over owning people. Youre willing to wager the gun nuts (and the entire Republican Party) just hand them over?

Your position was "rawr dont take my guns I need them for fun".

---

red13n posted...

I mean, I'm for way stricter gun laws than whatever is going to be proposed here that likely wont even get signed into law anyway.

Yeah but unless you're for "literally no guns," you're still going to have an issue with suicides

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah but unless you're for "literally no guns," you're still going to have an issue with suicides

I mean, yeah? That should be the end goal. I recognize the need to take baby steps but until we get to where most of the civilized world is on the issue we're going to have a higher per capita murder rate.

---

red13n posted...

I mean, yeah? That should be the end goal. I recognize the need to take baby steps but until we get to where most of the civilized world is on the issue we're going to have a higher per capita murder rate.

Which countries ban any and all gun ownership?

---

red13n posted...

Your position was "rawr dont take my guns I need them for fun".

no, my position was I live in the MAGA south where they wont give up their guns, and Im not trying to disarm when they revolt.

Them being fun was an added aside.

---

Yeah, Tony's positioned was definitely more nuanced than that!

Oh wait I'm sorry he actually yelled "COME AND GET EM COWPOKE" and then fired them up in the air Yosemite Sam style.

---

Everyone I associate with IRL knows full and well that if they have or ever get a gun they're not supposed to let me know.

I'm honestly really creeped out by people who own guns. I don't get it at all.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Oh wait I'm sorry he actually yelled "COME AND GET EM COWPOKE" and then fired them up in the air Yosemite Sam style.

I can vouch this is how it happened, because I stuck a carrot in one and it blew up in his face and now you know why we always fight

---

red13n posted...

Oh they most certainly die.

But by chris' dumb logic, we shouldn't worry about health care when poverty is going to make them die anyway. (People in poverty cant afford nutritious food, which is going to cause all these medical issues).

Yes.

Let's work on poverty first, I agree.

You aren't going to win this argument with me, I have a check list and if you want to start at poverty like, say, fighting for a living wage for all Americans, broad expansion of healthcare (what makes most people poor if they aren't already), and then sprinkle in a robust mental health program as part of that then sure we can go about looking at guns after.

I mean we could do all of that, but I am honestly sick of Tony taking a beating on guns when I have seen you, red, bemoan your dam needing fixed lol.

I am pretty consistent if nothing else on my tiers of needs. I think poverty/healthcare go very much hand in hand but yeah.

I mean you're literally trying to argue gun violence to someone personally affected by gun violence. I literally had my world shattered for a long time by Pulse, so I don't know what you think you're doing saying I am understating guns. I'm not. That's just how awful our other issues are.

Also yeah suicides by gun are squarely a mental health issue which would be at least helped by M4A.

Actually broader point about my life and where I come from. I grew up very poor. My mom died because of a lack of good affordable medical option until it was too late. She died at 65. Do you know the rage I feel when the smug Hillary Clinton goes and says 'well actually I wanted to lower it' fat lot of good that did for my mom. I have lost a good friend to gun violence. I am the American story, red. And I really don't want to be. I don't want other people to be that American story. It's not stupid. It's not naive. I have lived the issues I fight for every day for years. Gun violence literally can't matter until we fix the poverty and healthcare problems in this country. Of course I want it changed, of fucking course I do. I still sometimes wake up in a cold sweat. The 5 year anniversary is approaching. Anyone who was talking to me regularly at the time knows how badly I spiraled because of that. I don't want a single gun to be in this country sometimes, to be blunt. However people are on starvation wages. People are dying because of insurance companies. Priorities.

---

A mindset of "We can't work on Y until we address X first" doesn't make much sense to me. Yeah, there's a matter of bandwidth, but trying to make all these issues "compete" with one another for attention just feels like playing in the hands of maintaining the status quo.

I mean, like, where does endless foreign wars fit in on this priority flowchart then? I kinda feel like morally it should probably rank ahead of domestic issues then because it's us (as a nation) inflicting harm to others. So can we not work on healthcare and poverty until we end our involvement in the Middle East?

Nah, we can and should do more than one thing at a time.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I mean we could do all of that, but I am honestly sick of Tony taking a beating on guns when I have seen you, red, bemoan your dam needing fixed lol.

I never bemoaned the dam. It was an example of how that bill had a bunch of tertiary shit no one thinks about because its labled "defense bill" and holding that up would be wildly unpopular, get democrats crucified, and then make it even harder to undertake any sort of a progressive agenda.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

You aren't going to win this argument with me, I have a check list and if you want to start at poverty like, say, fighting for a living wage for all Americans, broad expansion of healthcare (what makes most people poor if they aren't already), and then sprinkle in a robust mental health program as part of that then sure we can go about looking at guns after.

Also we aren't having an argument on "X is more important than Y". But the idea that we are incapable of doing multiple things at once just doesn't make any sense. That is the dumb kind of logic Republicans use to keep their base in line because they convince people that one issue stalls government forever, but it isn't based in fact in the slightest.

---

xp1337 posted...

A mindset of "We can't work on Y until we address X first" doesn't make much sense to me. Yeah, there's a matter of bandwidth, but trying to make all these issues "compete" with one another for attention just feels like playing in the hands of maintaining the status quo.

I mean, like, where does endless foreign wars fit in on this priority flowchart then? I kinda feel like morally it should probably rank ahead of domestic issues then because it's us (as a nation) inflicting harm to others. So can we not work on healthcare and poverty until we end our involvement in the Middle East?

Nah, we can and should do more than one thing at a time.

Except America has proven it can't. Please face reality of our system. Literally couldn't pass covid relief and 15 dollars an hour. I am sick of people saying this, no offense meant to you, and then nothing changes.

Like none of it is getting done because America sucks. Welcome to America.

(citation: not literally nothing)

Like, I obviously want all of this stuff. I am not trying to not get it. If suddenly the senate woke up one day and was like "yeah fuck gun violence" I wouldn't be upset, but given the horrible bandwidth I do have a priority list. Now if people want to, like, focus on local government issues for gun laws (you know like Colorado tried to do before it was overturned and then people died oops) that's obviously fine. Because gun violence is indeed bad.

---

I mean, if you're going to take that tone then my cynicism tells me we can't do any of the major issues like climate, healthcare, or poverty so that approach means literally nothing will get done.

The reality of our system is that it is slow and increasingly non-participatory and the former means it will be unable to act in time to address the crisis that await us that aren't just going to play with our timetable (climate) and the latter means that the mechanisms of power are systemically and intentionally designed to overrepresent demographics and elect politicians who don't give a fuck about the others (healthcare, poverty, police brutality, like literally everything else.)

The "reality of our system" isn't "oh if only the government focused on healthcare it could actually get something that isn't a goddamn atrocity" it's "Oh, if only the government wasn't designed to disproportionately represent demographics that have been chiefly motivated by white identity politics to elect politicans who see the profiteering of the healthcare industry and cheer it on and don't give a damn about the human suffering unless, maybe, it affects them personally, then maybe it wouldn't be damn near fucking impossible to elect a government that can actually fix the goddamn problem. ...Oh and btw fixing the disproportion problem is actually an even more difficult problem because of the very distortion it was purposely designed with."

No offense, but the sentiments you're expressing - while 100% understandable and relatable - sound a lot like screaming "DO SOMETHING" to the government without looking at the deep roots from the very founding of the country, and even before, that make "DO SOMETHING" way fucking harder than it has any earthly right to be. Like, no joke, gerrymandering has gotten so bad that Democrats need the best fucking midterm performance by an incumbent party to not lose the House. It's not enough to just "get more votes than the opponent" you need to increasingly break fucking records just to keep the entire federal government from grinding to a halt.

...I... truly don't even know if it can be fixed. I feel like there was a glimmer of hope if Dems got like 52 seats in the Senate but even though Georgia kept the slightest crack in the door open I am increasingly spiraling down the thought that, nope, things like HR1, the JLVRA, and DC statehood might actually be successfully stalled out because Sinema and/or Manchin care more about the filibuster than the small-d democratic will of the public. And then a new wave of gerrymandering with the new decade and waves of voter suppression laws will make it all but impossible to claw back into power in Congress. Nationally, can probably still win Presidential elections because when you can win by 8 million votes you can *laughs hollowly* eke out a win here or there, but that alone means you can't do shit to make the transformative changes needed.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Except America has proven it can't. Please face reality of our system. Literally couldn't pass covid relief and 15 dollars an hour. I am sick of people saying this, no offense meant to you, and then nothing changes.

Your choosing to look at the problem the wrong way.

The problem isn't that we cant multitask. The problem is we literally cant task at all. Doing "one thing at a time" doesn't solve any issue with this. Its going to continue to get nothing done.

Also arguably the way stuff typically gets done in this country is shit gets bundled with something else so that people dont notice.

---

America can't do things because the ruling class just doesn't want to do things, not because focusing on one thing at a time would help. The other reason is that the working class has completely forgotten how to make the ruling class do things (it takes more than just voting!)

Remember what FDR said to activists after meeting with them "I agree with you, now go out and make me do it." change that benefits working people comes from the bottom up, not the top down. The real problem is that basically that regular people have absolutely no class consciousness, no political organizing, no unions, all major radical movements like BLM become immediately co-opted and neutered by corporations and liberals, all left wing organizations become infiltrated by feds who try to sabotage it from within, nobody pressures their politicians in any way besides maybe threatening a primary in which it usually doesn't matter because nobody pays enough attention or votes in primaries, etc.

fuming posted...

Remember what FDR said to activists after meeting with them "I agree with you, now go out and make me do it."

And then the New Deal went and left minorities out in the cold so it was another example of structural racial inequality \()/

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Youre willing to wager the gun nuts (and the entire Republican Party) just hand them over?

probably not but "we shouldn't even try to ban guns because not all people with guns are going to just hand them over" seems like a needlessly fatalistic argument. especially considering how much harm guns are doing in the US.

plus this is like saying "we shouldn't even try to stop islamic terrorists! you think they're just going to voluntarily stop killing people and go to jail?" just because there's no easy solution to an issue doesn't mean you shouldn't try to come up with an adequate solution.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZceVeZ95ts

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

probably not but "we shouldn't even try to ban guns because not all people with guns are going to just hand them over" seems like a needlessly fatalistic argument. especially considering how much harm guns are doing in the US.

I dunno, I think its essentially impossible because gun rights are enshrined in our constitution and completely banning them would rip apart the entire country is perfectly valid.

Im not saying itd be hard, Im saying it is impossible. If you think January 6th was scary, imagine all those people deciding every Democrat is an imminent threat, and not just the elected ones. Btw, the cops and military are on their side. Lets be realistic here.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

plus this is like saying "we shouldn't even try to stop islamic terrorists! you think they're just going to voluntarily stop killing people and go to jail?" just because there's no easy solution to an issue doesn't mean you shouldn't try to come up with an adequate solution.

??????

lolwhat? Islamic Terror should not even be in the Top 100 concerns Americans have, and most people who prioritize it are raging xenophobes.


---

Amusingly, I think the issue chris brings up is one of the problems with the new hyper partisan paradigm. Pork Barrel spending got a bad name but really what it was was people whos #1 issue was off the grid. A random overpass that REALLY needed to be fixed with no local money to do it that nobody really cared about got funding because the Republican congressman in his district signed on to a democrat bill if it got added.

Now with nobody crossing lines you kind of have to do things one at a time in order to beat special interests groups who are going to try to poison the idea.

People who really care about an issue always beat the greater good unless the greater good becomes main stream.

---

I think humanity as a majority has become more progressive than The Founding Slave-Owners ever intended it so our current system is literally not set-up to do this stuff that they never even considered and those in power already tend to be on a forty-year progressive lag.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

I think humanity as a majority has become more progressive than The Founding Slave-Owners ever intended it so our current system is literally not set-up to do this stuff that they never even considered and those in power already tend to be on a forty-year progressive lag.

I think you are confusing unintended effect with purpose. The founding fathers purposefully designed government to move as slowly as possible because up until that point large scale democracies had never permanently worked so they didnt want one charismatic leader to blow it up (Which is exactly what happened in France under Napoleon)

So yes we are about 20 years behind progressively, but we also havent had an emperor Jackson, Nixon, or Trump yet.

Give and take

---

Well, yeah, pork barrel spending was a way to artifically get bipartisanship because you could horsetrade/bribe for votes for local projects (some necessary, some very much not) which in turn those Congresspeople could turn around and tell their constituents, "See that new bridge/new base with all its jobs/whatever? I got that for you." as a way to boost their popularity and help secure their own re-election so that's what they got from it. As a knock-off effect, this "working together" however much of a joke it was in reality would necessarily lead to actual working relationships between members of the different parties which helped acted as a deterrent from super hardline partisan stuff because they were still treating each other as friends somewhat.

Then the practice was put to a stop (relatively recently, too) and add to that the increasingly hyper-polarization and that incentive to "work together" is gone and on top of that it was revealed that actually you can just rely on tribal identity politics to secure re-election instead and that was good enough with the incumbency effect so there's no strong reason for incumbents to seek its reinstatement.

I want to say this House actually lowkey brought it back in some form but I think it's too late and the GOP has shoved so far all-in on tribal politics and "beings against the Dems" that it won't work much... except maybe, sadly, to try and like throw barrels of cash at Manchin to keep him in line from time to time.

Like all that is fucked up and not how a working government/democracy should function at all but spoiler alert the unique ways in which we set ours up isn't workable at all and has functioned on duct tape, gentleman's agreements, and the like and they've all been ripped apart the last 40 years and plainly exposed for all to see.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I dunno, I think its essentially impossible because gun rights are enshrined in our constitution and completely banning them would rip apart the entire country is perfectly valid.

i don't think the argument is about completely banning guns, as SEP said. but if i understood what you said correctly, you're against banning ANY kind of firearm.

??????

lolwhat? Islamic Terror should not even be in the Top 100 concerns Americans have, and most people who prioritize it are raging xenophobes.

yeah, that was a poorly thought out analogy that i shouldn't have made.

---

Chauvin verdict in.

Guilty on all 3 counts.

---

While he's almost certainly going to get a retrial on appeal eventually, its still amazing that a jury actually didn't blow a case like this for once.

He'll rot for a long time before then though.

---

I really didn't think he was going to get murder. I thought he was going to be convicted of manslaughter.

That's awesome


---

Also importantly he was then remanded.

He is going to have a fun time in jail

---

ouya

---

I was absolutely certain he was going to get off with no convictions, because police in America.

I can't believe one of these trials actually went the correct way for once.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

I was absolutely certain he was going to get off with no convictions, because police in America.

I can't believe one of these trials actually went the correct way for once.

Until he gets a retrial on appeal because people wouldn't stay out of it.

And then they're going to have to get him convinced again, or we might actually end up with an even worse case scenario.

---

xp1337 posted...

Chauvin verdict in.

Guilty on all 3 counts.

Good
The whole trial was a joke. Trying to make it look like anything other than a murder is a disgrace.
I know this is a defense attorney job to do whatever they can to defend the client but come on...

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

I was absolutely certain he was going to get off with no convictions, because police in America.

I can't believe one of these trials actually went the correct way for once.

I was absolutely holding my breath as the judge read the first verdict (2nd degree unintentional murder; the charge with the longest sentence) because it's the one you figured would be the strongest charge. Once it came in guilty I exhaled and figured the others would come in the same, and they did.

---

xp1337 posted...

I was absolutely holding my breath as the judge read the first verdict (2nd degree unintentional murder; the charge with the longest sentence) because it's the one you figured would be the strongest charge. Once it came in guilty I exhaled and figured the others would come in the same, and they did.

I thought there was a chance he could get the lesser two, but not that one.

Though I thought they'd completely blow it on all three counts anyway.

---

So do we know for how long he will be in prison? Is this for life?

---

I didn't think second degree was even remotely possible at the start of this. Big credit to the prosecution.

---

No, watching live coverage and a legal expert said over the next 2 months both sides can present arguments for mitigating or aggravating factors for sentence length, after which the judge will give the sentence.

The charges carry possible sentences of up to 40 years, 25, and 10 each. Not sure if it's the judge's discretion whether whatever sentence term he arrives is to be served consecutively or concurrently.

---