Gun control, which side wins?

[TheVat]

Quote

As I’m sure is clear to all of us, it’s obvious this would never have happened if progressive voters who desire reasonable policies around gun owner responsibility were only a bit nicer to them in their dealings online. Will progressives never learn?!?

 

Har!

As Al Hamilton noted, when it comes to pertinacious minorities, it's good not to allow the filibuster.  

Hamilton also spoke against flyspeck states like Rhode Island having equal power with the big ones, in the Senate.  But he and his pals knew they couldn't get the flyspecks to join the new Union, if they didn't toss them that bone.  IIRC Rhode Island and a couple other small colonies were threatening to ally with some Euro power, if they didn't get that deal.

So now we're stuck with what Al called "contemptible compromises of the public good." 

Edited June 12, 2022 by TheVat
Add quote due to page break

[iNow]

There’s going to be a deal announced in about an hour from the US Senate (House already passed their own legislation). 

It will have funding for mental health services, funding to further secure schools, incentives for states to implement red flag laws (called something else like “State Crisis Intervention Orders” so people don’t go apoplectic), a separate background check process for people ages 18-21, and a clarification on what’s required to file for a federal firearm license as a dealer… so that relates to dealers and trying to lower illegal purchases that evade the firearm license. 

It’s a tiny drop in the bucket, but progress. It’s a form of compromise. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

As I’m sure is clear to all of us, it’s obvious this would never have happened if progressive voters who desire reasonable policies around gun owner responsibility were only a bit nicer to them in their dealings online. Will progressives never learn?!?

Swing and a miss. Start by showing less animosity toward your independent and conservative  allies on gun control, and follow with the same toward others that are open minded.

Look for a path to a win, and when you see it avoid that tempting cookie jar of political gamesmanship.

Edited June 12, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Start by showing less animosity toward your independent and conservative  allies on gun control,

I keep reading this or something like it, with no substantiating evidence cited as to what animosity, or vilification, was shown to which moderate conservatives and independents [currently 4, all left of center] by which progressive officials or their advocates.

 

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

nd follow with the same toward others that are open minded.

Examples?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

There’s going to be a deal announced in about an hour from the US Senate (House already passed their own legislation). 

It will have funding for mental health services, funding to further secure schools, incentives for states to implement red flag laws (called something else like “State Crisis Intervention Orders” so people don’t go apoplectic), a separate background check process for people ages 18-21, and a clarification on what’s required to file for a federal firearm license as a dealer… so that relates to dealers and trying to lower illegal purchases that evade the firearm license. 

It’s a tiny drop in the bucket, but progress. It’s a form of compromise. 

Sounds like a start. Whether it has even the slightest effect will depend on who administers the funds and the oversight and what degree of compliance is achieved.

[J.C.MacSwell]

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I keep reading this or something like it, with no substantiating evidence cited as to what animosity, or vilification, was shown to which moderate conservatives and independents [currently 4, all left of center] by which progressive officials or their advocates.

Political polarization is much more acute in Congress. There are far more conservatives than the lawmakers themselves.

Edited June 12, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[TheVat]

It's worth asking at what point compromise has become capitulation to a shrill minority.  Looks like we (the majority of Americans polled) can't get the assault rifle ban, the ban that was federal law for ten years and then not renewed.  Mostly because of... 

Quote

that tempting cookie jar of political gamesmanship.

...as @J.C.MacSwell put it.

 

This seems to be the pattern of recent years.  Small vocal minority telling the majority how they should make private medical decisions, what are acceptable topics of study in school, who can get married, which groups are Real Americans, etc.  I'm not sure I'm really interested in compromise, if that word only means capitulation to bigotry, unreason, partisan power grabs and screaming ignorance.  

 

[Peterkin]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Political polarization is much more acute in Congress. There are far more conservatives than the lawmakers themselves.

Yes? Polarization exists, in Congress, in the media, in the electorate (somewhat less the judiciary, which is a little bit heartening) I could trace a history as to how that happened (hint: not through the Democrats' refusal to compromise) but it's far too much work, given that you haven't done any al all.

So: Who said what that vilified or expressed animosity toward whom? Which open-minded conservatives have changed sides because which closed-minded progressives alienated them? 

It's no good telling people to stop doing something you can't demonstrate them actually doing.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Peterkin

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I'm not sure I'm really interested in compromise, if that word only means capitulation to bigotry, unreason, partisan power grabs and screaming ignorance.  

 

Compromise toward worthwhile progress is hard work. Maintaining polarization is cheap and easy.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I'm not sure I'm really interested in compromise, if that word only means capitulation to bigotry, unreason, partisan power grabs and screaming ignorance. 

This is my camp too. Compromising with the GOP only means giving in to what they want, which is keeping/strengthening the system that murders children with guns while they're in school, and people of color while they're shopping. I'd like to be wholly proud of my country, instead of half disgusted all the time. 

In a secure election, when you make it difficult to vote, it favors those who identify as conservatives. When you make it easy to vote, it favors those who identify as liberals. There's an inherent evil in restricted voting, imo, and it's definitely a threat to any democracy.

And 83% of Americans want universal background checks for gun ownership, so why is Congress stalling? Because of those who identify as conservatives, and want to make it difficult for you to vote. And most of that is about racism. Republicans were interested in the Joe Manchin compromise until Stacey Abrams endorsed it as well, after which they dropped it, claiming "it became the Stacey Abrams substitute, not the Joe Manchin substitute." Compromising with racist, inhuman fascists is the work of idiots who want the democracy to fall to them.

[StringJunky]

35 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is my camp too. Compromising with the GOP only means giving in to what they want, which is keeping/strengthening the system that murders children with guns while they're in school, and people of color while they're shopping. I'd like to be wholly proud of my country, instead of half disgusted all the time. 

In a secure election, when you make it difficult to vote, it favors those who identify as conservatives. When you make it easy to vote, it favors those who identify as liberals. There's an inherent evil in restricted voting, imo, and it's definitely a threat to any democracy.

And 83% of Americans want universal background checks for gun ownership, so why is Congress stalling? Because of those who identify as conservatives, and want to make it difficult for you to vote. And most of that is about racism. Republicans were interested in the Joe Manchin compromise until Stacey Abrams endorsed it as well, after which they dropped it, claiming "it became the Stacey Abrams substitute, not the Joe Manchin substitute." Compromising with racist, inhuman fascists is the work of idiots who want the democracy to fall to them.

Kristi Noem and MTG make me think of fascists. I know more about US politicians than I do British ones. Something wrong there.  Noem is even trying to influence the primaries for her favoured local candidates... one of which happens to be her old babysitter. Gotta say Phi, the US system is corrupt as **** atm. Why do the gun lobby need guns in a country full of 'patriots'? Why do the gun lobby need to protect themselves from their 'fellow Americans'? From afar, the dissonance on this is really pronounced. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

48 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And 83% of Americans want universal background checks for gun ownership, so why is Congress stalling? Because of those who identify as conservatives, and want to make it difficult for you to vote. And most of that is about racism.

Quote

But how deep does the GOP’s problem with democracy run, really? How did things get so bad? And is it likely to get worse?

Below are 13 charts that illustrate the depth of the problem and how we got here. The story they tell is sobering: At every level, from the elite down to rank-and-file voters, the party is permeated with anti-democratic political attitudes and agendas. And the prospects for rescuing the Republican Party, at least in the short term, look grim indeed.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22274429/republicans-anti-democracy-13-charts

Te charts are worth studying.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Progress?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/senate-gun-safety-agreement/index.html

[Phi for All]

33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Phi, the US system is corrupt as **** atm. Why do the gun lobby need guns in a country full of 'patriots'? Why do the gun lobby need to protect themselves from their 'fellow Americans'? From afar, the dissonance on this is really pronounced. 

Between Christian nationalists and white supremacists, the Republicans are overwhelmed with hate and bigotry of the sort you can't compromise with. They want things I can't give in to even a little bit and still call myself human. How do you meet someone halfway when they want whole groups of people to be oppressed?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Between Christian nationalists and white supremacists, the Republicans are overwhelmed with hate and bigotry of the sort you can't compromise with. They want things I can't give in to even a little bit and still call myself human. How do you meet someone halfway when they want whole groups of people to be oppressed?

You seem to have the belief that we're advocating compromising with the extremes, or the extreme positions of the extremes.

Half of America can't be all bad on this issue if 83% are in favour of gun control. On this issue at least, if the political bigotry can be set aside it would seem some progress can be made.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Progress?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/senate-gun-safety-agreement/index.html

Yeah, this is the news which broke after my post this morning approx 7 hours ago. Baby steps, but steps all the same. 
 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

There’s going to be a deal announced in about an hour from the US Senate (House already passed their own legislation). 

It will have funding for mental health services, funding to further secure schools, incentives for states to implement red flag laws (called something else like “State Crisis Intervention Orders” so people don’t go apoplectic), a separate background check process for people ages 18-21, and a clarification on what’s required to file for a federal firearm license as a dealer… so that relates to dealers and trying to lower illegal purchases that evade the firearm license. 

 

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Half of America can't be all bad on this issue if 83% are in favour of gun control.

You’re right, but the politicians listen more to the extreme 20% since they’re louder, more animated to vote that moderates who by definition are less passionate than extremists, and willing to punish. 

[mistermack]

I do get the argument that villifying the other side might be counter productive, that it might make them more determined than ever that there should be no movement towards any kind of gun control. It might be true. It's hard to forecast that kind of impasse. 

But if you look at the example of apartheid in South Africa, all of those arguments were made at the time and were quite persuasive. It seemed like the entrenched white south african devotion to "seperate development" was unshakable. But in the end, the sheer contempt of the rest of the world and the constant expression of it DID break through the determination not to move. And I'm pretty sure that being nicer, and friendly debate with the pro-apartheid faction would never have caused a shift. 

In the end, nobody knows what will or will not work. You have to take a punt. Where a country is run by a small loony band, like North Korea, then what the world thinks is of no interest to them at all, and isn't going to make any difference. But with the US, I think that public pressure can slowly change things. 

After all, you no longer have whites-only cafes or toilets. It did change, even though it was slow.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Does it go far enough? Probably not. (read as definitely not) But maybe it's something and maybe a turning point.

Let's applaud all the "sellouts" that got something done.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/whats-in-senate-gun-reform-agreement/index.html

[TheVat]

56 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In the end, nobody knows what will or will not work. You have to take a punt. Where a country is run by a small loony band, like North Korea, then what the world thinks is of no interest to them at all, and isn't going to make any difference. But with the US, I think that public pressure can slowly change things. 

After all, you no longer have whites-only cafes or toilets. It did change, even though it was slow.

We still have toilets, actually.  But you may want to bring your own toilet paper.   

Seriously, I think this new bill, depending on its final draft, could be seen as an incremental bit of progress.  And I agree on the power of global opinion, over a longer time scale.  And that influence may be bolstered if foreign tourist numbers drop because they are afraid to come here.  

 

 

 

Re: slow change

Bear in mind that slow change can sometimes be a tough sell to people who feel they are in immediate jeopardy.  And people whose lives are touched by gun violence (which is now a pretty big segment of America - my wife has a friend who was shot in the face, I had an acquaintance years ago who shot himself, my son had a close friend who killed himself with a shotgun...and I expect many people you might randomly stop on the street would have their own similar stories) may find "now's not the time for this" really hard to accept.  So I hope this first try at a gun bill will start some momentum.

[iNow]

In other "I guess it's better than nothing, is still no where near enough, and also still isn't officially done" news...

Last night, 14 GOP senators joined all 50 democratic senators to allow a "procedural" vote to let a vote occur on the floor around July 4 to slightly expand background checks, give money to states who implement red flag laws, and which helps close the boyfriend loophole (abusive husbands and domestic partners can have their gun rights curtailed if they beat their wife, but boyfriends never faced that same restriction and were one of the most common reasons women were killed during domestic disputes).

So, super light... and still not certain... but better than nothing (which is about what we've come to expect from the US congress.... a whole lot of nothing but bickering and peacocking most of the time. 

 

[TheVat]

Very shocking and saddening news from Japan today, a nation with the strictest gun control.  The weapon is reported to be handmade.  

With a population of 125 million, Japan had only 10 gun-related criminal cases last year, resulting in one death and four injuries, according to police. Eight of those cases were gang-related. Tokyo had no gun incidents, injuries or deaths in the same year, although 61 guns were seized.

[mistermack]

Unfortunately, Shinzo Abe seems to have been a victim of the success of Japan's strict gun laws. 

He would have had a lot more protection in virtually every other country, but the confidence of living in such a safe country left him vulnerable. 

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Unfortunately, Shinzo Abe seems to have been a victim of the success of Japan's strict gun laws. 

He would have had a lot more protection in virtually every other country, but the confidence of living in such a safe country left him vulnerable. 

Trust must be both confident and vulnerable to be valuable. 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

He would have had a lot more protection in virtually every other country

Nice assertion you got there. Would be a shame if someone challenged it and asked for a citation. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Nice assertion you got there. Would be a shame if someone challenged it and asked for a citation. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/asia/2022/07/08/attack-on-former-japan-pm-stuns-nation-known-for-gun-control.html

Japan’s tight gun laws add to shock over Abe’s assassination

"Abe’s security team may face serious questions. But because such attacks are extraordinary in Japan, relatively light security is the norm, even for former prime ministers."

[mistermack]

Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle now. The gun looked like a homemade short barrelled shotgun, although it was just a glimpse on the video. The sound also sounded like shotgun ammunition, but there was a lot of echos. 

Now that one person has done it, other nutters will be paying very close attention. 

I don't have any details, but you would imagine that shotgun ammunition would be less restricted than handgun or rifle ammo, so Japan will probably have to clamp down on it, if that was the case. And even if it wasn't, the possibility is still obviously there. 

Another possibility is that the killer adapted a replica gun. That's a pretty common thing in this country, it's amazing that replicas are not heavily restricted or banned. After all, it's only nut-cases who would be affected if they were banned.