On the couch

To understand the level of intransigence, it helps to think about the ideology that conservatives subscribe to. Fear and a sense of futility are central to right-wing thinking. For the right, the world is a dangerous and terrifying place in which Evil is lurking around every corner. Such Evil could be in the form of “groomers” coming for your children (by reading to them while wearing makeup) or it could be the “China threat.” Paranoia about globalists, communists, immigrants, criminals, and other Big Scary Others is ubiquitous on the right.

If your mental world is already one of extreme (and delusional) fear, mass shooters do not seem like an aberration. They are just another threat among many. The natural state of life, in much conservative literature, is “nasty, brutish, and short,” and the forces of order and civilization only just barely keep the forces of evil chaos at bay. Conservatism is characterized by an extreme pessimism about our ability to improve the world; the standard argument is that progressives are naive and hubristic in their desire to effect change through social policy and whatever they do will “hurt the very people they are trying to help.” The view of human nature that underpins right-wing thought is false, but it’s a compelling story.

If you view the world as a place full of virtually uncontrollable menacing evil, it’s easy to see why gun control doesn’t make sense. Under a conservative framework, it’s hard to understand why gun control would ever work. After all, we’re up against the forces of Pure Evil. Surely Pure Evil would not let mere laws stand in its way. If it was determined to kill, it would find a way to get a gun. As Arjun Byju noted for this magazine in a piece on the normalization of “active shooter drills” in schools, “we cannot legislate away evil” is a common GOP refrain, with shootings treated “like the fates and furies of Greek mythology, something horrible that may strike us from without, and to which we are all but consigned.” 

Seems like the gun and immigration issue is primed for a compromise...GOP gives something on guns, Dems on immigration.
But what do I know.

 Isabeau wrote: 
I was just (what I thought) correcting your apparent misconception regarding fentanyl.

Just wait until ammunition is being created with 3-D printing. Delran slugs anyone ?

AI is for sure going to be helpful with that.

 kurtster wrote:

Um, duh-yee.
 Go Fetch. See word, trigger response, Concept of use being utterly lost Captain. Engage departure of Science team?


(guns are being created with 3-D printing.  Slice of selective outrage anyone? Not even with a dolloped whipped rage?)

 Isabeau wrote: 
No, the drug itself is the problem.

I don't know anyone who goes out looking to buy fentanyl, other than junkies.  Nearly all of the OD's are by people who bought one thing and got fentanyl instead of what they thought they were getting.

Drugs are counterfeited.  They put it in everything, even in weed.  Nothing is safe. Taking things in moderation does not work when fentanyl is involved.  

 Isabeau wrote:
No absolutist here.

Are you familiar with the major stores closings in San Francisco, Portland, etc, and why they're closing?  How about the prosecutorial decisions on record of NY DA Bragg?

If the existing laws are not enforced, by choice, then the consequences of that will soon manifest themselves.  And so they have.


 Isabeau wrote:
Without doubt.  And these are good things.


 Isabeau wrote:
Noice! The bonus condescension!
Now you're comparing addiction behaviour to the mentally imbalanced.  Any liberal or conservative with common sense would tell you that's wrong on many fronts.

And that's both an insult to anyone with a basic understanding of addictions along with a disingenuous and deliberately ignorant perspective on the plain facts before you every day.  The Mexican cartels distribute the Fentanyl. China supplies the raw ingredients to the Mexican cartels.  Once again, illegal (item) (or use of item) is the problem. 

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/a....

 Isabeau wrote:
Or the expedient defeatist.

 Proclivities wrote:
I was speaking figuratively - not at all suggesting that these were either your words or intent.  My comment is aimed more in broadstroke in the direction of those who believe banning guns, or a gun type, is the panacea for the mass killings.

"those measures clearly make a difference"

Unfortunately, due to the high polarization of this subject, credible studies where gun bans may have reduced or eliminated mass shooting are disputed with equally credible alternative analysis.  

Washington Post: What research shows on the effectiveness of gun-control laws

"Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, moreover. Fox, in a 2016 study co-written with Emma Fridel of Northeastern University, noted that “rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters.” (About 70 percent of mass public shootings after 1992 relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns.) They wrote that “the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect” and that “not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at their disposal.”

 Beaker wrote:

The absolutist's bait is quite tempting. Why bother to have speed limit laws, if people will still speed? Why bother to have shoplifting, grand larceny, vehicular homicide laws if they don't completely eradicate the problem? Why bother to have laws at all?

Waiting periods: Save Lives   â€¢ Thorough Background checks: Save Lives   â€¢ Red Flag Laws: Save Lives.   â€¢ Training and Licensing: Save Lives.   â€¢ Safe storage laws: Save Lives.
These are measurable stats, from both in and outside of the United States. 

Let me put it in terms you may better understand: "It's not the Fentanyl that's killing anyone... it's a mental health issue that makes people take it. The drug itself is not the problem..."

 Beaker wrote:
I didn't claim anywhere that "banning firearms works in keeping guns out of the hands of determined psychopaths" - in fact I made no suggestion for banning guns at all.  My point was that claiming gun control measures "serve no effective purpose" is not an accurate claim - those measures clearly make a difference.  Of course, gun control measures are not some magic panacea; they can't make criminals go away, they can't cure mental health issues.

 Proclivities wrote:
Depends on what you choose to measure.  Gun crime in general, mass shootings, or what... 

Even in Canada, where we have super strict gun ownership laws, we have gun crime. And when surveying gun use with the criminal element, it's always the same - stolen, unregistered guns, almost always imported from elsewhere - most usually the US.   Because criminal types don't care about gun laws.  Our most recent mass shooting here involved a guy who illegally imported all the guns he owned.  He didn't have a license for any of them.

Tell me again how banning firearms works in keeping guns out of the hands of determined psychopaths. 
Once again, mental health issues...

 islander wrote:
That's not at all what I said, but you be you.

 Beaker wrote:
Also ignoring the bulk of what you said.

But taking the moment to note that you just said that gun control laws work where they are implemented. 

Also noting that your far superior newsfeed seems to have missed the fact that there is a gigantic lobby here that says "NO" to any kind of law - in fact they pass laws saying that authorities 'shall issue' for permits to people who have no training, experience, or background check. 

 

 Beaker wrote:
States with weaker gun control laws have demonstrably higher rates of gun-related deaths and mass shootings- I'd say that sort of gun control serves an 'effective purpose'.  Of course information sources vary and there are many variables.  Clearly, gun control measures alone won't eradicate violent crime, but to say they "do nothing" is just not accurate - no matter how many times the NRA and its acolytes say so.

May '22: Abbott calls Texas school shooting a mental health issue but cut state spending for it

Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that the Uvalde school shooter had a "mental health challenge" and the state needed to "do a better job with mental health" — yet in April he slashed $211 million from the department that oversees mental health programs.

 R_P wrote:

You'll be relieved to know that once released from that facility, their 2A rights will remain intact.

Erm.

Anyways, I remain an advocate for the outright ban of Land Rovers. 

 steeler wrote:
The red herring is focussing in on any one weapon of choice in these mass killings.   Remove that choice from the available options and other weapons will be used.  For example, you need look no further than the prevalence of knife crimes around the world, where guns are highly restricted.  

Gun control advocates don't get it.  They're being manipulated by dishonest politicians, who in turn influence gun control advocates, who influence dishonest politicians.  See how that works?

All of this is a great sea of red herring.  

What should be focussed on is the mental health state and motivations of the mass killers, not their weapon of choice.   So many don't understand this.  

Focussing on gun control and banning weapons that get the excitable masses excited, will serve no effective purpose.   Do it, and these sad crimes will continue, along with a litany of excuses why banning of a type of gun must have had an effect.  Nostradamus, I'm not.   Don't need to be.

dang no pic cuz they put 2 dashes in the pic url & this forum converts to long dash - - > —

interesting link anyway if you believe safehome.org

The argument that there are devices other than guns that can be used, and have been used, to kill multiple persons as evidence that guns are not a significant part of the problem is a bit of a red herring. There are reasons guns are by far the weapon of choice. I would not assume the prevalence of mass murders would remain anywhere near the same if guns were not as readily available.