Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 188555 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14877
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #900 on: September 17, 2019, 08:33:37 AM »
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . . .

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #901 on: September 17, 2019, 08:52:13 AM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough  (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.

I think if conservatives would come to the table in actual good faith to talk about the issue of gun violence — instead of being completely driven by the NRA to absolutely oppose anything other than complete freedom to own any gun for any reason because freedumb — then perhaps we would not have gotten to the point where literally one fringe candidate on the left is so fucking fed up with the lack of any attempt at movement that he finally says, fuck it, this is complete and utter bullshit.

News flash: Beto’s position is not the extreme one here.

I have a theory that we could regulate the semi automatic weapons through mandatory licensing and insurance.  The idea is to shift the risk of loss from the victims of gun violence to the gun owners.  We would also need an uninsured incidents rider so that if there was an injury or death from an uninsured AR-15, the victim compensation would be funded by the class of legit AR-15 owners.  In practice, the insurers would set rates based on the inherent danger of each weapon, which would in turn make semi automatic weapons enormously expensive to insure.  Ordinary market forces would limit the number of people able and willing to bear that cost burden just to own an AR-15.  Another alternative would be to set up a victims compensation fund which is funded by an ammo tax.  Then you could own your AR-15, but it would be very expensive to shoot it.

In theory, sure. In practice, suggesting this approach belies that you have zero factual understanding of guns in general, and what types are, and are not, used in homicides. It is not possible to discuss in good faith with people who don't know what the hell they're talking about regulating.

How do you rate 'inherent danger' of a gun? If you do it based on how often a type of gun is used in a crime, then AR 15s will be one of the cheapest guns to insure out there.  By this logic, knives will need to be insured at a rate 4 times higher than AR-15s. (timeperiod: 2007-2017. 439 homocides/yr with assault rifles, 1,700/yr with knives. source: FBI Homocide statistics)

objectively, assault weapons are not a problem. not even close.

From a strictly objective point of view, we need hand/fist control more than we need to do anything about assault rifles. (696 vs 403).

But let's talk in 'good faith'. This is what I propose:

-50 state background checks on all firearms transfers (private, public, etc). I think what Oregon does is a reasonable model.
   - if the instant background check system fails to return a result in 30 days, it is approved. (to keep some democrat from defunding it, resulting in exorbitant wait times that effectively
      turn off the sales of guns.)

-Reg flag law. I don't like it, but I can see the utility in this. I'd want some limits to how long it takes for the owner to get a hearing, some minimum evidence standards, and massive penalties for someone found to be using the reg flag law maliciously. No-knock warrants expressly prohibited except when evidence exists of immediate hazard... and it better be good evidence. 10 year sunset provision, so we can look at whether this is doing any good, or being used against people too much, etc.

-50 state reciprocity on concealed carry licenses. Increase training standards to require some actual range time if you want to have a CHL.  All localities are "shall issue," no more "may issue" language allowed in legislation on CC.  I'd even support requiring a person to have a CHL to buy a handgun. I'd like to see it be allowed that teachers, if they so choose, can carry. No need to advertise the fact... and we can put some stipulations on what kind of training would be required to do this. This isn' a deal breaker for me, and I imagine there will be some knee jerk outrage at this suggestion.

-Entities who create gun-free zones are civilly liable for wrongful deaths if a shooting should happen within them. (95% of mass killings happen in gun free zones.)

-Require proof of safe storage means before allowing sale of firearms. (applies in places like sporting goods stores, etc.)


But I am very glad for Robert Francis O'Rourke's statement. He just said what us right wingers know if the ultimate goal of people like him: busting down doors, authoritarian style, to impose his worldview on those who he doesn't agree with.   At least we can dispense with the pretense that "we don't want to take your guns."  And also the pretense that he's anything but a sound bite phony who's views blow with the wind, and who will make up any story he has to to bolster his narrative.


Quote
They have all been crafted over many years by the NRA to shut the conversation down
 

I'm sorry that the objective evidence has a strong NRA bias on this issue. I mean, ultimately, there's some bullshit disingenuous argument for gun control.

Quote
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .

Elaborate? the vast majority of gun owners absolutely are responsible with their weapons. something like half the population of this country owns them! If they weren't there would be no survivors.

If you're talking about holding a gun owner responsible for what other people do with guns, IE requiring safe storage and then holding the owner liable if the gun is stolen and used in crime... I don't like it since I think it'll be used to create a chilling and hostile environment for gun ownership, which I believe is a societal benefit as a whole, but I suppose if people who made a good faith effort to safely store the gun are exempted from liability than we could probably find some middle ground there.


« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 09:05:45 AM by ncornilsen »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #902 on: September 17, 2019, 09:16:10 AM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough  (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.

I think if conservatives would come to the table in actual good faith to talk about the issue of gun violence — instead of being completely driven by the NRA to absolutely oppose anything other than complete freedom to own any gun for any reason because freedumb — then perhaps we would not have gotten to the point where literally one fringe candidate on the left is so fucking fed up with the lack of any attempt at movement that he finally says, fuck it, this is complete and utter bullshit.

News flash: Beto’s position is not the extreme one here.

I have a theory that we could regulate the semi automatic weapons through mandatory licensing and insurance.  The idea is to shift the risk of loss from the victims of gun violence to the gun owners.  We would also need an uninsured incidents rider so that if there was an injury or death from an uninsured AR-15, the victim compensation would be funded by the class of legit AR-15 owners.  In practice, the insurers would set rates based on the inherent danger of each weapon, which would in turn make semi automatic weapons enormously expensive to insure.  Ordinary market forces would limit the number of people able and willing to bear that cost burden just to own an AR-15.  Another alternative would be to set up a victims compensation fund which is funded by an ammo tax.  Then you could own your AR-15, but it would be very expensive to shoot it.

In theory, sure. In practice, suggesting this approach belies that you have zero factual understanding of guns in general, and what types are, and are not, used in homicides. It is not possible to discuss in good faith with people who don't know what the hell they're talking about regulating.

How do you rate 'inherent danger' of a gun? If you do it based on how often a type of gun is used in a crime, then AR 15s will be one of the cheapest guns to insure out there.  By this logic, knives will need to be insured at a rate 4 times higher than AR-15s. (timeperiod: 2007-2017. 439 homocides/yr with assault rifles, 1,700/yr with knives. source: FBI Homocide statistics)

objectively, assault weapons are not a problem. not even close.

From a strictly objective point of view, we need hand/fist control more than we need to do anything about assault rifles. (696 vs 403).

But let's talk in 'good faith'. This is what I propose:

-50 state background checks on all firearms transfers (private, public, etc). I think what Oregon does is a reasonable model.
   - if the instant background check system fails to return a result in 30 days, it is approved. (to keep some democrat from defunding it, resulting in exorbitant wait times that effectively
      turn off the sales of guns.)

-Reg flag law. I don't like it, but I can see the utility in this. I'd want some limits to how long it takes for the owner to get a hearing, some minimum evidence standards, and massive penalties for someone found to be using the reg flag law maliciously. No-knock warrants expressly prohibited except when evidence exists of immediate hazard... and it better be good evidence. 10 year sunset provision, so we can look at whether this is doing any good, or being used against people too much, etc.

-50 state reciprocity on concealed carry licenses. Increase training standards to require some actual range time if you want to have a CHL.  All localities are "shall issue," no more "may issue" language allowed in legislation on CC.  I'd even support requiring a person to have a CHL to buy a handgun. I'd like to see it be allowed that teachers, if they so choose, can carry. No need to advertise the fact... and we can put some stipulations on what kind of training would be required to do this. This isn' a deal breaker for me, and I imagine there will be some knee jerk outrage at this suggestion.

-Entities who create gun-free zones are civilly liable for wrongful deaths if a shooting should happen within them. (95% of mass killings happen in gun free zones.)

-Require proof of safe storage means before allowing sale of firearms. (applies in places like sporting goods stores, etc.)


But I am very glad for Robert Francis O'Rourke's statement. He just said what us right wingers know if the ultimate goal of people like him: busting down doors, authoritarian style, to impose his worldview on those who he doesn't agree with.   At least we can dispense with the pretense that "we don't want to take your guns."  And also the pretense that he's anything but a sound bite phony who's views blow with the wind, and who will make up any story he has to to bolster his narrative.


Quote
They have all been crafted over many years by the NRA to shut the conversation down
 

I'm sorry that the objective evidence has a strong NRA bias on this issue. I mean, ultimately, there's some bullshit disingenuous argument for gun control.

Quote
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .

Elaborate? the vast majority of gun owners absolutely are responsible with their weapons. something like half the population of this country owns them! If they weren't there would be no survivors.

If you're talking about holding a gun owner responsible for what other people do with guns, IE requiring safe storage and then holding the owner liable if the gun is stolen and used in crime... I don't like it since I think it'll be used to create a chilling and hostile environment for gun ownership, which I believe is a societal benefit as a whole, but I suppose if people who made a good faith effort to safely store the gun are exempted from liability than we could probably find some middle ground there.

Nope, nope, nope. Make your own thread. This comment is 95% gun policy and 5% about Beto's comment. This thread is about POTUS candidates.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #903 on: September 17, 2019, 09:17:10 AM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough  (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.

I think if conservatives would come to the table in actual good faith to talk about the issue of gun violence — instead of being completely driven by the NRA to absolutely oppose anything other than complete freedom to own any gun for any reason because freedumb — then perhaps we would not have gotten to the point where literally one fringe candidate on the left is so fucking fed up with the lack of any attempt at movement that he finally says, fuck it, this is complete and utter bullshit.

News flash: Beto’s position is not the extreme one here.

I have a theory that we could regulate the semi automatic weapons through mandatory licensing and insurance.  The idea is to shift the risk of loss from the victims of gun violence to the gun owners.  We would also need an uninsured incidents rider so that if there was an injury or death from an uninsured AR-15, the victim compensation would be funded by the class of legit AR-15 owners.  In practice, the insurers would set rates based on the inherent danger of each weapon, which would in turn make semi automatic weapons enormously expensive to insure.  Ordinary market forces would limit the number of people able and willing to bear that cost burden just to own an AR-15.  Another alternative would be to set up a victims compensation fund which is funded by an ammo tax.  Then you could own your AR-15, but it would be very expensive to shoot it.

In theory, sure. In practice, suggesting this approach belies that you have zero factual understanding of guns in general, and what types are, and are not, used in homicides. It is not possible to discuss in good faith with people who don't know what the hell they're talking about regulating.

How do you rate 'inherent danger' of a gun? If you do it based on how often a type of gun is used in a crime, then AR 15s will be one of the cheapest guns to insure out there.  By this logic, knives will need to be insured at a rate 4 times higher than AR-15s. (timeperiod: 2007-2017. 439 homocides/yr with assault rifles, 1,700/yr with knives. source: FBI Homocide statistics)

objectively, assault weapons are not a problem. not even close.

From a strictly objective point of view, we need hand/fist control more than we need to do anything about assault rifles. (696 vs 403).

But let's talk in 'good faith'. This is what I propose:

-50 state background checks on all firearms transfers (private, public, etc). I think what Oregon does is a reasonable model.
   - if the instant background check system fails to return a result in 30 days, it is approved. (to keep some democrat from defunding it, resulting in exorbitant wait times that effectively
      turn off the sales of guns.)

-Reg flag law. I don't like it, but I can see the utility in this. I'd want some limits to how long it takes for the owner to get a hearing, some minimum evidence standards, and massive penalties for someone found to be using the reg flag law maliciously. No-knock warrants expressly prohibited except when evidence exists of immediate hazard... and it better be good evidence. 10 year sunset provision, so we can look at whether this is doing any good, or being used against people too much, etc.

-50 state reciprocity on concealed carry licenses. Increase training standards to require some actual range time if you want to have a CHL.  All localities are "shall issue," no more "may issue" language allowed in legislation on CC.  I'd even support requiring a person to have a CHL to buy a handgun. I'd like to see it be allowed that teachers, if they so choose, can carry. No need to advertise the fact... and we can put some stipulations on what kind of training would be required to do this. This isn' a deal breaker for me, and I imagine there will be some knee jerk outrage at this suggestion.

-Entities who create gun-free zones are civilly liable for wrongful deaths if a shooting should happen within them. (95% of mass killings happen in gun free zones.)

-Require proof of safe storage means before allowing sale of firearms. (applies in places like sporting goods stores, etc.)


Awesome. That would be a great place to at least start the discussion.

Too bad the Republicans will never let the discussion get even that far.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #904 on: September 17, 2019, 09:26:47 AM »
I will say this in defense of gun owners. There are what, close to 400 million guns in the US? That's like half of the world's total I think I read somewhere (but too lazy to google it)

Yes, there are like 35,000+ gun deaths, but most of those are suicides, and I honestly think you have to look at those through a more subtle lens. As far as homicides, we're talking 10,000-15,000, and that includes gang bangers, etc. But remember there are 400,000,000 guns around.

So yes, the vast...vast...vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Crap, we'd all be dead if they weren't. It's just math.

I'd love to see universal background checks, private sale restrictions, more training needed for concealed carry, more limitations on open carry, and mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. I think that is a start in the right direction. I say that because I think those are realistic measures middle of the road people will support.

We are never going to stop mass shootings because offense is a million times ahead of defense and there are so many guns. If Person A tucks a few handguns in his/her jacket and goes to an outdoor concert at the park, what are the chances he/she doesn't have the chance to mow down at least 10 people? How can we possibly stop the offense? "Good guys with guns" just creates a frantic crossfire and likely more injuries and deaths. We can't have cops everywhere, and even they, with their training, struggle to ID and take down shooters. And "thoughts and prayers" does jack shit.

I think candidates like Pete would push realistic gun reform, but Beto's approach is just never going to happen. I appreciate his anger and frustration, and I think he is a good guy, but it's just not smart politics.

My hope is that some GOPers, even if they can't bring themselves to vote for a Dem, will be so disgusted by Trump they stay home. Comments like Beto's could encourage them to come out to the polls. Of course, by the time the general election rolls around, the GOP will be painting the Dem as the anti-christ.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 09:30:25 AM by Nick_Miller »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #905 on: September 17, 2019, 09:27:27 AM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough  (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.

I think if conservatives would come to the table in actual good faith to talk about the issue of gun violence — instead of being completely driven by the NRA to absolutely oppose anything other than complete freedom to own any gun for any reason because freedumb — then perhaps we would not have gotten to the point where literally one fringe candidate on the left is so fucking fed up with the lack of any attempt at movement that he finally says, fuck it, this is complete and utter bullshit.

News flash: Beto’s position is not the extreme one here.

I have a theory that we could regulate the semi automatic weapons through mandatory licensing and insurance.  The idea is to shift the risk of loss from the victims of gun violence to the gun owners.  We would also need an uninsured incidents rider so that if there was an injury or death from an uninsured AR-15, the victim compensation would be funded by the class of legit AR-15 owners.  In practice, the insurers would set rates based on the inherent danger of each weapon, which would in turn make semi automatic weapons enormously expensive to insure.  Ordinary market forces would limit the number of people able and willing to bear that cost burden just to own an AR-15.  Another alternative would be to set up a victims compensation fund which is funded by an ammo tax.  Then you could own your AR-15, but it would be very expensive to shoot it.

In theory, sure. In practice, suggesting this approach belies that you have zero factual understanding of guns in general, and what types are, and are not, used in homicides. It is not possible to discuss in good faith with people who don't know what the hell they're talking about regulating.

How do you rate 'inherent danger' of a gun? If you do it based on how often a type of gun is used in a crime, then AR 15s will be one of the cheapest guns to insure out there.  By this logic, knives will need to be insured at a rate 4 times higher than AR-15s. (timeperiod: 2007-2017. 439 homocides/yr with assault rifles, 1,700/yr with knives. source: FBI Homocide statistics)

objectively, assault weapons are not a problem. not even close.

From a strictly objective point of view, we need hand/fist control more than we need to do anything about assault rifles. (696 vs 403).

But let's talk in 'good faith'. This is what I propose:

-50 state background checks on all firearms transfers (private, public, etc). I think what Oregon does is a reasonable model.
   - if the instant background check system fails to return a result in 30 days, it is approved. (to keep some democrat from defunding it, resulting in exorbitant wait times that effectively
      turn off the sales of guns.)

-Reg flag law. I don't like it, but I can see the utility in this. I'd want some limits to how long it takes for the owner to get a hearing, some minimum evidence standards, and massive penalties for someone found to be using the reg flag law maliciously. No-knock warrants expressly prohibited except when evidence exists of immediate hazard... and it better be good evidence. 10 year sunset provision, so we can look at whether this is doing any good, or being used against people too much, etc.

-50 state reciprocity on concealed carry licenses. Increase training standards to require some actual range time if you want to have a CHL.  All localities are "shall issue," no more "may issue" language allowed in legislation on CC.  I'd even support requiring a person to have a CHL to buy a handgun. I'd like to see it be allowed that teachers, if they so choose, can carry. No need to advertise the fact... and we can put some stipulations on what kind of training would be required to do this. This isn' a deal breaker for me, and I imagine there will be some knee jerk outrage at this suggestion.

-Entities who create gun-free zones are civilly liable for wrongful deaths if a shooting should happen within them. (95% of mass killings happen in gun free zones.)

-Require proof of safe storage means before allowing sale of firearms. (applies in places like sporting goods stores, etc.)


But I am very glad for Robert Francis O'Rourke's statement. He just said what us right wingers know if the ultimate goal of people like him: busting down doors, authoritarian style, to impose his worldview on those who he doesn't agree with.   At least we can dispense with the pretense that "we don't want to take your guns."  And also the pretense that he's anything but a sound bite phony who's views blow with the wind, and who will make up any story he has to to bolster his narrative.


Quote
They have all been crafted over many years by the NRA to shut the conversation down
 

I'm sorry that the objective evidence has a strong NRA bias on this issue. I mean, ultimately, there's some bullshit disingenuous argument for gun control.

Quote
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .

Elaborate? the vast majority of gun owners absolutely are responsible with their weapons. something like half the population of this country owns them! If they weren't there would be no survivors.

If you're talking about holding a gun owner responsible for what other people do with guns, IE requiring safe storage and then holding the owner liable if the gun is stolen and used in crime... I don't like it since I think it'll be used to create a chilling and hostile environment for gun ownership, which I believe is a societal benefit as a whole, but I suppose if people who made a good faith effort to safely store the gun are exempted from liability than we could probably find some middle ground there.

Nope, nope, nope. Make your own thread. This comment is 95% gun policy and 5% about Beto's comment. This thread is about POTUS candidates.

Don't be a partisan hack and direct this comment at Ourtown, Kris and GuitarStv who's comments were 100% gun policy.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #906 on: September 17, 2019, 09:29:38 AM »
Also, what is it with the right wingers feeling the need to use Democratic politicians' full names as an epithet? It's not like Beto changed his name in a cynical attempt to appeal to Hispanic voters . It's what he has been called his whole life, since he was an infant. It's childish as hell to refuse to just call him the damn name he goes by. Hell, you don't see those same people insisting on calling Ted Cruz "Rafael", even though he didn't start going by Ted until junior high school. And they don't insist on calling Nikki Haley "Nimrata," even though she only changed her name when she decided to go into politics. Or Bobby Jindal "Piyush."

Oh yeah. I forgot. In those instances, they're trying to whiten up. That's okay.

How childish.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 09:33:15 AM by Kris »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #907 on: September 17, 2019, 09:32:40 AM »

My hope is that some GOPers, even if they can't bring themselves to vote for a Dem, will be so disgusted by Trump they stay home. Comments like Beto's could encourage them to come out to the polls. Of course, by the time the general election rolls around, the GOP will be painting the Dem as the anti-christ.

Yeah, I mean, Beto is done anyway, and he knows it. I think he's just been using the last weeks/months of his campaign to speak straight-up, without trying to be politically careful.

But it does suck, because again, the right is going to latch on to this as "THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!! ZOMG!" and use it for fear campaigning, instead of acknowledging it for what it is, which is basically one dude whose hometown recently got shot up just getting damn sick of all the doublespeak and BS.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #908 on: September 17, 2019, 10:01:05 AM »
Looking at the primary field, there's one candidate who has almost single-handedly kept at least 5 million guns from hitting the streets.[1]. Not only that, this candidate also stood up to the NRA and pushed through what is likely the most significant gun control regulation in the last 20 years.[2]. Who is this gun grabbing lefty? Oddly enough: the orange one himself.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #909 on: September 17, 2019, 10:22:56 AM »
Also, what is it with the right wingers feeling the need to use Democratic politicians' full names as an epithet? It's not like Beto changed his name in a cynical attempt to appeal to Hispanic voters . It's what he has been called his whole life, since he was an infant. It's childish as hell to refuse to just call him the damn name he goes by. Hell, you don't see those same people insisting on calling Ted Cruz "Rafael", even though he didn't start going by Ted until junior high school. And they don't insist on calling Nikki Haley "Nimrata," even though she only changed her name when she decided to go into politics. Or Bobby Jindal "Piyush."

Oh yeah. I forgot. In those instances, they're trying to whiten up. That's okay.

How childish.

Probably the same reason people keep calling Trump "Drumpf." Because it needles his supporters. I use it to make it clear I'm not fooled into thinking he's anything but a phony frat douche that tried sooo sooo hard to plaster a veneer of authenticity and "coolness" over all of that by livecasting playing drums and other stupid shit like that.

Interesting that you chose to play the race card here. How childish.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #910 on: September 17, 2019, 10:27:38 AM »
Also, what is it with the right wingers feeling the need to use Democratic politicians' full names as an epithet? It's not like Beto changed his name in a cynical attempt to appeal to Hispanic voters . It's what he has been called his whole life, since he was an infant. It's childish as hell to refuse to just call him the damn name he goes by. Hell, you don't see those same people insisting on calling Ted Cruz "Rafael", even though he didn't start going by Ted until junior high school. And they don't insist on calling Nikki Haley "Nimrata," even though she only changed her name when she decided to go into politics. Or Bobby Jindal "Piyush."

Oh yeah. I forgot. In those instances, they're trying to whiten up. That's okay.

How childish.

Probably the same reason people keep calling Trump "Drumpf." Because it needles his supporters. I use it to make it clear I'm not fooled into thinking he's anything but a phony frat douche that tried sooo sooo hard to plaster a veneer of authenticity and "coolness" over all of that by livecasting playing drums and other stupid shit like that.

Interesting that you chose to play the race card here. How childish.

Um, dude, that's the actual difference. You are mocking Beto by implying he's pretending to be Hispanic when he's not. But when Republicans who are minorities change their names to something less ethnic and "whiter," that's fine.

And yeah, Drumpf is childish-ass bullshit, too. Though it is true his dad changed it to sound better (and less ethnic), Trump didn't do that. Plus, there's plenty of actual substantial things to say about Trump. His name is a non-issue.

Basically, if one has to resort to that kind of childish crap, it's because one hasn't got a real argument to make. Thus, resorting to third-grade mocking of people's names.  See, Killary, Obummer, Barack Hussein Obama.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 10:33:45 AM by Kris »

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #911 on: September 17, 2019, 10:43:30 AM »
Thus, resorting to third-grade mocking of people's names.  See, Killary, Obummer, Barack Hussein Obama.
Isn't the last one his actual name?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #912 on: September 17, 2019, 10:45:10 AM »
Thus, resorting to third-grade mocking of people's names.  See, Killary, Obummer, Barack Hussein Obama.
Isn't the last one his actual name?

Yes, which makes it even more ridiculous. Barack Obama goes by his actual given name, but the right-wingers still just have to make sure to refer to him with his middle name in there, as though he's hiding something.

How mature.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #913 on: September 17, 2019, 10:45:18 AM »
Thus, resorting to third-grade mocking of people's names.  See, Killary, Obummer, Barack Hussein Obama.
Isn't the last one his actual name?

And his father's name too!

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #914 on: September 17, 2019, 10:46:07 AM »
How "deplorable" of him.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #915 on: September 17, 2019, 10:57:03 AM »
Also, what is it with the right wingers feeling the need to use Democratic politicians' full names as an epithet? It's not like Beto changed his name in a cynical attempt to appeal to Hispanic voters . It's what he has been called his whole life, since he was an infant. It's childish as hell to refuse to just call him the damn name he goes by. Hell, you don't see those same people insisting on calling Ted Cruz "Rafael", even though he didn't start going by Ted until junior high school. And they don't insist on calling Nikki Haley "Nimrata," even though she only changed her name when she decided to go into politics. Or Bobby Jindal "Piyush."

Oh yeah. I forgot. In those instances, they're trying to whiten up. That's okay.

How childish.

Probably the same reason people keep calling Trump "Drumpf." Because it needles his supporters. I use it to make it clear I'm not fooled into thinking he's anything but a phony frat douche that tried sooo sooo hard to plaster a veneer of authenticity and "coolness" over all of that by livecasting playing drums and other stupid shit like that.

Interesting that you chose to play the race card here. How childish.

Um, dude, that's the actual difference. You are mocking Beto by implying he's pretending to be Hispanic when he's not. But when Republicans who are minorities change their names to something less ethnic and "whiter," that's fine.

And yeah, Drumpf is childish-ass bullshit, too. Though it is true his dad changed it to sound better (and less ethnic), Trump didn't do that. Plus, there's plenty of actual substantial things to say about Trump. His name is a non-issue.

Basically, if one has to resort to that kind of childish crap, it's because one hasn't got a real argument to make. Thus, resorting to third-grade mocking of people's names.  See, Killary, Obummer, Barack Hussein Obama.

I didn't say it was "fine" for Cruz or others to change their names either.  I'm mocking Beto by implying that he's anything but a phony frat boy douche bag, which has nothing to do with race.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #916 on: September 17, 2019, 11:02:43 AM »
Also, what is it with the right wingers feeling the need to use Democratic politicians' full names as an epithet? It's not like Beto changed his name in a cynical attempt to appeal to Hispanic voters . It's what he has been called his whole life, since he was an infant. It's childish as hell to refuse to just call him the damn name he goes by. Hell, you don't see those same people insisting on calling Ted Cruz "Rafael", even though he didn't start going by Ted until junior high school. And they don't insist on calling Nikki Haley "Nimrata," even though she only changed her name when she decided to go into politics. Or Bobby Jindal "Piyush."

Oh yeah. I forgot. In those instances, they're trying to whiten up. That's okay.

How childish.

Probably the same reason people keep calling Trump "Drumpf." Because it needles his supporters. I use it to make it clear I'm not fooled into thinking he's anything but a phony frat douche that tried sooo sooo hard to plaster a veneer of authenticity and "coolness" over all of that by livecasting playing drums and other stupid shit like that.

Interesting that you chose to play the race card here. How childish.

Um, dude, that's the actual difference. You are mocking Beto by implying he's pretending to be Hispanic when he's not. But when Republicans who are minorities change their names to something less ethnic and "whiter," that's fine.

And yeah, Drumpf is childish-ass bullshit, too. Though it is true his dad changed it to sound better (and less ethnic), Trump didn't do that. Plus, there's plenty of actual substantial things to say about Trump. His name is a non-issue.

Basically, if one has to resort to that kind of childish crap, it's because one hasn't got a real argument to make. Thus, resorting to third-grade mocking of people's names.  See, Killary, Obummer, Barack Hussein Obama.

I didn't say it was "fine" for Cruz or others to change their names either.  I'm mocking Beto by implying that he's anything but a phony frat boy douche bag, which has nothing to do with race.

How is calling him "Robert Francis O'Rourke" mocking him for being a phony frat boy douche bag?

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4131
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #917 on: September 17, 2019, 11:08:14 AM »
People that use "Drumpf" against Trump seem to miss the entire point John Oliver was making when he brought that into the mainstream.  He dug it up to point out that using someone's name against them is dumb.... aaand then people have proceeded to try to use it in mockery of Trump.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #918 on: September 17, 2019, 11:16:27 AM »

I didn't say it was "fine" for Cruz or others to change their names either.  I'm mocking Beto by implying that he's anything but a phony frat boy douche bag, which has nothing to do with race.

How is calling him "Robert Francis O'Rourke" mocking him for being a phony frat boy douche bag?

When one of his supporters gets all mad that I don't use his nickname, I get the opportunity to point it out.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #919 on: September 17, 2019, 11:20:17 AM »
Well, thus far the Democratic debates have been significantly more mature than the GOP debates from last cycle when we were treated hearing "Lyin' Ted," Little Marco," "Low Energy Jeb," a discussion of hand size, etc. Basically, behavior you would equate with toddlers.

On the Dems' side this year, you had Biden apologizing to Beto for calling him "Beto" on stage, with Beto seeming cool with it (since he brands himself as "Beto" anyway).

Quite a distinction.

Bernie and Hillary got pretty tense with each other last cycle, but I don't remember either of them stooping to calling the other a childish nickname. Maybe I forgot?



« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 11:24:15 AM by Nick_Miller »

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #920 on: September 17, 2019, 11:36:47 AM »
Looking at the primary field, there's one candidate who has almost single-handedly kept at least 5 million guns from hitting the streets.[1]. Not only that, this candidate also stood up to the NRA and pushed through what is likely the most significant gun control regulation in the last 20 years.[2]. Who is this gun grabbing lefty? Oddly enough: the orange one himself.

It's pretty sad that the "most significant" gun control regulation of the last 20 years bans pieces of plastic most gun people consider gimmicks good only for some chuckles at the range since your accuracy goes to shit (bump stocks). The Vegas shooter identified one of the few situations in which they actually would be halfway effective in real life. It's not going to make much of a difference at all in the levels of gun violence. It's a very minor concession to public outrage that he can now campaign on to argue he's not entirely in the NRA's pocket.

And Trump didn't "push" anything through legislative action, he simply used (arguably excessive) executive power to order the ATF to find a convoluted way to interpret existing law completely differently than they ever have before in order to retroactively ban them. It may well get tossed out in court and undone, ultimately wasting a lot of government money and allowing the manufacturers to sell bump stocks again to all the people who were forced to give them up.

So yeah, color me unimpressed by this line of thinking.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 11:41:33 AM by Samuel »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #921 on: September 17, 2019, 11:37:40 AM »

I didn't say it was "fine" for Cruz or others to change their names either.  I'm mocking Beto by implying that he's anything but a phony frat boy douche bag, which has nothing to do with race.

How is calling him "Robert Francis O'Rourke" mocking him for being a phony frat boy douche bag?

When one of his supporters gets all mad that I don't use his nickname, I get the opportunity to point it out.


Pointing out it’s a childish behavior many on the right are engaging in is not the same as being mad.

And you’re evading my question. I’m sensing there’s a reason for that.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #922 on: September 17, 2019, 11:58:03 AM »

I didn't say it was "fine" for Cruz or others to change their names either.  I'm mocking Beto by implying that he's anything but a phony frat boy douche bag, which has nothing to do with race.

How is calling him "Robert Francis O'Rourke" mocking him for being a phony frat boy douche bag?

When one of his supporters gets all mad that I don't use his nickname, I get the opportunity to point it out.


Pointing out it’s a childish behavior many on the right are engaging in is not the same as being mad.

And you’re evading my question. I’m sensing there’s a reason for that.

I've been trying to avoid saying I know it's childish behavior, but it strikes a chord because in some other circles, people do infact get outright angry when I do that. It's a cheap tactic to use on a candidate who's prominence warrants little other effort. All there is to it. If you think it's a racist thing, that's in your head and is your problem.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #923 on: September 17, 2019, 12:04:19 PM »

I didn't say it was "fine" for Cruz or others to change their names either.  I'm mocking Beto by implying that he's anything but a phony frat boy douche bag, which has nothing to do with race.

How is calling him "Robert Francis O'Rourke" mocking him for being a phony frat boy douche bag?

When one of his supporters gets all mad that I don't use his nickname, I get the opportunity to point it out.


Pointing out it’s a childish behavior many on the right are engaging in is not the same as being mad.

And you’re evading my question. I’m sensing there’s a reason for that.

I've been trying to avoid saying I know it's childish behavior, but it strikes a chord because in some other circles, people do infact get outright angry when I do that. It's a cheap tactic to use on a candidate who's prominence warrants little other effort. All there is to it. If you think it's a racist thing, that's in your head and is your problem.

Well, at least you are acknowledging the childishness of your behavior. But if you really think he warrants no further effort, I wonder at your expending further energy piling on even more childishness with “phony frat boy douche.”
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 12:07:03 PM by Kris »

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #924 on: September 17, 2019, 12:18:57 PM »
It's pretty sad that the "most significant" gun control regulation of the last 20 years bans pieces of plastic most gun people consider gimmicks good only for some chuckles at the range since your accuracy goes to shit (bump stocks). The Vegas shooter identified one of the few situations in which they actually would be halfway effective in real life. It's not going to make much of a difference at all in the levels of gun violence. It's a very minor concession to public outrage that he can now campaign on to argue he's not entirely in the NRA's pocket.

And Trump didn't "push" anything through legislative action, he simply used (arguably excessive) executive power to order the ATF to find a convoluted way to interpret existing law completely differently than they ever have before in order to retroactively ban them. It may well get tossed out in court and undone, ultimately wasting a lot of government money and allowing the manufacturers to sell bump stocks again to all the people who were forced to give them up.

So yeah, color me unimpressed by this line of thinking.
A few points:
1. I agree that banning bump stocks is "not going to make much of a difference at all in the levels of gun violence" but it also true that banning AR-15s is "not going to make much of a difference at all in the levels of gun violence." If we really wanted to reduce gun violence our focus should be on handguns.

2. Considering that Feinstein's October 2017 bill on bump stocks was not acted upon, it's quite reasonable to say that he pushed through the regulation based on the means that were available to him.

3. It certainly is possible that the courts will overturn the ban, but the Supreme Court already did a quick look in Guedes v. the ATF. Only Thomas and Gorsuch were against Trump's ban going into effect which bodes well for the future enforceability of the ban.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #925 on: September 17, 2019, 12:27:34 PM »

I didn't say it was "fine" for Cruz or others to change their names either.  I'm mocking Beto by implying that he's anything but a phony frat boy douche bag, which has nothing to do with race.

How is calling him "Robert Francis O'Rourke" mocking him for being a phony frat boy douche bag?

When one of his supporters gets all mad that I don't use his nickname, I get the opportunity to point it out.


Pointing out it’s a childish behavior many on the right are engaging in is not the same as being mad.

And you’re evading my question. I’m sensing there’s a reason for that.

I've been trying to avoid saying I know it's childish behavior, but it strikes a chord because in some other circles, people do infact get outright angry when I do that. It's a cheap tactic to use on a candidate who's prominence warrants little other effort. All there is to it. If you think it's a racist thing, that's in your head and is your problem.

Well, at least you are acknowledging the childishness of your behavior. But if you really think he warrants no further effort, I wonder at your expending further energy piling on even more childishness with “phony frat boy douche.”

I'm not going to be called a racist when that isn't at all why I used his birth name, so I offered some insight into WHY I chose to use his full name pejoratively. 

And, golly, his statement about how he's going to take our guns, and how it's a complete change from an earlier statement he made.... why would't I want to put some effort into getting him, those statements, and his flip flop, that he's a disingenuous fraud into the public consciousness? That damages the entire democrat brand! A secondary benefit is this wacko's extreme position just placed a wall against which the other candidates are going to have to ricochet and (at least) play lip service to distancing themselves from, or become an easy target later. That might drive this conversation back to where a reasonable package of gun control legislation becomes feasible.

I'm not excited about trump as a president, but locally I want some energy for the republicans. This O'Rourke guy is a local, state level politician. He's just lifted the veil on what these people think, and maybe this, and the unfolding corruption of kate brown, will get the republicans in my state off their asses to vote some democrats out. They may even unseat ron wyden, the Oregon Senator who lives in New York! I few of your are in my state, but this has to get national attention if it's going to filter down to the general public here. So the more he stays in the conversation, the better!

Edited 9/20 to answer a Kris's question below, without restarting this part of the thread a full page further down the line.

Robert Francis  sounds like a pretentious name (to me, but I'm from a pretty white trash area), to (albeit childishly) draw attention to who he really is, versus the image he is trying to carefully craft of himself. If that's not an explanation then I don't know what is.

At until now, O'Rourke was not worth a thorough debunking because he was so un-notable and small time. Now, I WANT to increase his profile, because he said something so dumb and damaging that increasing talk about him increases the knowledge of his stupid statement.

Until that statement, he was on record saying the same line about not wanting to confiscate guns and just wanting "common sense" gun control... which is what all the other candidates on the left say. Except he went on to say "Na, I really DO want to take your guns."  Until now, he was indistinguishable from the other candidates on this issue. So how can you truely say he's on his own harboring this desire to forcibly take property from people?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2019, 10:44:08 AM by ncornilsen »

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #926 on: September 17, 2019, 12:48:17 PM »
So to move away from guns for a minute, it is interesting to think about the intersection between the FIRE movement / Mustachianism and political views.  There is a great little web article that analyzes the "big five" personality traits and Myers/Briggs as indicators of political preference.  The thesis is that Big Five "openness" and/or Myers/Briggs "intuition" (N) is correlated with political liberalism, while Big Five "conscientiousness" and/or Myers/Briggs "judgment" is correlated with conservatism. 

https://personalityjunkie.com/08/personality-politics-liberals-conservatives-myers-briggs-big-five/


The FIRE movement at its essence is one of personal responsibility, at least concerning your own finances, so at that level it aligns with conscientiousness, which is a conservative trait.  But it seems like a substantial number of us also register pretty high on the openness / intuitive scale by being intellectually curious and literally open to new ideas.  FIRE itself is a pretty unconventional idea, so maybe that makes sense.     

I wonder if anyone has done a personality inventory on the candidates and, if so, if that could give us any insight?

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4131
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #927 on: September 17, 2019, 12:55:53 PM »
So to move away from guns for a minute, it is interesting to think about the intersection between the FIRE movement / Mustachianism and political views.  There is a great little web article that analyzes the "big five" personality traits and Myers/Briggs as indicators of political preference.  The thesis is that Big Five "openness" and/or Myers/Briggs "intuition" (N) is correlated with political liberalism, while Big Five "conscientiousness" and/or Myers/Briggs "judgment" is correlated with conservatism. 

https://personalityjunkie.com/08/personality-politics-liberals-conservatives-myers-briggs-big-five/


The FIRE movement at its essence is one of personal responsibility, at least concerning your own finances, so at that level it aligns with conscientiousness, which is a conservative trait.  But it seems like a substantial number of us also register pretty high on the openness / intuitive scale by being intellectually curious and literally open to new ideas.  FIRE itself is a pretty unconventional idea, so maybe that makes sense.     

I wonder if anyone has done a personality inventory on the candidates and, if so, if that could give us any insight?
Yang seems textbook INTJ to me.  But I, an INTJ, am also biased in that assessment.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #928 on: September 17, 2019, 12:58:06 PM »
So to move away from guns for a minute, it is interesting to think about the intersection between the FIRE movement / Mustachianism and political views.  There is a great little web article that analyzes the "big five" personality traits and Myers/Briggs as indicators of political preference.  The thesis is that Big Five "openness" and/or Myers/Briggs "intuition" (N) is correlated with political liberalism, while Big Five "conscientiousness" and/or Myers/Briggs "judgment" is correlated with conservatism. 

https://personalityjunkie.com/08/personality-politics-liberals-conservatives-myers-briggs-big-five/


The FIRE movement at its essence is one of personal responsibility, at least concerning your own finances, so at that level it aligns with conscientiousness, which is a conservative trait.  But it seems like a substantial number of us also register pretty high on the openness / intuitive scale by being intellectually curious and literally open to new ideas.  FIRE itself is a pretty unconventional idea, so maybe that makes sense.

I wonder if anyone has done a personality inventory on the candidates and, if so, if that could give us any insight?

Here's a Quora thread; they are usually fairly thoughtful

https://www.quora.com/What-Myers-Briggs-types-are-each-of-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nominees

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #929 on: September 17, 2019, 01:02:03 PM »
So to move away from guns for a minute, it is interesting to think about the intersection between the FIRE movement / Mustachianism and political views.  There is a great little web article that analyzes the "big five" personality traits and Myers/Briggs as indicators of political preference.  The thesis is that Big Five "openness" and/or Myers/Briggs "intuition" (N) is correlated with political liberalism, while Big Five "conscientiousness" and/or Myers/Briggs "judgment" is correlated with conservatism. 

https://personalityjunkie.com/08/personality-politics-liberals-conservatives-myers-briggs-big-five/


The FIRE movement at its essence is one of personal responsibility, at least concerning your own finances, so at that level it aligns with conscientiousness, which is a conservative trait.  But it seems like a substantial number of us also register pretty high on the openness / intuitive scale by being intellectually curious and literally open to new ideas.  FIRE itself is a pretty unconventional idea, so maybe that makes sense.

I wonder if anyone has done a personality inventory on the candidates and, if so, if that could give us any insight?

Here's a Quora thread; they are usually fairly thoughtful

https://www.quora.com/What-Myers-Briggs-types-are-each-of-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nominees

That is awesome.  They had a hard time pinning Biden down, other than being extroverted.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #930 on: September 17, 2019, 01:05:45 PM »

I didn't say it was "fine" for Cruz or others to change their names either.  I'm mocking Beto by implying that he's anything but a phony frat boy douche bag, which has nothing to do with race.

How is calling him "Robert Francis O'Rourke" mocking him for being a phony frat boy douche bag?

When one of his supporters gets all mad that I don't use his nickname, I get the opportunity to point it out.


Pointing out it’s a childish behavior many on the right are engaging in is not the same as being mad.

And you’re evading my question. I’m sensing there’s a reason for that.

I've been trying to avoid saying I know it's childish behavior, but it strikes a chord because in some other circles, people do infact get outright angry when I do that. It's a cheap tactic to use on a candidate who's prominence warrants little other effort. All there is to it. If you think it's a racist thing, that's in your head and is your problem.

Well, at least you are acknowledging the childishness of your behavior. But if you really think he warrants no further effort, I wonder at your expending further energy piling on even more childishness with “phony frat boy douche.”

I'm not going to be called a racist when that isn't at all why I used his birth name, so I offered some insight into WHY I chose to use his full name pejoratively. 

And, golly, his statement about how he's going to take our guns, and how it's a complete change from an earlier statement he made.... why would't I want to put some effort into getting him, those statements, and his flip flop, that he's a disingenuous fraud into the public consciousness? That damages the entire democrat brand! A secondary benefit is this wacko's extreme position just placed a wall against which the other candidates are going to have to ricochet and (at least) play lip service to distancing themselves from, or become an easy target later. That might drive this conversation back to where a reasonable package of gun control legislation becomes feasible.

I'm not excited about trump as a president, but locally I want some energy for the republicans. This O'Rourke guy is a local, state level politician. He's just lifted the veil on what these people think, and maybe this, and the unfolding corruption of kate brown, will get the republicans in my state off their asses to vote some democrats out. They may even unseat ron wyden, the Oregon Senator who lives in New York! I few of your are in my state, but this has to get national attention if it's going to filter down to the general public here. So the more he stays in the conversation, the better!

But that's the thing. You actually haven't offered any insight on why you choose to use his full name pejoratively. Can you explain in what way you find it so important to do so, and what "Robert Francis" signifies pejoratively? Because it seems like a pretty normal, common name to me.

To your second point, I think you're actually giving him more credit, and even more limelight, by calling attention to him. The guy was polling super-low even before the debate. He's done in the presidential contest. He just hasn't quit yet. And again, you were just arguing a moment ago that he wasn't someone who was worth spending energy on. ???

I agree with you that he's damaged the other Democrats by association. But he hasn't "lifted the veil" on anything except what he himself thinks.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #931 on: September 17, 2019, 01:08:56 PM »
So to move away from guns for a minute, it is interesting to think about the intersection between the FIRE movement / Mustachianism and political views.  There is a great little web article that analyzes the "big five" personality traits and Myers/Briggs as indicators of political preference.  The thesis is that Big Five "openness" and/or Myers/Briggs "intuition" (N) is correlated with political liberalism, while Big Five "conscientiousness" and/or Myers/Briggs "judgment" is correlated with conservatism. 

https://personalityjunkie.com/08/personality-politics-liberals-conservatives-myers-briggs-big-five/


The FIRE movement at its essence is one of personal responsibility, at least concerning your own finances, so at that level it aligns with conscientiousness, which is a conservative trait.  But it seems like a substantial number of us also register pretty high on the openness / intuitive scale by being intellectually curious and literally open to new ideas.  FIRE itself is a pretty unconventional idea, so maybe that makes sense.

I wonder if anyone has done a personality inventory on the candidates and, if so, if that could give us any insight?

Here's a Quora thread; they are usually fairly thoughtful

https://www.quora.com/What-Myers-Briggs-types-are-each-of-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nominees

That is awesome.  They had a hard time pinning Biden down, other than being extroverted.

That is very interesting. And it's funny, as soon as I saw this subject raised by OurTown, I immediately thought, "Huh. I bet Buttegieg is INFJ or INTJ." (I'm INFJ, but my T and F are pretty close, so I feel like I recognize a kindred spirit in him.) He was the only one I felt like I could immediately pin down. Interesting that they thought the same.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14877
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #932 on: September 17, 2019, 01:52:22 PM »
Quote
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .

Elaborate?

More than half of US gun owners do not secure their guns at all (gun cabinet, safe, trigger lock, whatever).  45% of gun owners with children keep at least one firearm unsecured in the home.  Irresponsible or not?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #933 on: September 17, 2019, 06:59:44 PM »
Quote
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .

Elaborate?

More than half of US gun owners do not secure their guns at all (gun cabinet, safe, trigger lock, whatever).  45% of gun owners with children keep at least one firearm unsecured in the home.  Irresponsible or not?

The gun owners are securing their guns. They're securing them in their house which is almost certainly locked. Someone breaking into their house is by definition fighting against the security of a locked door on their house. They're not leaving them setting on park benches.

For the gun owners with children and a firearm unsecured in the home, well, it depends on a lot of things that you conveniently leave out. Is this a one year old with a shotgun stored up on the top shelf of a back closet? Is it an infant with an unloaded hand gun hidden in a drawer with the loaded magazine across the room that would require complex dexterity to chamber a round? Do the parents perhaps have a better understanding of the real risk than you do? I would assert that the numbers show they probably do - there's less than 500 total accidental gun deaths a year. There were 73 accidental shootings that killed children in 2018. A big part of responsibility is tied to the actual risk - the numbers show that there's really not a lot of risk in this department.

So no, I would say not irresponsible overall for either of these. As Nick was willing to admit "So yes, the vast...vast...vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Crap, we'd all be dead if they weren't. It's just math." It's cliche but one of the biggest pro-gun arguments around.

And now to keep this somewhat on topic - there are millions of gun owners, many of whom are willing to support some measures like more stringent background checks and other things. However, when Beto faux passionately demands guns be confiscated - especially when it's a hypocritical total reversal on a stance he had a year ago in what seems pretty clearly to be an attempt to remain relevant, it alienates voters. When liberals imply in general that gun owners are irresponsible or dangerous, it alienates voters. If that's the goal, go for it. Otherwise, it's a bad move.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14877
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #934 on: September 17, 2019, 08:03:03 PM »
Quote
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .

Elaborate?

More than half of US gun owners do not secure their guns at all (gun cabinet, safe, trigger lock, whatever).  45% of gun owners with children keep at least one firearm unsecured in the home.  Irresponsible or not?

The gun owners are securing their guns. They're securing them in their house which is almost certainly locked. Someone breaking into their house is by definition fighting against the security of a locked door on their house. They're not leaving them setting on park benches.

For the gun owners with children and a firearm unsecured in the home, well, it depends on a lot of things that you conveniently leave out. Is this a one year old with a shotgun stored up on the top shelf of a back closet? Is it an infant with an unloaded hand gun hidden in a drawer with the loaded magazine across the room that would require complex dexterity to chamber a round? Do the parents perhaps have a better understanding of the real risk than you do? I would assert that the numbers show they probably do - there's less than 500 total accidental gun deaths a year. There were 73 accidental shootings that killed children in 2018. A big part of responsibility is tied to the actual risk - the numbers show that there's really not a lot of risk in this department.

So no, I would say not irresponsible overall for either of these. As Nick was willing to admit "So yes, the vast...vast...vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Crap, we'd all be dead if they weren't. It's just math." It's cliche but one of the biggest pro-gun arguments around.

And now to keep this somewhat on topic - there are millions of gun owners, many of whom are willing to support some measures like more stringent background checks and other things. However, when Beto faux passionately demands guns be confiscated - especially when it's a hypocritical total reversal on a stance he had a year ago in what seems pretty clearly to be an attempt to remain relevant, it alienates voters. When liberals imply in general that gun owners are irresponsible or dangerous, it alienates voters. If that's the goal, go for it. Otherwise, it's a bad move.

Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . . .

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #935 on: September 18, 2019, 05:16:37 AM »
Quote
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .

Elaborate?

More than half of US gun owners do not secure their guns at all (gun cabinet, safe, trigger lock, whatever).  45% of gun owners with children keep at least one firearm unsecured in the home.  Irresponsible or not?

The gun owners are securing their guns. They're securing them in their house which is almost certainly locked. Someone breaking into their house is by definition fighting against the security of a locked door on their house. They're not leaving them setting on park benches.

For the gun owners with children and a firearm unsecured in the home, well, it depends on a lot of things that you conveniently leave out. Is this a one year old with a shotgun stored up on the top shelf of a back closet? Is it an infant with an unloaded hand gun hidden in a drawer with the loaded magazine across the room that would require complex dexterity to chamber a round? Do the parents perhaps have a better understanding of the real risk than you do? I would assert that the numbers show they probably do - there's less than 500 total accidental gun deaths a year. There were 73 accidental shootings that killed children in 2018. A big part of responsibility is tied to the actual risk - the numbers show that there's really not a lot of risk in this department.

So no, I would say not irresponsible overall for either of these. As Nick was willing to admit "So yes, the vast...vast...vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Crap, we'd all be dead if they weren't. It's just math." It's cliche but one of the biggest pro-gun arguments around.

And now to keep this somewhat on topic - there are millions of gun owners, many of whom are willing to support some measures like more stringent background checks and other things. However, when Beto faux passionately demands guns be confiscated - especially when it's a hypocritical total reversal on a stance he had a year ago in what seems pretty clearly to be an attempt to remain relevant, it alienates voters. When liberals imply in general that gun owners are irresponsible or dangerous, it alienates voters. If that's the goal, go for it. Otherwise, it's a bad move.

Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . . .

LOL! I wasn't angry about your comment. It was just ill informed, and you didn't actually refute anything. If you make out gun owners not securing their firearms around children the epidemic of irresponsibility that you seem to think it is, I was just pointing out that it would probably help your argument if you had some actual data to back it up and not just the argument of um um um, this is bad... 42% of people in the US live in households with guns. There were 73 accidental deaths of children with guns in America last year. The fact is, you're the one wrong about your assessment of general irresponsibility, and again, flawed lines of logic and overarching blame placing on gun owners is one of the big things that alienates conservatives voters.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4888
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #936 on: September 18, 2019, 05:46:56 AM »
42% of people in the US live in households with guns. There were 73 accidental deaths of children with guns in America last year.
I couldn't find CDC stats for 2018.  Another site I found has 3,539 under 18s killed or injured in 2018 and 2,710 killed or injured to date in 2019 -

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

It starts to add up, right?

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #937 on: September 18, 2019, 06:52:15 AM »
42% of people in the US live in households with guns. There were 73 accidental deaths of children with guns in America last year.
I couldn't find CDC stats for 2018.  Another site I found has 3,539 under 18s killed or injured in 2018 and 2,710 killed or injured to date in 2019 -
It looks like both your stats line up quite well. Based on the page you linked to, about 3.6% of shootings are unintentional and about a third of those shootings result in death.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 10:47:58 AM by YttriumNitrate »

Secret Stache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 124
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #938 on: September 18, 2019, 07:03:40 AM »
Just wish there were a candidate who didn't want to seize my personal property (guns) or censor my media (video games, etc).  I kind of want to be left alone.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14877
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #939 on: September 18, 2019, 07:15:43 AM »
Quote
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .

Elaborate?

More than half of US gun owners do not secure their guns at all (gun cabinet, safe, trigger lock, whatever).  45% of gun owners with children keep at least one firearm unsecured in the home.  Irresponsible or not?

The gun owners are securing their guns. They're securing them in their house which is almost certainly locked. Someone breaking into their house is by definition fighting against the security of a locked door on their house. They're not leaving them setting on park benches.

For the gun owners with children and a firearm unsecured in the home, well, it depends on a lot of things that you conveniently leave out. Is this a one year old with a shotgun stored up on the top shelf of a back closet? Is it an infant with an unloaded hand gun hidden in a drawer with the loaded magazine across the room that would require complex dexterity to chamber a round? Do the parents perhaps have a better understanding of the real risk than you do? I would assert that the numbers show they probably do - there's less than 500 total accidental gun deaths a year. There were 73 accidental shootings that killed children in 2018. A big part of responsibility is tied to the actual risk - the numbers show that there's really not a lot of risk in this department.

So no, I would say not irresponsible overall for either of these. As Nick was willing to admit "So yes, the vast...vast...vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Crap, we'd all be dead if they weren't. It's just math." It's cliche but one of the biggest pro-gun arguments around.

And now to keep this somewhat on topic - there are millions of gun owners, many of whom are willing to support some measures like more stringent background checks and other things. However, when Beto faux passionately demands guns be confiscated - especially when it's a hypocritical total reversal on a stance he had a year ago in what seems pretty clearly to be an attempt to remain relevant, it alienates voters. When liberals imply in general that gun owners are irresponsible or dangerous, it alienates voters. If that's the goal, go for it. Otherwise, it's a bad move.

Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . . .

LOL! I wasn't angry about your comment. It was just ill informed, and you didn't actually refute anything. If you make out gun owners not securing their firearms around children the epidemic of irresponsibility that you seem to think it is, I was just pointing out that it would probably help your argument if you had some actual data to back it up and not just the argument of um um um, this is bad... 42% of people in the US live in households with guns. There were 73 accidental deaths of children with guns in America last year. The fact is, you're the one wrong about your assessment of general irresponsibility, and again, flawed lines of logic and overarching blame placing on gun owners is one of the big things that alienates conservatives voters.

73 preventable deaths don't matter?  How many children need to be injured/die from gun owner negligence before you begin to consider it a problem?  Of course, that's not mentioning the 90% of guns used in crime that are stolen from 'responsible' gun owners.  Who feel no need whatsoever to secure their weapons.

Not everyone believes that the right to own a gun supersedes the right to not be shot by one.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 07:31:41 AM by GuitarStv »

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #940 on: September 18, 2019, 07:49:53 AM »
Some recent developments...some are just my takes...

Yang polls ahead of Kamala in California...wow that's not a good look for her

Pete is first or second choice of 19% of Dems, 5 percent ahead of Harris

Warren's crowd in NYC...wow. (and those photos were awesome)

Warren tied with Biden in Iowa and who's in third? Mayor Pete is ahead of Bernie and Harris. (I think Pete could win Iowa)

I think Yang is stealing Bernie Bros left and right...well, mostly left  :)   

It's amazing that a potential ticket of a 70-year-old liberal woman and a gay 37-year-old slightly more moderate man may not be "diverse enough" to satisfy many Dems.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 08:24:14 AM by Nick_Miller »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3741
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #941 on: September 18, 2019, 10:18:48 AM »
Just wish there were a candidate who didn't want to seize my personal property (guns) or censor my media (video games, etc).  I kind of want to be left alone.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

lol I'm sorry you sound a little pitiful if your main concerns in life is holding onto your guns, playing extra violent video games, and being left alone (and that's not even going into whether or not your concerns are actually valid...). My nephew both owns guns and is into video games. Brother is an extensive video game player, just does target practice with bows. Neither think Democratic candidates are some kind of bogeyman.


 
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 10:26:22 AM by partgypsy »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #942 on: September 18, 2019, 10:25:21 AM »
Quote
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .

Elaborate?

More than half of US gun owners do not secure their guns at all (gun cabinet, safe, trigger lock, whatever).  45% of gun owners with children keep at least one firearm unsecured in the home.  Irresponsible or not?

The gun owners are securing their guns. They're securing them in their house which is almost certainly locked. Someone breaking into their house is by definition fighting against the security of a locked door on their house. They're not leaving them setting on park benches.

For the gun owners with children and a firearm unsecured in the home, well, it depends on a lot of things that you conveniently leave out. Is this a one year old with a shotgun stored up on the top shelf of a back closet? Is it an infant with an unloaded hand gun hidden in a drawer with the loaded magazine across the room that would require complex dexterity to chamber a round? Do the parents perhaps have a better understanding of the real risk than you do? I would assert that the numbers show they probably do - there's less than 500 total accidental gun deaths a year. There were 73 accidental shootings that killed children in 2018. A big part of responsibility is tied to the actual risk - the numbers show that there's really not a lot of risk in this department.

So no, I would say not irresponsible overall for either of these. As Nick was willing to admit "So yes, the vast...vast...vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Crap, we'd all be dead if they weren't. It's just math." It's cliche but one of the biggest pro-gun arguments around.

And now to keep this somewhat on topic - there are millions of gun owners, many of whom are willing to support some measures like more stringent background checks and other things. However, when Beto faux passionately demands guns be confiscated - especially when it's a hypocritical total reversal on a stance he had a year ago in what seems pretty clearly to be an attempt to remain relevant, it alienates voters. When liberals imply in general that gun owners are irresponsible or dangerous, it alienates voters. If that's the goal, go for it. Otherwise, it's a bad move.

Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them.  "I'm responsible with my weapons."  Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . . .

LOL! I wasn't angry about your comment. It was just ill informed, and you didn't actually refute anything. If you make out gun owners not securing their firearms around children the epidemic of irresponsibility that you seem to think it is, I was just pointing out that it would probably help your argument if you had some actual data to back it up and not just the argument of um um um, this is bad... 42% of people in the US live in households with guns. There were 73 accidental deaths of children with guns in America last year. The fact is, you're the one wrong about your assessment of general irresponsibility, and again, flawed lines of logic and overarching blame placing on gun owners is one of the big things that alienates conservatives voters.

73 preventable deaths don't matter?  How many children need to be injured/die from gun owner negligence before you begin to consider it a problem?  Of course, that's not mentioning the 90% of guns used in crime that are stolen from 'responsible' gun owners.  Who feel no need whatsoever to secure their weapons.

Not everyone believes that the right to own a gun supersedes the right to not be shot by one.

When did I say they didn't matter? Put words in people's mouths much? Every death or injury matters. The problem is you are making statements without facts to back them up. Let's do some math, shall we? 42% of Americans live in households with guns. Rough estimation  - 73 million kids total - given your statistic of all these 45% of gun owners in America are totally irresponsible (you use them as your evidence for gun owners in general being irresponsible) leaving guns hanging out around children and 42% of Americans in households with guns - now we've got still almost 14 million kids living every second of every day in mortal peril of getting hurt by accident with guns. Yet there are only 73 accidental gun deaths of children out of all of those - we'll even use the other number of 3,539 including injuries.

The point that you're not willing to admit is this, that's a miniscule number compared to the number of kids your statistic acts like are being left in these totally irresponsible situations. The point is that you are blanketting gun owners as being irresponsible based on this one statistic you have when the actual numbers show that the risks are not nearly as high as you are trying to imply and that therefore *shock* maybe as a blanket statement these gun owners actually aren't being irresponsible. Maybe they're situations are more nuanced than that one statistic shows and they're actually keeping their kids safe because they know what their situation is and you don't. Maybe you're just wrong. Actually not maybe, the numbers show that you are. Your statistic does not prove that gun owners as a whole are irresponsible.

Here's the thing - there are two perspectives to take on gun control. One is that we want to try to keep bad people from getting guns. This is the point of reference where you get all of these statistics like 88% of Americans support this or that gun control measure. This perspective supports things ranging from less extreme - better background checks to more extreme - red flag immediate gun removals and the like.

The other perspective that you, Beto, and others take is that guns are inherently bad. It's not preventing bad people from getting guns it's that guns are just too bad to even be out there. It flies in the face of accidental gun deaths being so low compared to gun ownership, of the times people actually use guns to prevent crimes, of the general statistics that show that eliminating guns don't just magically fix overall crime. It's a perspective that is shared by many fewer people. It's one that will drive up voter turnout against Democrats, and it's one that if they want to win, they should probably avoid taking.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 10:45:25 AM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14877
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #943 on: September 18, 2019, 11:33:47 AM »
If every death or injury matters, then I'm not understanding your argument.  Your argument appears to be that these fully preventable deaths and injuries don't happen all that often, so there's no need to address the issue.  Is that an incorrect understanding of your position?  Because although you're not explicitly saying it, that whole argument hinges on the belief that a few fully preventable deaths of children do not matter.

Having an unsecured gun in a house with a child is not responsible gun ownership.  Full stop.  Even if it only kills a few kids a year.  I'm not blanketing gun owners as irresponsible.  When about half of gun owners with children do not secure their firearms, the actions of these gun owners do that all on their own.  You've argued that 73 preventable children's deaths in a year shows that gun owners are a responsible lot.  OK.  What number of preventable deaths would be necessary before you changed your mind on that?  500?  1000?  15000?  At what point should the problem gain attention?

FWIW, I don't believe that guns are inherently bad.  I had a rifle for most of my childhood and often hunted with it.  I have no issue with most shotguns and hunting rifles, or with various weapons used for sport shooting.

Secret Stache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 124
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #944 on: September 18, 2019, 11:54:48 AM »
Just wish there were a candidate who didn't want to seize my personal property (guns) or censor my media (video games, etc).  I kind of want to be left alone.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

lol I'm sorry you sound a little pitiful if your main concerns in life is holding onto your guns, playing extra violent video games, and being left alone (and that's not even going into whether or not your concerns are actually valid...). My nephew both owns guns and is into video games. Brother is an extensive video game player, just does target practice with bows. Neither think Democratic candidates are some kind of bogeyman.


Didn't intend to imply these were my main concerns in life or that Democratic candidates are boogeymen.  I'll likely vote for one those boogeymen or boogeywomen. 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #945 on: September 18, 2019, 01:13:55 PM »
If every death or injury matters, then I'm not understanding your argument.  Your argument appears to be that these fully preventable deaths and injuries don't happen all that often, so there's no need to address the issue.  Is that an incorrect understanding of your position?  Because although you're not explicitly saying it, that whole argument hinges on the belief that a few fully preventable deaths of children do not matter.

Having an unsecured gun in a house with a child is not responsible gun ownership.  Full stop.  Even if it only kills a few kids a year.  I'm not blanketing gun owners as irresponsible.  When about half of gun owners with children do not secure their firearms, the actions of these gun owners do that all on their own.  You've argued that 73 preventable children's deaths in a year shows that gun owners are a responsible lot.  OK.  What number of preventable deaths would be necessary before you changed your mind on that?  500?  1000?  15000?  At what point should the problem gain attention?

FWIW, I don't believe that guns are inherently bad.  I had a rifle for most of my childhood and often hunted with it.  I have no issue with most shotguns and hunting rifles, or with various weapons used for sport shooting.

When did we talk about not addressing the issue? I don't recall mentioning not addressing the issue. I'm saying your argument of inherent irresponsibility of large quantities of gun owners is wrong. Here is the chain of events as I see them:

You make an indirect inference that gun owneres as a blanket group or in large quantities are irresponsible. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they are. You made the statement.

So far, the most "compelling" argument you've given to prove it is that 45% of gun owners leave an unsecured firearm in a home with a child present. Therefore you've declared a significant portion of gun owners - 45% are irresponsible because of this. I don't know how to infer anything else.

You declare "Having an unsecured gun in a house with a child is not responsible gun ownership.  Full stop." First of all I firmly and categorically refute that as a blanket statement. The thing is, I have actual statistics to back up what I'm saying - you just say full stop. Your statistic is very vague and based on perceptions/assumptions of what "unsecured" means, the actual situation of everyone involved in the 45% (age of kids - maybe too young to even crawl, maybe 16 and as responsible as anyone, state of gun of loaded/unloaded), etc. Fortunately, we don't have to despair in subjectivity. We have objective data in the form of actual numbers of deaths and injuries to use. We know how many people are in this situation per your statistic. An accurate assessment of risk and therefore responsibility should tie to how many people are in that situation and how often does something bad happen. This is critical in determining risk and responsibility and there's no more practical of a way of determining risk than saying this is what actually happened. Well, the statistics are glaringly clear. The deaths and injuries compared to that general situation are tiny. That shows that the situation itself is not inherently an irresponsible thing to do. Otherwise the number of kids hurt would be much much higher. It's simple math.

Instead, what's really happening is a few irresponsible imbeciles are leaving guns with kids in a state where they are very dangerous. Every time a kid gets hurt it does matter, and it infuriates me when I hear about it. What I hear in these situations though almost without fail is a particular person leaves a gun, almost always a hand gun, not just loaded but with a bullet in the chamber and the safety off and a kid - a 3 year old or 5 or 8 or 10 who has had no training on guns pulls the trigger. That is an inherently different situation than countless other situations that would still fit your very vague "unsecured" statistic.

How many would show that gun owners as a whole are irresponsible? I dunno, but I can tell you it'd be more than 2 hundredths of one percent being injured to show that that situation - "unsecured" firearms - equivalently means inherent irresponsibility. I default back to the argument from awhile ago. Are some individual gun owners bad/irresponsible? - certainly. Are gun owners as a whole bad or irresponsible with their weapons? - no, or there would be a huge problem.

Feel free to come up with some statistic that makes sense to blanket say gun owners as a whole or in large quantities are irresponsible. What you've presented so far doesn't come close to making that case.

Edit: Whether guns are inherently bad or people as a whole are irresponsible and unable to be trusted with them - the push that results from this is virtually the same and is much more in line with gun confiscation than prevention of guns getting into the hands of people where harm will come. The latter has legitimate political traction. The former will get hard and deserved push back.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 01:21:11 PM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14877
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #946 on: September 18, 2019, 02:07:11 PM »
If every death or injury matters, then I'm not understanding your argument.  Your argument appears to be that these fully preventable deaths and injuries don't happen all that often, so there's no need to address the issue.  Is that an incorrect understanding of your position?  Because although you're not explicitly saying it, that whole argument hinges on the belief that a few fully preventable deaths of children do not matter.

Having an unsecured gun in a house with a child is not responsible gun ownership.  Full stop.  Even if it only kills a few kids a year.  I'm not blanketing gun owners as irresponsible.  When about half of gun owners with children do not secure their firearms, the actions of these gun owners do that all on their own.  You've argued that 73 preventable children's deaths in a year shows that gun owners are a responsible lot.  OK.  What number of preventable deaths would be necessary before you changed your mind on that?  500?  1000?  15000?  At what point should the problem gain attention?

FWIW, I don't believe that guns are inherently bad.  I had a rifle for most of my childhood and often hunted with it.  I have no issue with most shotguns and hunting rifles, or with various weapons used for sport shooting.

When did we talk about not addressing the issue? I don't recall mentioning not addressing the issue.

You're arguing that no problem exists.  If no problem exists, then what exactly should be done to address the (non-existent) problem?



I'm saying your argument of inherent irresponsibility of large quantities of gun owners is wrong. Here is the chain of events as I see them:

You make an indirect inference that gun owneres as a blanket group or in large quantities are irresponsible. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they are. You made the statement.

So far, the most "compelling" argument you've given to prove it is that 45% of gun owners leave an unsecured firearm in a home with a child present. Therefore you've declared a significant portion of gun owners - 45% are irresponsible because of this. I don't know how to infer anything else.

You declare "Having an unsecured gun in a house with a child is not responsible gun ownership.  Full stop." First of all I firmly and categorically refute that as a blanket statement. The thing is, I have actual statistics to back up what I'm saying - you just say full stop. Your statistic is very vague and based on perceptions/assumptions of what "unsecured" means, the actual situation of everyone involved in the 45% (age of kids - maybe too young to even crawl, maybe 16 and as responsible as anyone, state of gun of loaded/unloaded), etc. Fortunately, we don't have to despair in subjectivity. We have objective data in the form of actual numbers of deaths and injuries to use. We know how many people are in this situation per your statistic. An accurate assessment of risk and therefore responsibility should tie to how many people are in that situation and how often does something bad happen. This is critical in determining risk and responsibility and there's no more practical of a way of determining risk than saying this is what actually happened. Well, the statistics are glaringly clear. The deaths and injuries compared to that general situation are tiny. That shows that the situation itself is not inherently an irresponsible thing to do. Otherwise the number of kids hurt would be much much higher. It's simple math.

Instead, what's really happening is a few irresponsible imbeciles are leaving guns with kids in a state where they are very dangerous. Every time a kid gets hurt it does matter, and it infuriates me when I hear about it. What I hear in these situations though almost without fail is a particular person leaves a gun, almost always a hand gun, not just loaded but with a bullet in the chamber and the safety off and a kid - a 3 year old or 5 or 8 or 10 who has had no training on guns pulls the trigger. That is an inherently different situation than countless other situations that would still fit your very vague "unsecured" statistic.

How many would show that gun owners as a whole are irresponsible? I dunno, but I can tell you it'd be more than 2 hundredths of one percent being injured to show that that situation - "unsecured" firearms - equivalently means inherent irresponsibility. I default back to the argument from awhile ago. Are some individual gun owners bad/irresponsible? - certainly. Are gun owners as a whole bad or irresponsible with their weapons? - no, or there would be a huge problem.

Feel free to come up with some statistic that makes sense to blanket say gun owners as a whole or in large quantities are irresponsible. What you've presented so far doesn't come close to making that case.

On average, a person drives drunk 80 times before they're caught doing it (https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-driving-under-influence).  Of those caught, only a small fraction are involved in accidents.  Of those involved in accidents, only a small fraction are children.

A very small number of children are killed by drunk drivers when compared to the number of people who drive drunk.  A very small number of children are killed by unsecured guns in their homes.

By your logic, drunk driving is therefore responsible behaviour.  Simple math indeed.



Edit: Whether guns are inherently bad or people as a whole are irresponsible and unable to be trusted with them - the push that results from this is virtually the same and is much more in line with gun confiscation than prevention of guns getting into the hands of people where harm will come. The latter has legitimate political traction. The former will get hard and deserved push back.

Of course guns are not inherently evil or bad.  But some guns are significantly more dangerous than others to the general public.  That's why it's hard to purchase a fully automatic MAC-10 today.  Submitting certain types of firearms to particular regulations does not equate to confiscation of all firearms.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #947 on: September 18, 2019, 02:07:26 PM »
Guys seriously. Way off-topic now. Move it off thread.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #948 on: September 18, 2019, 02:54:03 PM »

When did we talk about not addressing the issue? I don't recall mentioning not addressing the issue.

You're arguing that no problem exists.  If no problem exists, then what exactly should be done to address the (non-existent) problem?


I'm arguing that the problem as you define it - 45% of gun owners are definitely irresponsible because of your one statistic does not exist...not that certain individuals are not irresponsible.

On average, a person drives drunk 80 times before they're caught doing it (https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-driving-under-influence).  Of those caught, only a small fraction are involved in accidents.  Of those involved in accidents, only a small fraction are children.

A very small number of children are killed by drunk drivers when compared to the number of people who drive drunk.  A very small number of children are killed by unsecured guns in their homes.

By your logic, drunk driving is therefore responsible behaviour.  Simple math indeed.


I'm using actual deaths because we need some sort of objective measurement. We can actually evaluate people objectively for reaction time per level of intoxication. You're declaring a situation as bad because you say it is, and you're not even defining the situation. I've explained factually why "unsecured guns with kids" doesn't mean irresponsibility, while  giving examples. I'm trying to bring some sort of true risk into the picture, and the only thing that I see to do that is seeing who is actually getting hurt.

Edit: Whether guns are inherently bad or people as a whole are irresponsible and unable to be trusted with them - the push that results from this is virtually the same and is much more in line with gun confiscation than prevention of guns getting into the hands of people where harm will come. The latter has legitimate political traction. The former will get hard and deserved push back.

Of course guns are not inherently evil or bad.  But some guns are significantly more dangerous than others to the general public.  That's why it's hard to purchase a fully automatic MAC-10 today.  Submitting certain types of firearms to particular regulations does not equate to confiscation of all firearms.

And no one has proven that AR's/AK's are significantly more dangerous to the public. In fact, again, going back to objective measurements, they're used a lot less in crimes. Going back to the original thing - we're not talking about "submitting certain types of firearms to particular regulations - we're talking about "HELL YEAH, we're going to take away....." That's what started this whole thing.

Feel free to have the last word. I'll stop.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #949 on: September 18, 2019, 02:56:05 PM »
Guys seriously. Way off-topic now. Move it off thread.

Really, dude? I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. You already called this out as off topic like 10 posts in and only on the conservative poster's comments. Didn't see you complaining on the liberal posters that were just as off topic on guns before him. Also, we had quite a row on abortion earlier where not only was it just as off topic, but the comments were belittling for even the audacity to have an opinion on the issue...didn't see you stepping in there. I'm seeing a theme here....

I am going to stop, though, because I agree there's not going to be any resolution on this.