Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

[iceaura]

ell that to California:

I would hope that Californians concerned with liberty and freedom would have voiced their concerns about the militarization of their police long ago.
There are police departments with urban assault vehicles, machine guns, etc. They have no business with such weapons either.

 

[iceaura]

1- you can't state that BATFE regs aren't true - you should clarify your point on that

So I don't. I haven't said anything in particular about them, clear or unclear.

2- BATFE does regulate rapid fire weapons - they just don't ban or regulate semi-automatic weapons because it still requires the human interaction of pulling the trigger to fire the round each time it cycles. The desire for you to restrict semi-automatics is based entirely upon your fear and irrational beliefs.

It's based on the details of recorded events, which I am not much fearful of - low probability as they are, and distant from me.

3- background checks are definitely factual - and state complaince is also shown to be problematic, so you're lying about that being not true or sensible. your desire to add "universal" is irrelevant and irrational considering

Always with the "lying" when you present misreadings and nonsensical aberrations - you do know what that looks like, right? The desired feature of universal, with regard to background checks, is certainly not irrelevant. Irrational how, exactly?

the problem isn't the data, it's your interpretation of the data (your analytical competency)

In which case the data don't conflict with mine, as noted - now if you regard your interpretations as better for some reason, you can address that. You have my reasoning in front of you, with several links and sources, so you have no shortage of specific matters to deal with.

4- you keep harping on magazine restrictions. you can't provide anything other than your opinion therefore any refuting opinion is equally as valid and thus it is sufficient to simply take the opposing argument when you qualify your argument with your own opinion

I provided arguments, evidence, and reasons, for my opinions. Until you have addressed them, or posted better of your own, you have posted nothing resembling "refutation".

hoping that it will be defined in any such regulation means you didn't read H.R. 5087 and you have absolutely no experience reading congressional bills

It means that I don't support bad laws. I don't regard the existence of bad laws as an argument against better ones - the opposite, actually.
Meanwhile, I have been regularly reminding you that boycotting all such legislation will result in laws written by others.

if you didn't clarify "what [you] meant obviously and clearly" then it's upon you.

No, it's not. There's nothing I can do about somebody's agenda-driven refusal to read simple declarative sentences for their plain meaning.

the thread contains the requisite evidence of direct refute to your claims with equivalent evidence

Nothing like that exists in the thread.

so then why do you continue to reject current laws and BATFE regulations because they're not as strict as what you wish them to be, even though they are written, enacted, supported by and enforced "by the large majority of people who operate on sense and adult judgment" ????

You have misread, again. I was warning you, not defending any laws extant or prospective. That's what the word "Reminder" was doing.
Meanwhile, I don't. That is, I don't reject them - I don't even mention them, in general - and if I did it would not normally be for insufficient strictness (that's something one can normally add, after all).
And they aren't. That's a central issue - the large majority of Americans want universal background checks and magazine restrictions, for example, which do not exist. And you yourself have noted the lack of enforcement. And the manufacturers's lobbies are writing a lot of them. And so forth.

you're assuming that you and your "trusted source" are competent - despite the evidence that your source is biased

I never assume competence.
And I don't think you can recognize bias. I don't think you have a clear idea of what it is, in this context, or what evidence of it would look like.

Which is another item to add to the list relevant to the OP. The people in the bothsides jamb don't know they're in it, and have no reliable way to find out.

 

[Bells]

Cherry-picked comparison of countries with vastly dissimilar number of firearms and diversity and size of population.

*Raise eyebrows*

What do you mean by diversity? And how does diversity affect intentional gun homicides?

What happens if you treat the same land mass/population in the EU as a single country? You have to start adding up all those countries, many of which are the sizes of some US states, and together might represent the US demographic diversity.

Well, to the one, the population of Europe vastly outnumbers that of the US.

It also has a larger landmass to the US.

So that would not work, I'm afraid.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

So I don't. I haven't said anything in particular about them, clear or unclear.

to requote something I read posted by you: "Always with the "lying" when you present misreadings and nonsensical aberrations - you do know what that looks like, right?"

you didn't explicitly state they were wrong, however, you have ignored them and stated you were "going to some trouble to point out that none of it is true or sensible or relevant"
and you most certainly have "said [something] in particular about them, clear or unclear"- let me quote you:

I'm not ignoring it - I'm going to some trouble to point out that none of it is true or sensible or relevant. There is nothing irrational about pointing to the absence of sound regulation of large capacity magazines and rapid fire weapons - especially in combination - and recommending better regulation of same.

This is an explicit statement in answer to my comment that BATFE regulate "rapid fire" weapons as you claimed "restrictions on rapid fire weapons with large magazines, including purchase and sale of them" isn't being addressed by BATFE.

This is a sensible, logical regulation based upon facts and historical data written by the large majority of people who operate on sense and adult judgment

BATFE does not deal with magazine size that I've seen, as I've not seen a regulation to date (but I've not read every single regulation either)

BATFE regulates "rapid fire" under the same ruling that I linked multiple times using the same basic criteria which you have now ignored and repeatedly stated you didn't ignore.
Hence my quote and linking it again

therefore it's a false claim to state it's not regulated and that the regulations are not sound
mind you, it's not an unproven claim, or a misstatement (as you repeat it and then claim I am lying for arguing against it) - the best you can claim at this point is that it's your opinion (which is biased) and that is something I already pointed out to you

It's based on the details of recorded events, which I am not much fearful of - low probability as they are, and distant from me.

then why advocate for regulation on a regulated object?
I am basing my advocacy on a sensible, logical regulation based on facts and historical data written by the large majority of people who operate on sense and adult judgment
... your advocacy thus far means that you would be forced to regulate humans and their abilities which definitely is a violation of multiple inalienable rights.

how is that sensible, adult or good judgement?

now if you regard your interpretations as better for some reason, you can address that.

Vociferous etc already did, as pointed out

I provided arguments, evidence, and reasons, for my opinions. Until you have addressed them, or posted better of your own, you have posted nothing resembling "refutation".

I have addressed them with evidence that is equivalent to your own

It means that I don't support bad laws. I don't regard the existence of bad laws as an argument against better ones - the opposite, actually.
Meanwhile, I have been regularly reminding you that boycotting all such legislation will result in laws written by others.

1- the claim you made can also mean you don't read any laws until well after the implementation and then make judgements based upon biased source material
you know, like your refusal to accept any other source than Rand because of the percieved superiority of unvalidated data interpretations

2- boycotting all such legislation is the reason the fanatical left target the NRA and make false claims - the NRA advocacy against bad laws is the reason you're arguing for worse laws, which the NRA will advocate against.

What you seem to be ignoring is that there isn't a logical, rational or sensible adult reason for scrapping good existing laws that aren't being enforced to write laws that you think will somehow magically be superior to the existing laws

it is far more sensical, logical, rational and responsible (and adult) to fix the problems (because we have demonstrations that they work when used) before you scrap them and make new problems

this is where we have different mindsets: you choose to complicate the existing problems with unknowns based entirely upon your opinion on the subject while I choose to advocate for fixing the known problems to ensure a known result because of the demonstrated historical fact that enforcement works

No, it's not.

actually, yes, it is. That is the purpose of the forum

There's nothing I can do about somebody's agenda-driven refusal to read simple declarative sentences for their plain meaning.

Pot, meet kettle
(Again)

Nothing like that exists in the thread.

refusal to accept any evidence except your biased source is just one of the problems we have in this communication
Vociferous has presented plenty of factual information that you've yet to refute
arguing that it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away - it only underscored the reason why gun control is so difficult in the US

That is, I don't reject them - I don't even mention them, in general - and if I did it would not normally be for insufficient strictness (that's something one can normally add, after all).
And they aren't. That's a central issue - the large majority of Americans want universal background checks and magazine restrictions, for example, which do not exist. And you yourself have noted the lack of enforcement. And the manufacturers's lobbies are writing a lot of them. And so forth.

1- there is nothing vague or insufficiently strict about "rapid fire" in the law
2- you do not have a large majority of americans if you're referring to the linked polls that are directly refuted by the linked evidenece I and Vociferous provided
3- the lack of enforcement that I note is not because of the law, but rather is typically due to local and state level lack of enforcement, lack of funding, or simply due to the refusal to prosecute for whatever reason (like personal empathy - an issue noted by Tiassa in the past). None of that has anything to do with the federal law. It has everything to do with the States typically arguing for it's right to govern itself or it's refusal to enforce due to conflicts with state Constitutions, etc. (like the background check - which would be far more effective if states all complied with the law)

the best demonstration of this is the latest prevented shootings (like WA) and the effective measures by SRO's (MD) because the locals utilised the law effectively

So if you want stricter overall enforcement you will have to advocate for a police state or tighter federal control of existing laws - which then really suggests that States can be eliminated as irrelevant and hostile to the overal security etc

And I don't think you can recognize bias. I don't think you have a clear idea of what it is, in this context, or what evidence of it would look like.

pot, meet kettle - yet again
except you're making an assumption about me whereas you've pretty much declared your own bias

your own admittance is a personal prejudice in favour of "rand" - or against anything not "rand" because you feel "rand" is superior- while not being able to actually demonstrate it's superiority
that is the very definition of bias, by the way

 

[CptBork]

*Raise eyebrows*

What do you mean by diversity? And how does diversity affect intentional gun homicides?

What he surely means is that the US has an excess of angry, caucasian, trigger-happy neo-conservatives, tolerant as it is of such fringe groups.

 

[sculptor]

hahahaha

 

[iceaura]

you didn't explicitly state they were wrong, however, you have ignored them

Hold that thought.

This is an explicit statement in answer to my comment that BATFE regulate "rapid fire" weapons

And it addresses your comment, not the regulations that do exist.
There is an absence of sound regulation of rapid fire weapons and large magazines, separately or - especially - in combination. That is visible.

like your refusal to accept any other source than Rand because of the percieved superiority of unvalidated data interpretations

I have posted at least six sources other than Rand.
Labeling bad data and worse interpretation is something I've posted on by my own authority, as well as several other sources - with arguments from explicit evidence and specific observations of error. You don't need a source to see the problem with aggregating gun violence data by State, or concluding causation from correlations that poorly established, for example. It's right there in front of you.

1- the claim you made can also mean you don't read any laws until well after the implementation

Not by anyone with enough brains to blow their nose.

I have addressed them with evidence that is equivalent to your own

You have not addressed them at all.

Vociferous has presented plenty of factual information that you've yet to refute

I don't "refute" factual information ever. He posts mostly personal attacks, alongside irrelevant noise and Fox questions - some of it contains factual information, and so what?

What you seem to be ignoring is that there isn't a logical, rational or sensible adult reason for scrapping good existing laws that aren't being enforced to write laws that you think will somehow magically be superior to the existing laws

That's one reason I don't bother arguing about existing laws in a gun control thread. As far as gun control aspects of dealing with gun violence, it's the missing laws I talk about.

1- there is nothing vague or insufficiently strict about "rapid fire" in the law

So your earlier claims of vagueness and subjectivity otherwise are no longer operative. Ok.
As far as I know, however, there is no law addressing fire rate - only engineering features, such as automatic fire (at any rate).

BATFE regulates "rapid fire" under the same ruling that I linked multiple times using the same basic criteria which you have now ignored and repeatedly stated you didn't ignore.

I have always ignored the BATFE specifics, and never claimed to do otherwise. I merely observe that many rapid fire weapons with large magazines are not covered by them, whatever they are.

2- you do not have a large majority of americans if you're referring to the linked polls

I have a large majority of Americans favoring - in principle - universal background checks, magazine restrictions, and fire rate restrictions. That's just going to be taken as fact, unless demonstrated otherwise.

3- the lack of enforcement that I note is not because of the law

We have always agreed that laws should be well enforced, and that gun control laws are poorly enforced now.

So if you want stricter overall enforcement you will have to advocate for a police state or tighter federal control of existing laws

No, I won't.

your own admittance is a personal prejudice in favour of "rand" - or against anything not "rand" because you feel "rand" is superior- while not being able to actually demonstrate it's superiority

You can't tell the difference between prejudice and persuasion, bias and reason, authority and argument.
There is plenty I find superior to Rand, and have argued for right here in front of you - such as Donald Richards's correction of Rand's too frequently invalid linear regressions, which I linked for you.

As I keep saying: it's a bothsides jamb. That's my main point, throughout, addressing the OP - which you might want to get back to, one of these days.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

And it addresses your comment, not the regulations that do exist.
There is an absence of sound regulation of rapid fire weapons and large magazines, separately or - especially - in combination. That is visible.

and again, this is based upon your personal opinion and bias
the regulation specifies that a weapon is rapid fire if it is an automatic weapon because the semi-auto requires individual input for every round fired. This isn't regulated because of the vast differences between human potential and ability. The simple fact is that any person can make any weapon "rapid fire" dependent upon their ability, training and the specifics of the weapon itself - meaning that 3 or more rounds per minute with a muzzle loader is "rapid fire" for a muzzle loader, especially with a rifled barrel.

This is demonstrative of your suggestion a specific numerical designation for "rapid fire" - because the large majority of people who operate on sense and adult judgment have realised that the term is subjective and they choose to use more accurate, clear and concise terminology for labelling weapons.

as for the suggestion of limitations on magazines and your continued use of an irrational label that is entirely subjective to the user (large): until there is some actual empirical evidence justifying your argument that isn't subjective or anecdotal, then your argument is personal and biased on this front. They're not regulated because a large majority of people who operate on sense and adult judgment have seen the problem with utilising subjective terms in specifications.

one thing of note: the people that tend to use vague or subjective terminology in laws, etc, tend to have agenda's or ignorance (and this depends on the perspective of the observer as well). This is demonstrated by existing vague laws that are used and simply reinterpreted as we progress or develop as a nation - the agenda was to allow for malleability in the interpretation as we grow.

I have posted at least six sources other than Rand.

and you have stated your prefererce and Bias to Rand

this is demonstrated by your insistence on using terms like "You don't need a source to see the problem" followed by your justification of the argument. In point of fact, this exact tactic is used by anti-AGW or religious followers and trolls in various other threads, sites, comment sections and blogs. If you choose to support Rand, that is your prerogative, but in no way does it make your arguments based upon fact, especially using a singular study

Again, were zephir or the electric universe acolytes to use this tactic in a science thread, it would be labelled the pseudoscience, religion or delusional Dunning-Kruger that it is, so why is it somehow justified in a gun conrol argument?

Not by anyone with enough brains to blow their nose.

subjective argument based on personal bias

You have not addressed them at all.

blatantly false claim as demonstrated by the last ten posts to you
you choose not to accept the evidence or address. that is different than not addressing them at all

I don't "refute" factual information ever. He posts mostly personal attacks, alongside irrelevant noise and Fox questions - some of it contains factual information, and so what?

1- you cannot refute factual information. you can only interpret it and then establish your biased arguments as "refute". see above
2- irrelevant noise is subjective. One could state Rand is a distraction from the point given the lack of validation, therefore is "irrelevant noise" considering
3- as for "so what?" - I will repeat: refusal to accept any evidence except your biased source preference is just one of the problems we have in this communication
arguing that it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away - it only underscored the reason why gun control is so difficult in the US

That's one reason I don't bother arguing about existing laws in a gun control thread. As far as gun control aspects of dealing with gun violence, it's the missing laws I talk about.

no, it isn't. you can say it's missing "parts" of a law, but the above arguments against BATFE are demonstrative that you argue about existing laws, mostly because you don't like how they're worded or don't understand why they're not using terms you prefer

your arguments about making new laws when existing laws are proven to be effective is demonstrative that you've been arguing about existing laws

so that means, specifically, that you're not dealing with any "missing laws": you're attempting to re-write laws that exist because you don't understand them or don't understand their capability and effectiveness because you don't like how certain aspects of the law are written - again, demonstrating your bias and ignorance of the law

So your earlier claims of vagueness and subjectivity otherwise are no longer operative. Ok.
As far as I know, however, there is no law addressing fire rate - only engineering features, such as automatic fire (at any rate).

your interpretations are what is not operative because you don't comprehend why terms are used in the way they are

the reason engineering features are addressed is because they're not subjective

I have a large majority of Americans favoring - in principle - universal background checks, magazine restrictions, and fire rate restrictions. That's just going to be taken as fact, unless demonstrated otherwise.

that was already demonstrated when I first replied to your post with the link that demonstrated your ignorance of your poll - ignoring that will not make it go away

it was also shown that your qualifying adjectives on certain terms is not accurate
your "in principle" addition is simply your justification of your bias

you may state most americans are supportive of common sense effective "laws" or legislation, however your comment is specific to subjective terms that have already been addressed and you've refused to accept the evidence thereof. again, your justification of your bias using your biased data

see above comment about pseudoscience (zeph et al)

You can't tell the difference between prejudice and persuasion, bias and reason, authority and argument.

subjective interpretation based upon ignorance

which you might want to get back to, one of these days.

our discourse highlights the problem more effectively than simply saying no one can agree on the niggling details or it's a bothsides jamb
it may be more succint to state it as above, but considering we have brought exact arguments that are problematic and show how the details and lack of enforcement make this extremely polarizing situation so frustrating, and we seem to be able to converse without too many ad hominem attacks, then it's far superior to continue as the example is directly related to and answering the first half of the OP ("Why is gun control so difficult in the US?")

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

addendum to the above

I have a large majority of Americans favoring - in principle - universal background checks, magazine restrictions, and fire rate restrictions. That's just going to be taken as fact, unless demonstrated otherwise.

you keep reiterating this statement in various forms (including "85% of the NRA favors or at least tolerates some new piece of gun control legislation (such as universal background checks)" ) as though repetition will make it truer

and you seem to be specifically ignoring valid information from various comments and threads which specifically address this point
why?

 

[Vociferous]

I would hope that Californians concerned with liberty and freedom would have voiced their concerns about the militarization of their police long ago.
There are police departments with urban assault vehicles, machine guns, etc. They have no business with such weapons either.

Again, tell that to California, one of the most strict gun control states. Rationales that apply to citizens rarely apply to those in power.

*Raise eyebrows*

What do you mean by diversity? And how does diversity affect intentional gun homicides?

In cultural diversity, the US ranks higher than the vast majority of Western countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...versity_level#List_based_on_Fearon's_analysis
And it affects gun homicides that same way it affects violence and crime.

Cultural conflict is a type of conflict that occurs when different cultural values and beliefs clash. It has been used to explain violence and crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_conflict​

What happens if you treat the same land mass/population in the EU as a single country? You have to start adding up all those countries, many of which are the sizes of some US states, and together might represent the US demographic diversity.

Well, to the one, the population of Europe vastly outnumbers that of the US.

It also has a larger landmass to the US.

So that would not work, I'm afraid.

Try reading that again. I didn't say they had the same population size or land mass (although that's pretty close).
I said to "treat either the same land mass/population in the EU as a single country." Take your pick. Either the equal land mass or a number of EU countries that equal the US population.

What he surely means is that the US has an excess of angry, caucasian, trigger-happy neo-conservatives, tolerant as it is of such fringe groups.

No, not an excess of disenchanted Democrats (neocons). The cultural diversity of a country that prided itself on being a cultural "melting pot" for decades.

you keep reiterating this statement in various forms (including "85% of the NRA favors or at least tolerates some new piece of gun control legislation (such as universal background checks)" ) as though repetition will make it truer

To be fair, they seem to conflate "background checks", which we already have and everyone (including NRA members) agrees with, with "universal background checks", which NRA members know would entail at least a de facto gun registry. I've also seen the term "comprehensive background checks" which could mean anything from improved NICS reporting to universal background checks. The problem is that many surveys either don't know there's a difference or are intentionally misrepresenting the results with equivocal language.

 

[iceaura]

In cultural diversity, the US ranks higher than the vast majority of Western countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...versity_level#List_based_on_Fearon's_analysis
And it affects gun homicides that same way it affects violence and crime.

That cultural diversity index has almost no correlation with violence, crime, or gun homicide in the US.
It sounds like you are trying to talk about race, maybe? If you are trying to talk about black people in US cities, you would need some other index - black people in the US mostly share the same culture(s) as white people (their role in culture differs, of course, but within the one culture as measured by Fearon's analysis you linked).

Again, tell that to California, one of the most strict gun control states. Rationales that apply to citizens rarely apply to those in power.

Ok. Consider them told.
So?

To be fair, they seem to conflate "background checks", which we already have and everyone (including NRA members) agrees with, with "universal background checks", which NRA members know would entail at least a de facto gun registry.

Not all NRA members are that lost in the fog.

Pretty much everybody wants universal background checks. They are going to get them, sooner or later. If you want to avoid having them include a gun registry, you can help write the appropriate legislation.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Pretty much everybody wants universal background checks.

again, this is a false claim and based solely upon your insistence and a linked poll you claim is accurate, though is demonstrably false

you can state most people want background checks, but you can't state they want "universal" background checks for the reasons I've repeatedly stated, shown and linked to you
perhaps you should re-read this part of Vociferous post

To be fair, they seem to conflate "background checks", which we already have and everyone (including NRA members) agrees with, with "universal background checks", which NRA members know would entail at least a de facto gun registry. I've also seen the term "comprehensive background checks" which could mean anything from improved NICS reporting to universal background checks. The problem is that many surveys either don't know there's a difference or are intentionally misrepresenting the results with equivocal language.

this is demonstrative of your bias and refusal to accept fact over your beliefs
Just because you say it's true and repeat it, doesn't mean it's any truer the last time than it was the first

as I noted before, that is a tactic typical of cult leadership and religions: repetition of dogma

They are going to get them, sooner or later. If you want to avoid having them include a gun registry, you can help write the appropriate legislation.

unfortunately for you, there are considerably more rational people who seek effective resolution, and we really are a large majority of people who operate on sense and adult judgment

 

[billvon]

Pretty much everybody wants universal background checks.

again, this is a false claim and based solely upon your insistence and a linked poll you claim is accurate, though is demonstrably false
you can state most people want background checks, but you can't state they want "universal" background checks for the reasons I've repeatedly stated, shown and linked to you
perhaps you should re-read this part of Vociferous post

Some facts from Snopes (sorry about this)


Quinnipiac University - June 2017 - Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers? - 94%
Washington University American Panel Survey - July 2016 - Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers, no matter where the gun is purchased? - 84%
CBS News - June 2016 - Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers? - 89%
Morning Consult - June 2016 - Do you support requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun? - 86%
Public Policy Polling - Mar. 2016 - Do you support or oppose requiring a criminal background check of every person who wants to buy a firearm? - 84%
CBS News/New York Times - Jan.2016 - Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers? - 88%

 

[iceaura]

again, this is a false claim and based solely upon your insistence and a linked poll you claim is accurate, though is demonstrably false

No, it isn't. It isn't based on one poll, you posted nothing demonstrating anything of the kind, it isn't insisted based on insistence, polls are not true or false, and that claim is most definitely not false.

perhaps you should re-read this part of Vociferous post

Vociferous is not making any sense. That is partly because he is trying to attach universal background checks to authoritarian police State gun registration as a tactic for blocking it politically, which is a wingnut rhetorical ploy to confuse the rubes rather than argument, and partly because he like you is mentally caged in a world in which the NRA has representative and sensible leadership with broad and informed community support, which hasn't been the case since sometime around the Vietnam War.

And you are overlooking the reason I mentioned the glaring fact of majority agreement on several basic issues of gun control: it's going to, eventually, take effect politically. The grotesque pile of Gohmerts and Wickers, Ryans and McConnells, dummies and feebs currently holding off the majority will is going to collapse under its own incompetence in all matters of governance, at which time you will be faced with the reality of the 2nd Amendment: it allows for some pretty inconvenient Federal gun control measures.

The kiddie pool has been wrecked - fat kid did a cannonball and made a dookie.

You would want to get ahead of that, would be my guess. The business of attaching universal background checks to registering all the guns, for example, is going to backfire if you guys don't get it together here - the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover it very well. And the Oliver Norths of this world? They are on the rich corporate authoritarians's payroll. You should have thrown him in jail for treason when you had the chance - he'll throw you under a bus for a medal and a hundred large.

 

[Vociferous]

That cultural diversity index has almost no correlation with violence, crime, or gun homicide in the US.
It sounds like you are trying to talk about race, maybe? If you are trying to talk about black people in US cities, you would need some other index - black people in the US mostly share the same culture(s) as white people (their role in culture differs, of course, but within the one culture as measured by Fearon's analysis you linked).

So there's no such thing as black culture?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_culture

Ok. Consider them told.
So?

Again:

"Rationales that apply to citizens rarely apply to those in power."​

Not all NRA members are that lost in the fog.

Pretty much everybody wants universal background checks. They are going to get them, sooner or later. If you want to avoid having them include a gun registry, you can help write the appropriate legislation.

No, they're going to get poorly-written laws that are quickly challenged and overturned.

Some facts from Snopes (sorry about this)


Quinnipiac University - June 2017 - Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers? - 94%
Washington University American Panel Survey - July 2016 - Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers, no matter where the gun is purchased? - 84%
CBS News - June 2016 - Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers? - 89%
Morning Consult - June 2016 - Do you support requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun? - 86%
Public Policy Polling - Mar. 2016 - Do you support or oppose requiring a criminal background check of every person who wants to buy a firearm? - 84%
CBS News/New York Times - Jan.2016 - Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers? - 88%

Couldn't find the Snopes article, but did find a Politifact one with the same data: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

The Quinnipiac, CBS, PPP, CBS/NYT questions are very poorly worded. Even NRA members wouldn't "oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers", as they do support existing background checks. Neither do any of them address gifted guns.

 

[iceaura]

So there's no such thing as black culture

Sure there is. There's a couple of them. But they're subsets of American mainstream - except for the ethnic Somali, etc.

Again:
"Rationales that apply to citizens rarely apply to those in power."

That's a bit dangerous, in that assuming it is true weakens governance and grants the privileges it assumed. That's harder to extricate from than slip into - like a culture of bribery, everything adjusts to fit.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, in other words.

No, they're going to get poorly-written laws that are quickly challenged and overturned.

We hope. But if they get poorly written laws that stick, you're going to be stuck with them.

Even NRA members wouldn't "oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers", as they do support existing background checks.

That's an interesting point - a lot of NRA folks don't even realize we don't have universal background checks already. So they oppose new laws because they think the matter is covered.

 

[Dr_Toad]

That's a bit dangerous, in that assuming it is true weakens governance and grants the privileges it assumed. That's harder to extricate from than slip into - like a culture of bribery, everything adjusts to fit.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, in other words.

And that, you fool, is the whole point of this thread.

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.

Government should be weak. It doesn't "grant" privilege, it removes them.

 

[iceaura]

And that, you fool, is the whole point of this thread.

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.

Government should be weak.

But not governance, in a democracy. (Do try to read what's actually posted, eh? Before calling other people fools, anyway.)

Not when it's dealing with the Mercers and Kochs and so forth, for example, and their ties to Blackwater et al. Betsy Devos's brother is not someone you want to see granted domestic weapons privileges via corruption. That crew was bad enough in Iraq. His merry bands of outlaws are best kept off shore, somewhere they ruin our reputations rather than our lives. (To make an entirely selfish and amoral and shortsighted argument, with no consideration for anyone else on the planet.)

That was an example of assumed corruption being instrumental in the creation of real corruption, directly tied to irresponsible firearms control politics and the difficulty of rehabilitation once corrupt.

The gun rights crowd voted for Reagan - twice. They voted for W - twice. Then they voted for Trump. It's time for them to maintain a dignified silence on the topic of corruption, keep whatever self-respect they can.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Oh, OK. Fool.

 

[billvon]

Couldn't find the Snopes article, but did find a Politifact one with the same data: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

The Quinnipiac, CBS, PPP, CBS/NYT questions are very poorly worded.

So:

Ice: Pretty much everybody wants universal background checks.
Vociferous: again, this is a false claim

I posted six polls, all showing pretty much everyone wanting universal background checks. You've decide that all of them are invalid. (I suspect you will next try to redefine "universal" or some such.)

Must be nice, being able to reject any and all facts that disagree with your political agenda. I imagine there's no need to ever re-examine your positions when you do that. Good for you.