American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[Jellian Federation]

And here's probably where I should remind people that mass stabbings and acid attacks are a thing in other famously broken societies... like PRC...

Guns really aren't the magical weapon people think they are. I own a lot of guns, and I spend a lot of my time operating those guns. And yet despite that the deadliest tool of homicide I own sits in my driveway with a Ford badge on the front of it.

I think part of it is the mindset.
When you get in a car, or you walk along a highway, you probably expect some kind of risk.
But when you send your kinds to school and they might not come back, that’s horrifying.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leadin ... -death.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ ... tfact.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

“Firearm injuries affect people in all stages of life. In 2020, firearm-related injuries were among the 5 leading causes of death for people ages 1-44 in the United States”

“ Firearm injuries are a serious public health problem. In 2020, there were 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States – that’s about 124 people dying from a firearm-related injury each day. More than half of firearm-related deaths were suicides and more than 4 out of every 10 were firearm homicides”

“Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 45,404
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.7”

The data says that the deaths from cars and guns are actually very close.
Firearm deaths are less likely to be reported than car deaths. So you could reason that firearm deaths are higher than car deaths.

Nevertheless,
Suicide and getting shot for the crime of going to school is very different than drunk driving an not looking both ways.

[The Astral Mandate]

This doesn't change the fact that a mentally ill person with a gun is capable of killing far more people than with a knife or other melee weapon. If these mass shooters had never been able to purchase guns in the first place, hundreds of lives would be saved.

You don’t even support enforcing the existing laws. You don’t get to call for more.

Seems like a fallacy. Specifically, tu quoque.

[Jellian Federation]

Red flags?

Less effective than actually making an effort towards stitching society back together, starting with GOP abandoning the war against people GOP deems subhumans, followed by a shitload of other things like universal healthcare with no profiteering at the point of use, widespread public re-education, universal tertiary education, matching wage development to inflation...
Which are... massive, massive pipedreams.

Those are all great,
But why does it have to be either or?
Why can’t you add red flags to the pipe dream?

[The Orson Empire]

Less effective than actually making an effort towards stitching society back together, starting with GOP abandoning the war against people GOP deems subhumans, followed by a shitload of other things like universal healthcare with no profiteering at the point of use, widespread public re-education, universal tertiary education, matching wage development to inflation...
Which are... massive, massive pipedreams.

Those are all great,
But why does it have to be either or?
Why can’t you add red flags to the pipe dream?

And you won't get any of this through the GOP anyway. Only Democrats have voiced support for these ideas.

[American Legionaries]

You don’t even support enforcing the existing laws. You don’t get to call for more.

...where did I ever say that at?

Probably, but why would they use a knife and not, perhaps a bomb, or arson, or a car?



If you have a way to do this without millions of innocent people getting caught in the net, feel free to share with the class.

A knife or gun is far easier to obtain than a bomb.

Until you ban guns.

I support red flag laws, assault weapon bans, mandatory background checks, and mandatory waiting periods, though I'm edging closer and closer to wanting a repeal of the Second Amendment.

A list of your character faults doesn't answer my question.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Less effective than actually making an effort towards stitching society back together, starting with GOP abandoning the war against people GOP deems subhumans, followed by a shitload of other things like universal healthcare with no profiteering at the point of use, widespread public re-education, universal tertiary education, matching wage development to inflation...
Which are... massive, massive pipedreams.

Those are all great,
But why does it have to be either or?
Why can’t you add red flags to the pipe dream?

Red flag laws have very very big 5th and 14th amendment concerns and it's entirely plausible they do not survive legal scrutiny.

[American Legionaries]

Guns really aren't the magical weapon people think they are. I own a lot of guns, and I spend a lot of my time operating those guns. And yet despite that the deadliest tool of homicide I own sits in my driveway with a Ford badge on the front of it.

I think part of it is the mindset.
When you get in a car, or you walk along a highway, you probably expect some kind of risk.
But when you send your kinds to school and they might not come back, that’s horrifying.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leadin ... -death.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ ... tfact.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

“Firearm injuries affect people in all stages of life. In 2020, firearm-related injuries were among the 5 leading causes of death for people ages 1-44 in the United States”

“ Firearm injuries are a serious public health problem. In 2020, there were 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States – that’s about 124 people dying from a firearm-related injury each day. More than half of firearm-related deaths were suicides and more than 4 out of every 10 were firearm homicides”

“Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 45,404
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.7”

The data says that the deaths from cars and guns are actually very close.
Firearm deaths are less likely to be reported than car deaths. So you could reason that firearm deaths are higher than car deaths.

Nevertheless,
Suicide and getting shot for the crime of going to school is very different than drunk driving an not looking both ways.

I send my child to school day in and day out knowing that she may not come back, and if you think the specific reason she doesn't come home makes a damn bit of difference, you're wrong.

[The Orson Empire]

...where did I ever say that at?

A knife or gun is far easier to obtain than a bomb.

Until you ban guns.

I support red flag laws, assault weapon bans, mandatory background checks, and mandatory waiting periods, though I'm edging closer and closer to wanting a repeal of the Second Amendment.

A list of your character faults doesn't answer my question.

Do you seriously believe a bomb is easier to get than a gun? Few people know how to properly work with explosives.

[Jellian Federation]

I think part of it is the mindset.
When you get in a car, or you walk along a highway, you probably expect some kind of risk.
But when you send your kinds to school and they might not come back, that’s horrifying.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leadin ... -death.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ ... tfact.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

“Firearm injuries affect people in all stages of life. In 2020, firearm-related injuries were among the 5 leading causes of death for people ages 1-44 in the United States”

“ Firearm injuries are a serious public health problem. In 2020, there were 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States – that’s about 124 people dying from a firearm-related injury each day. More than half of firearm-related deaths were suicides and more than 4 out of every 10 were firearm homicides”

“Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 45,404
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.7”

The data says that the deaths from cars and guns are actually very close.
Firearm deaths are less likely to be reported than car deaths. So you could reason that firearm deaths are higher than car deaths.

Nevertheless,
Suicide and getting shot for the crime of going to school is very different than drunk driving an not looking both ways.

I send my child to school day in and day out knowing that she may not come back, and if you think the specific reason she doesn't come home makes a damn bit of difference, you're wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/10943649 ... n-children
I was talking more about the mindset.
It’s the same reason we care more about safety in airplanes than in cars, even though planes are safer than cars.
Really all this means is that we should care more about car safety, not less about gun safety.

45,000 deaths a year is massive and tragic.

Reason of death might not matter, if they die.
But I think lowering the probability of death does.
Removing a leading cause would surely contribute.

Actually I think there is a philosophical argument that dying by suicide is worse than dying by car crash. Also accepted risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[Haganham]

That's not really a right-wing talking point, more and more people from across the spectrum are starting to pick up on it, particularly on the left in my anecdotal experience. The past year or so really opened my eyes to it personally. Late-stage capitalism and all that.

This doesn't change the fact that a mentally ill person with a gun is capable of killing far more people than with a knife or other melee weapon. If these mass shooters had never been able to purchase guns in the first place, hundreds of lives would be saved.

So in exchange for giving up our guns instead of actually improving society the best you can offer is that people who commit massacres will killfewer people?

[The Orson Empire]

This doesn't change the fact that a mentally ill person with a gun is capable of killing far more people than with a knife or other melee weapon. If these mass shooters had never been able to purchase guns in the first place, hundreds of lives would be saved.

So in exchange for giving up our guns instead of actually improving society the best you can offer is that people who commit massacres will killfewer people?

I do want society to be improved. The point I'm making is that passing sensible regulations on guns alone can have a massive impact.

[Jellian Federation]

This doesn't change the fact that a mentally ill person with a gun is capable of killing far more people than with a knife or other melee weapon. If these mass shooters had never been able to purchase guns in the first place, hundreds of lives would be saved.

So in exchange for giving up our guns instead of actually improving society the best you can offer is that people who commit massacres will killfewer people?

Why do you have to give up guns.
Why not just a small amount.
Like keeps guns locked in a safe if there are children around.

It’s the balance between freedom and safety.
Ultimate freedom means anyone can have nukes if they can afford it.
I think most people would think that’s absurd.

Freedom is limited in many different ways,
You are restricted from killing people, for example.

The question is not true or false.
It’s “how much”

And I think it’s reasonable to have some small common sense restrictions on gun freedoms that save lives. At a minimum.

[American Legionaries]

I send my child to school day in and day out knowing that she may not come back, and if you think the specific reason she doesn't come home makes a damn bit of difference, you're wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/10943649 ... n-children
I was talking more about the mindset.
It’s the same reason we care more about safety in airplanes than in cars, even though planes are safer than cars.
Really all this means is that we should care more about car safety, not less about gun safety.

45,000 deaths a year is massive and tragic.

Reason of death might not matter, if they die.
But I think lowering the probability of death does.
Removing a leading cause would surely contribute.

Actually I think there is a philosophical argument that dying by suicide is worse than dying by car crash.

Okay, if we could handwave away murderers, accidental gunshots, and people purposefully killing themselves with a gun, then we surely should... But we can't.

[Jellian Federation]

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/10943649 ... n-children
I was talking more about the mindset.
It’s the same reason we care more about safety in airplanes than in cars, even though planes are safer than cars.
Really all this means is that we should care more about car safety, not less about gun safety.

45,000 deaths a year is massive and tragic.

Reason of death might not matter, if they die.
But I think lowering the probability of death does.
Removing a leading cause would surely contribute.

Actually I think there is a philosophical argument that dying by suicide is worse than dying by car crash.

Okay, if we could handwave away murderers, accidental gunshots, and people purposefully killing themselves with a gun, then we surely should... But we can't.

But can’t we, even just a little?

Look,
You could easily say “put a tracker chip in everyone and watch the crime go down, think of all the lives it will save”
But the most basic measures, which a majority of Americans believe in, can save a tremendous amount of lives, at very little cost to freedom.

[American Legionaries]

Okay, if we could handwave away murderers, accidental gunshots, and people purposefully killing themselves with a gun, then we surely should... But we can't.

But can’t we, even just a little?

No, we can't because magic isn't real.

Look,
You could easily say “put a tracker chip in everyone and watch the crime go down, think of all the lives it will save”
But the most basic measures, which a majority of Americans believe in, can save a tremendous amount of lives.

Not really, because by your own admission only about 45,000 people are killed with a gun every year. So, in some perfect scenario in which all the suicidal people without guns magically stop being suicidal, and where all the murderers without guns magically stopped being murderous, you could save about 45,000 people.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So in exchange for giving up our guns instead of actually improving society the best you can offer is that people who commit massacres will killfewer people?

I do want society to be improved. The point I'm making is that passing sensible regulations on guns alone can have a massive impact.

If your side of the argument only ever cared for sensible regulations when necessary it might have more success with this rhetoric, but pushing draconian gun laws in places like Washington kinda shows that it's not about stopping murders or being sensible, it's just a culture war topic like any other. We now have some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation and do you know how many people were killed by rifles in this state last? 6. It was 4 the year before that and in general it can almost always be counted on one or two hands. Pushing harsh gun laws in an environment like this really does nothing except piss people off and encourage non-compliance, which seems to be what is happening thus far even in this very blue state.

[The Orson Empire]

But can’t we, even just a little?

No, we can't because magic isn't real.

Look,
You could easily say “put a tracker chip in everyone and watch the crime go down, think of all the lives it will save”
But the most basic measures, which a majority of Americans believe in, can save a tremendous amount of lives.

Not really, because by your own admission only about 45,000 people are killed with a gun every year. So, in some perfect scenario in which all the suicidal people without guns magically stop being suicidal, and where all the murderers without guns magically stopped being murderous, you could save about 45,000 people.

45,000 people is a massive amount of lives that could be saved. Simply dismissing this statistic is callous.

The right of people to live without fear of being gunned down in public is more important than your "right" to build an arsenal in your basement.

[American Legionaries]

No, we can't because magic isn't real.



Not really, because by your own admission only about 45,000 people are killed with a gun every year. So, in some perfect scenario in which all the suicidal people without guns magically stop being suicidal, and where all the murderers without guns magically stopped being murderous, you could save about 45,000 people.

45,000 people is a massive amount of lives that could be saved. Simply dismissing this statistic is callous.

The right of people to live without fear of being gunned down in public is more important than your "right" to build an arsenal in your basement.

Nope.

[The Orson Empire]

45,000 people is a massive amount of lives that could be saved. Simply dismissing this statistic is callous.

The right of people to live without fear of being gunned down in public is more important than your "right" to build an arsenal in your basement.

Nope.

Yet another example of Republican policies and Republican thinking getting people killed. This is why I called the Republican Party a death cult.

[American Legionaries]

Nope.

Yet another example of Republican policies and Republican thinking getting people killed. This is why I called the Republican Party a death cult.

Better a death cultist than an oppressive dystopian.

[Neu California]

Those are all great,
But why does it have to be either or?
Why can’t you add red flags to the pipe dream?

Red flag laws have very very big 5th and 14th amendment concerns and it's entirely plausible they do not survive legal scrutiny.

Not the full article, just the most important part, but they do survive legal scrutiny.

Here’s how red-flag laws work: A limited set of people — law enforcement officers, family or household members, and sometimes others — can petition a judge to issue an “extreme-risk protection order” (ERPO) requiring a person to temporarily surrender his or her firearms and refrain from acquiring new ones. Depending on the state, the burden of proof the petitioner must meet (to establish that the gun owner indeed presents a risk) varies from “probable cause” to “clear and convincing” evidence. If the petition is successful, the court can enter a short-term emergency ERPO, usually lasting two weeks or less. In many cases, that’s all that is needed — the crisis can be averted. A longer-term ERPO can be entered only after a full hearing at which the petitioner again bears the burden of proof, usually at a higher threshold, and at which the gun owner can contest the order.

If there is a constitutional flaw in this basic structure, it has apparently escaped notice of the entire United States judiciary: Courts have rejected Second Amendment and due-process challenges to ERPO laws, and for good reason.

Perhaps surprisingly, the Second Amendment has not been the focus of most constitutional complaints. That’s because even ardent Second Amendment defenders like Justice Amy Coney Barrett recognize that “legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns” — as Barrett wrote in a 2019 case, when she was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Courts reviewing extreme-risk laws have upheld them on that very basis. In 2016, for example, a Connecticut appellate court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in holding that the state’s statute “does not implicate the second amendment, as it does not restrict the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of their homes.”

The crux of the political debate has therefore focused on due process — although due-process challenges to red-flag laws have fared no better. Nor should they have. A prime complaint about red-flag laws is that they allow an order to be issued before the gun owner has an opportunity to contest the evidence, but the Supreme Court has long recognized that there are “extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event,” as Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote in a 1971 case. Examples include restraining orders filed by one domestic partner against another, civil commitments for mental illness and the temporary removal of children from parental custody in emergency situations (for instance, when there are credible allegations of abuse). In cases like these, delaying urgent action until after a full hearing can lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Given that the Constitution allows emergency action to temporarily remove a person’s child before a full hearing, it’s hard to argue that it prohibits emergency action to temporarily remove a person’s guns. Quite simply, the Constitution does not require society to wait until the trigger is pulled.

Though they vary in their particulars, extreme-risk laws contain several important procedural safeguards that, as the Supreme Court has recognized, help to forestall abuse and ensure due process. They impose the burden on the petitioner to convince an independent third party; they guarantee active judicial oversight and provide a prompt hearing focusing on the degree of risk; and many states impose criminal penalties for filing false or harassing extreme-risk petitions (in addition to existing punishments for perjury).

[Kerwa]

You don’t even support enforcing the existing laws. You don’t get to call for more.

Seems like a fallacy. Specifically, tu quoque.

No. But you’re engaging in a fallacy fallacy.

The entire pro-gun control movement is displacement. People should go think about their real problems instead of throwing tantrums or getting vapors over a non-issue. No amount of gun control will fix the schools or make public transport usable. And that’s just it.

[The Orson Empire]

Seems like a fallacy. Specifically, tu quoque.

No. But you’re engaging in a fallacy fallacy.

The entire pro-gun control movement is displacement. People should go think about their real problems instead of throwing tantrums or getting vapors over a non-issue. No amount of gun control will fix the schools or make public transport usable. And that’s just it.

Bullshit. Look at any other nation in the world that has strict gun control laws, and what do you see? Minimal gun violence.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Red flag laws have very very big 5th and 14th amendment concerns and it's entirely plausible they do not survive legal scrutiny.

Not the full article, just the most important part, but they do survive legal scrutiny.

Here’s how red-flag laws work: A limited set of people — law enforcement officers, family or household members, and sometimes others — can petition a judge to issue an “extreme-risk protection order” (ERPO) requiring a person to temporarily surrender his or her firearms and refrain from acquiring new ones. Depending on the state, the burden of proof the petitioner must meet (to establish that the gun owner indeed presents a risk) varies from “probable cause” to “clear and convincing” evidence. If the petition is successful, the court can enter a short-term emergency ERPO, usually lasting two weeks or less. In many cases, that’s all that is needed — the crisis can be averted. A longer-term ERPO can be entered only after a full hearing at which the petitioner again bears the burden of proof, usually at a higher threshold, and at which the gun owner can contest the order.

If there is a constitutional flaw in this basic structure, it has apparently escaped notice of the entire United States judiciary: Courts have rejected Second Amendment and due-process challenges to ERPO laws, and for good reason.

Perhaps surprisingly, the Second Amendment has not been the focus of most constitutional complaints. That’s because even ardent Second Amendment defenders like Justice Amy Coney Barrett recognize that “legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns” — as Barrett wrote in a 2019 case, when she was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Courts reviewing extreme-risk laws have upheld them on that very basis. In 2016, for example, a Connecticut appellate court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in holding that the state’s statute “does not implicate the second amendment, as it does not restrict the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of their homes.”

The crux of the political debate has therefore focused on due process — although due-process challenges to red-flag laws have fared no better. Nor should they have. A prime complaint about red-flag laws is that they allow an order to be issued before the gun owner has an opportunity to contest the evidence, but the Supreme Court has long recognized that there are “extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event,” as Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote in a 1971 case. Examples include restraining orders filed by one domestic partner against another, civil commitments for mental illness and the temporary removal of children from parental custody in emergency situations (for instance, when there are credible allegations of abuse). In cases like these, delaying urgent action until after a full hearing can lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Given that the Constitution allows emergency action to temporarily remove a person’s child before a full hearing, it’s hard to argue that it prohibits emergency action to temporarily remove a person’s guns. Quite simply, the Constitution does not require society to wait until the trigger is pulled.

Though they vary in their particulars, extreme-risk laws contain several important procedural safeguards that, as the Supreme Court has recognized, help to forestall abuse and ensure due process. They impose the burden on the petitioner to convince an independent third party; they guarantee active judicial oversight and provide a prompt hearing focusing on the degree of risk; and many states impose criminal penalties for filing false or harassing extreme-risk petitions (in addition to existing punishments for perjury).

For now they do, but especially nowadays I'm not sure precedent means much of anything in the legal sphere. I could fully see a scenario where the justices decide to axe them if enough pressure was applied from the GOP.

[The Orson Empire]

Yet another example of Republican policies and Republican thinking getting people killed. This is why I called the Republican Party a death cult.

Better a death cultist than an oppressive dystopian.

Nope, the Republicans are oppressive too. I don't see the Democrats embracing fascism.