Red Mosquito

Rob wrote:And I don’t think that’s a centrist view. It’s a view that you take what you can get whenever you can get it. That’s always been Bernie’s view, he’s no centrist.

To be clear, I don't think it's exclusively centrist to adopt the pragmatic position of "take what you can get," and obviously I am not saying that the bill should fail (though I am loathe to assume in advance that it will pass). But it is, almost by definition, a centrist measure, meant to appease both sides of an evenly divided Senate. It does very little to limit gun sales overall and a lot to limit access to those sales--not what's being sold but who it's being sold to. The additional focus on mental health and crisis intervention shoehorned in here in lieu of banning certain types of weapons is a centrist measure. That's not to say it won't work, though McP is right to suggest that we need to define the terms of what "working" would look like, and that's not to say that we should give up if the proposed legislation won't completely fix the problem. But we should call it what it is.

There's nothing wrong with centrist measures in themselves, and I think they can certainly work as first steps towards more systemic change unless they serve as bulwarks against future measures (in a sort of "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" approach), or are taken up as some sort of defacto victory of centrism over more polarizing political tendencies (what Bi_3 did here when posting the link). I think the latter is incredibly suspect. If you're looking for legislative solutions then your only option is centrism given the current Senate composition, so to turn around and say "look what centrism can achieve!" is a form of begging the question. It purposefully winnows the horizon for political action. Dunno about you but that seems bad to me!

As long as America votes 50.4% vs 49.6% in key states, this is what we’ve got. And maybe that’s what that kind of vote just ends up producing. If Bernie had his revolution… if Trump had his… maybe bigger things would have been done. Here we are.

elliseamos wrote:A waiting period on all purchases would be nice. Not sure how that could exist at "gun shows".

The studies on waiting periods don't provide significant support for their effectiveness.

If there were a way to do background checks that cannot be used for the basis of a registry, you could probably get gun owners on board with doing background checks for private party sales.

A background check that just establishes that a person is non-prohibited without documenting what was transacted, for instance.

Anti-carceral DAs make the background check system less effective when they plead felonies down to misdemeanors. Red flag laws are this bizarre compromise so you can disenfranchise people without locking them up. I'd rather people be systematically prohibited for almost any violent crime than trust someone in the know will narc on a 'dangerous' person.

Studies sound dangerously close to science.

Studies suggest that waiting period laws are associated with reduced rates of firearm suicide. By one estimation, waiting period laws may reduce firearm suicide rates by 7–11%.

Waiting period laws also appear to reduce gun homicide rates. One study found that waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days can reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%.

J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, and H. H. Goldsmith, “The Role of Affect in Decision Making,” Handbook of Affective Sciences (2003): 619–642.

David Card and Gordon B. Dahl, “Family Violence and Football: The Effect of Unexpected Emotional Cues on Violent Behavior,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126, no. 1 (2011): 103–143.

Michael Luca, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin, “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 46 (2017): 12162–12165

Michael D. Anestis and Joye C. Anestis, “Suicide Rates and State Laws Regulating Access and Exposure to Handguns,” American Journal of Public Health 105, no. 10 (2015): 2049–2058.

elliseamos wrote:

Studies suggest that waiting period laws are associated with reduced rates of firearm suicide. By one estimation, waiting period laws may reduce firearm suicide rates by 7–11%.

Waiting period laws also appear to reduce gun homicide rates. One study found that waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days can reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%.

J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, and H. H. Goldsmith, “The Role of Affect in Decision Making,” Handbook of Affective Sciences (2003): 619–642.

David Card and Gordon B. Dahl, “Family Violence and Football: The Effect of Unexpected Emotional Cues on Violent Behavior,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126, no. 1 (2011): 103–143.

Michael Luca, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin, “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 46 (2017): 12162–12165

Michael D. Anestis and Joye C. Anestis, “Suicide Rates and State Laws Regulating Access and Exposure to Handguns,” American Journal of Public Health 105, no. 10 (2015): 2049–2058.

Yes, suicide. I'm rather more concerned about the murdering.

You gotta read the posts dawg

Mickey wrote:You gotta read the posts dawg

One does not.

I think the studies on suicide reduction are better supported than the homicide ones, 17% is a ridiculously high number.

They must be filtering in unusual ways. The typical gun used in a homicide was registered stolen some months or years prior.

Rob wrote:And I don’t think that’s a centrist view. It’s a view that you take what you can get whenever you can get it. That’s always been Bernie’s view, he’s no centrist.

Rob gets it.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Mickey wrote:You gotta read the posts dawg

One does not.

I think the studies on suicide reduction are better supported than the homicide ones, 17% is a ridiculously high number.

They must be filtering in unusual ways. The typical gun used in a homicide was registered stolen some months or years prior.

It also mentions not watching football.

No way this can backfire!

Ohio Shrinks Training Requirement for Teachers to Carry Guns From 700 Hours to 24

Stickman wrote:No way this can backfire!

Ohio Shrinks Training Requirement for Teachers to Carry Guns From 700 Hours to 24

No one tell stickman about constitutional carry.

Stickman wrote:Glad to see Texas cops didn't fuck this one up.

Terrifying, why isnt this dominating the news? It's like it's going straight to the memory hole for some reason.

Stickman wrote:2 Southern California officers killed in shootout at motel

Thanks for all you do

Shocking.