US Politics

[TheRevanchist]

I'm sick of the NRA's tireless stance in support of guns.  Why can't we see some balance here?!

 

Staunch supporters on either side of any issue are assholes.  The only difference here is that you have a high visibility because of the nature of the crimes committed.

 

Consider this, though.  In the 3000+ counties in the US, about 90 to 100 of these counties account for at least one murder a year.  Because legal gun owners are law abiding citizens for the most part.  So, where does the violence come from?  Mostly the drug trade in gangs + poor impoverished areas.  These are typically done with illegal guns.  So, is the real issue guns or society?

[Waldorf and Statler]

The real issue here is we need to kill these people in impoverished areas. Then we lower the amount of illegal drug trade, gang deaths/violence, money they steal from us, crime, unemployment rates and abortions all while doing it with legally purchases weapons.

 

- You've just read an excerpt of Wally's new book 'Mein Statlerampf"

Edited April 19, 2013 by Waldorf And Statler

[FredEffinChopin]

 

I'm sick of the NRA's tireless stance in support of guns.  Why can't we see some balance here?!

 

Staunch supporters on either side of any issue are assholes.  The only difference here is that you have a high visibility because of the nature of the crimes committed.

 

Consider this, though.  In the 3000+ counties in the US, about 90 to 100 of these counties account for at least one murder a year.  Because legal gun owners are law abiding citizens for the most part.  So, where does the violence come from?  Mostly the drug trade in gangs + poor impoverished areas.  These are typically done with illegal guns.  So, is the real issue guns or society?

 

You missed his joke. Read his comment in the context of being a reply to the one before it.

 

I'm curious to know what the point of that particular framing of the firearm discussion was though. Is it to say that the gun industry's practices don't matter as long as the end result is only poor people killing each other? Or that we don't need to police the vendors since the only victims of their practices are criminals? Do we not need to worry about gun violence if it only plagues certain neighborhoods? The kids indoctrinated into gang violence don't need help, or the countless innocent bystanders in said plagued communities? Do you think that maybe we should open more loopholes, so that the people in those communities can purchase guns even more easily? Or maybe that we should donate some more guns? I'm just confused by what the exact point of your comment is.

 

Since we know that "illegal guns" (which I put in quotes because they almost all begin as legal sales through purposefully designed loopholes) aren't manifested out of sheer willpower or plucked from trees, I'm going to go ahead and say that the gun industry is part of the problem. And no, nobody is trying to accuse guns of crimes or throw guns in jail. We're not talking about law-abiding guns or guns that break the law. People are talking about gun manufacturers and vendors being subject to tighter restriction. 

 

Re: Newly revived xenophobia

It's already begun. A Middle-Eastern kid in the Bronx got beaten up badly the other day after a pack of dudes asked if he as an "Arab".

 

I know it might sound awful, but I was really hoping that it was a non-Muslim behind the attack... I'm not rooting for anyone in particular to be behind some awful shit like this, and it doesn't make things more or less difficult to deal with or process in any way, but I feel like the reality here is that anything short of a white male with no religious motivation at all would (is going to) result in some ugliness once the stupids get all emotional out in public. I'm hoping it doesn't get too bad, but unfortunately I'm sure at least a few more innocent people are going to be harassed over this.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Surely

 

"FUCKING [crazy/insane/inhuman] PEOPLE! WE'RE GONNA MURDER YOU!!!" 

 

Would be a slightly better message?

 

And toning down the world police stuff might be a bit neat. Sure when they're like NK and threaten first it's fine, but in most cases I'd let local regions thrash their own problems out amongst themselves. 

 

Agreed on both points. Though I'd question whether the latter has any place in the Boston bombing.

[TheRevanchist]

I always regret not keeping my mouth shut, so here it goes.

 

@Fred:  I'm saying that limiting guns is not going to stop the murders.  If you banned guns outright, murders would not stop.  People would use different weapons.  Before guns, they had swords.  Before swords, they used sticks and stones.  Whatever the weapon should be, murdering people will happen.  Banning all guns would result in nothing changing, except for method of murder, be it mass poisoning, home-made bombs, or sledgehammers.

 

I know Ethan was kidding, but it's very tongue-in-cheek, as the NRA really are assholes.

 

My point is that where the problems originate is in society.  Not guns.  Or swords.  Or maces.  Or bombs.  What we need to focus on to stop the murdering within our country is society.

 

Where I live, what they have done is put in more social centers, provided tax breaks for hiring from more impoverished areas, re-focused the local police force to patrol areas of higher crime, broke out the area into a voting district to get the community more involved in politics, and enacted a police car take home program to show a larger presence within the community.  And, it's worked so far.  I support these programs, and other programs that help change the culture of an area, changing the factors that make a community at-risk.  My kids do volunteer stuff with their school to help out, too, as do I.

 

Taking away the gun is taking away the symptom, not taking away the reasons why.

[deanb]

Nothing stopping doing both. Take away the shooty death tubes, and do the above social outreach programs too. It's not an either-or kind of problem.

[Vecha]

Nothing stopping doing both. Take away the shooty death tubes, and do the above social outreach programs too. It's not an either-or kind of problem.

 

 

While I don't necessarily disagree with you...it isn't as simple as "take them away." 

 

What with the second amendment...and the fact that criminals(that we may or may not know about) won't just hand 'em over. 

[deanb]

And it's not as simple as "Let's just not do anything about it" either.

 

I'm a brit, we don't have a written constitution, just a nebulous bunch of laws, edicts and bills over the years. So I'm probably a bit callous in saying this but; it's an amendment, it's a change to the constitution. If it can be changed once, twice, nay twenty seven times, then it can changed just one more time. Just gotta get over treating a bunch of two hundred year old laws as sacred texts.

 

As for taking the guns away, I'm to understand getting a gun legally means registering, which means there should be a handy list of everyone who owns a gun and what guns. Then all you have left instead of the current mix of legal guns, illegal guns, and legal guns used for illegal purposes, is just illegal guns. With no ready access to weapons at the shop on the street corner, there's a diminishment in the amount criminals can have access to as well. Main supply of guns in the country becomes police and armed forces, and they're keeping much better track of guns than the shop down the street and the bumbling office worker who was just sold one. The barrier for entry to gun possession shoots right up. Crimes of passion using guns becomes a lot harder, and I'd reckon those homicides account for a lot more than gang warfare. You're a random crazy and decide to go on a killing spree and your mothers gun isn't close at hand your next best bet is a baseball bat or a knife. You're suddenly substantially less dangerous. Which is the big thing worth taking note of. Most people with a gun that kill, aren't criminals until the moment they take that legally acquired gun, filled with bullets from the local supermarket, and shoot up a bunch of people. Take away the gun and the bullets, you've still someone about to become a criminal. But likely not a killer, and a dozen kids to grow old to boot.

 

In fact there needs not just to be social outreach programs to keep kids out of gangs, and make people know the police are around to help, and get the community comfortable with going "yeah my mate seems a bit messed up, fear he might do something silly, want to have a word with him". But also work on the mindset of weaning of most of the nation on this notion that civilians need access to weapons of war.

[Vecha]

And it's not as simple as "Let's just not do anything about it" either.

 

 

 

As for taking the guns away, I'm to understand getting a gun legally means registering, which means there should be a handy list of everyone who owns a gun and what guns.

 

Not all "legal" guns were/are registered. 

 

Part of the new gun bill was making sure registering guns becomes more mandatory. 

 

 

 

 

[TheMightyEthan]

No it wasn't.  The new bill actually had specific provisions AGAINST creating a national gun owner registry.

[Vecha]

No it wasn't.  The new bill actually had specific provisions AGAINST creating a national gun owner registry.

 

What?

 

I thought they were going to make it to where you had to register guns at gunshows? 

[FredEffinChopin]

@Rev

Pardon me if I'm repeating anything I typed earlier in the thread, but we're revisiting some of the same talking points.

 

1) Taking guns away isn't solving the problem, it's removing a symptom -

If we cannot alleviate the strain itself, is dampening the symptoms not an adequate alternative to doing nothing at all? It's a philosophy that AIDS patients would argue isn't applicable. Or people whose cars were totalled, but whose lives were saved by the belt. Hell, tell that to the needle exchange program.

 

There is no type of crime for which a new law has brought about the crime's extinction. For every law preventing crime, the respective crime still goes on. They likely always will, too, but most of them would likely be a hell of a lot more rampant and acceptable if we did nothing to protect citizens from them. Guns are the only thing though, that for some reason have this thing where people feel like nothing at all should be done since the problem will not be squashed permanently. In your first comment here, you pretty much said that most of the gun violence in the country is being done by gangs... in a comment that seemed to argue against regulating the industry. Why is it wise to continue to provide an easy means for those gangs to remain armed? Are the gangs something that we want to thrive?

 

2) People can murder with all kinds of things - 

Yes, but there is a reason guns are so popular. They get the job done well. They can get the it done quickly and easily. Just a pull of a trigger. You can do it before you even have a chance to change your mind. Up close, far away, from a moving vehicle, from a rooftop perch. There is a reason we don't send our troops into combat with swords anymore, and given the choice, I don't think there is any sane person who wouldn't rather take their chances at survival against someone with a knife or sword  rather than someone with a gun. If it was all the same to someone who would argue that there are many ways to accomplish what a gun does, then why argue so loudly for the right to own every type of gun under the sun? Guns are great at what they do, which is relieving for them since it's almost the only thing they can do.

 

I've never heard of anyone mass-stabbing a couple of dozen people to death in 4 minutes, and I've never heard of a bunch of kids getting killed in the crossfire of a knife fight in the park. No stories of dad polishing his knife when it misfired and turned his son's neck into a crater, or a kid who finds a knife in the kitchen drawer and accidentally kills his friend when he drops it. I don't think I've heard of any accidental stab-deaths, for that matter, though they doubtless happen... A side note on this point too, is that knives and swords are all subject to varying degrees of regulation, and certain types are illegal to carry and/or buy in many states. 

 

3) This issue needs to be addressed at a social level - 

That too. And as you pointed out, with your area as an example, it is something that goes on already. You won't see anyone argue that it should, ever. The thing is though, that that is being brought up as an argument against any new laws regarding gun sales. It's a diversion, since they are not the same discussion. Social programs are social programs, and none of them should have any bearing on traffic rules; even if they might one day turn a community into the capitol of responsible driving. When a community is overrun by drug/gang activity that results in frequent violence in the street, it's definitely time to start reaching out and trying to improve things there. While that happens though, it doesn't help to create a bunch of holes in laws that are supposedly designed so that guns are sold responsibly, and use them to maximize the damage being done in that area by filtering as many weapons into it as possible. Or to fight as hard as possible to keep every one of them available. Why would these means of circumventing checks exist if not to sell guns either to people who would not be able to pass a background check, or who have reason to want there being no way of documenting what they are doing with large quantities of them? 

 

I seriously apologize for being so hopelessly long-winded. One last thing though:

What exactly are you arguing against when you generally argue against gun restriction? I know that you're offering a philosophical stance that explains why gun laws  cannot prevent violence (though, as I said, I don't think it's appropriate to treat mass shootings like stabbings or fistfights that get out of hand, or to neglect to do anything where you can't solve a problem), but politically do you feel like that totally watered down bill that just failed (and that would likely have had some effectiveness in that it would stop one of the ways in which we actively facilitate trafficking) was an infringement on your rights at all? 

 

@Vecha

It's funny you say it that way, because that's the way the NRA and senators posed it. Like there was some sort of registry. What it required was that background checks be universally mandatory for all vendor sales, even at gun shows. As Ethan said, it included strict penalties for anyone caught trying to make a registry out of it. It was specifically there so the creation of a registry couldn't even be used as a talking point against background checks (and to stop a registry from being created). Nevertheless, that didn't stop Ted Cruz from using the slippery slope argument, allusions to Mao, and (yup!) the creation of a registry as grounds for his opposition. Or as I like to call it "The NRA's money's worth."

 

So that's where we are right now. You need to obtain a permit to exercise your free speech in protest, but you can buy a gun on the internet.

[TheMightyEthan]

 

No it wasn't.  The new bill actually had specific provisions AGAINST creating a national gun owner registry.

 

What?

 

I thought they were going to make it to where you had to register guns at gunshows? 

 

No, just that you had to do the background check.  The feds wouldn't keep a registry of the owners though.

[Vecha]

@Rev

 

 

@Vecha

It's funny you say it that way, because that's the way the NRA and senators posed it. Like there was some sort of registry. What it required was that background checks be universally mandatory for all vendor sales, even at gun shows. As Ethan said, it included strict penalties for anyone caught trying to make a registry out of it. It was specifically there so the creation of a registry couldn't even be used as a talking point against background checks (and to stop a registry from being created). Nevertheless, that didn't stop Ted Cruz from using the slippery slope argument, allusions to Mao, and (yup!) the creation of a registry as grounds for his opposition. Or as I like to call it "The NRA's money's worth."

 

So that's where we are right now. You need to obtain a permit to exercise your free speech in protest, but you can buy a gun on the internet.

 

 

Well I feel like an idiot. 

[Saturnine Tenshi]

We're going in circles, here.

[Hot Heart]

Not sure how much this affects the US folks here, but figured it was worth sharing.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/senate-passes-online-sales-tax-by-74-20-vote/

[TheMightyEthan]

I already have to pay taxes on Amazon, but I wonder if it will also affect digital sales.  Will Steam have to start charging sales tax?

[Waldorf and Statler]

NO. GOD DAMMIT. Stop trying to make money to finance your boats you freaking corrupt motherfuckers.

 

All jokes aside fuck that shit. Please leave me my Steam and smaller sites, you already have Amazon

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I don't get why you wouldn't pay tax just because it's on the internet?

[TheMightyEthan]

In the US states don't have the authority to regulate businesses outside their borders, because only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce.  With regular businesses that doesn't matter, because Kansas for example just puts a sales tax on transactions that take place in Kansas, because they have the authority to regulate that.  However, most internet businesses are located in just one or a few states, but do business in all of them.  Kansas doesn't have the authority to make a company located in Iowa pay them sales tax because they have no jurisdiction over that company.  This law is essentially the federal government giving the states the authority to tax all transactions that are initiated by a customer in their state, wherever the business might be located.

 

The reason I already have to pay tax on Amazon is because Amazon has a distribution center in Kansas so even under previous Kansas had authority to tax the transaction.

[deanb]

Dammit, I'd been writing a response then got chatting with housemate for ages. But to trim out the bit Ethan answered (though with less of my mocking "lol USA doesn't have a United sales tax :P" tone) and leave the extra bit that answers another angle of Gerbils question:

 

Generally all good companies, especially those with Irish and Dutch subsidies and especially American multinational companies such as Gogole and Starbucks, know that a tax isn't something you pay out the goodness of your heart, it's paid only when absolutely every t is crossed an i dotted in a airtight law because otherwise you're incurring an avoidable expenditure for your shareholders. Here the US gov't is crossing a few of their Ts. It's wise to, they make extra money from it, especially as internet business is booming and it's not like companies like Amazon are going to pull out of America. They can knock their prices up, point to the new law, and likely still out beat local physical business.

[TheMightyEthan]

Actually the US government won't see any of it, the states will.

 

Also, this doesn't affect the advertised price.  Sales tax in the US is added on at the end of the transaction, so something advertised as costing $199.99 will actually cost like $215 after taxes.  Amazon doesn't even have to knock their prices up, they just tack the tax on at checkout.

[Thursday Next]

Actually the US government won't see any of it, the states will.

 

Also, this doesn't affect the advertised price.  Sales tax in the US is added on at the end of the transaction, so something advertised as costing $199.99 will actually cost like $215 after taxes.  Amazon doesn't even have to knock their prices up, they just tack the tax on at checkout.

 

Is that why it is called a "tacks"?

[deanb]

Aren't the states "government"? (Maybe showing a non-firm grasp of US political structure but I was under the impression senate was like our house of commons with each senator representing a state, as opposed to President that represents a party). Also adding tax on at the end does knock the prices up. I can't see Amazon choosing to swallow the tax.

 

 

 

Guy goes into a chemist to buy some condoms. "that'll be £1 for the condom and 20 pence for the tax" the chemist says. "Tacks?!? I thought you rolled them on".

[CorgiShinobi]

I haven't had to pay sales tax on a digital good in a long while. I believe I use to back in Utah for PSN, but when services transferred over to SNEA, no one has had to pay a sales tax on PSN (that I'm aware of).

 

As for "government," I'm sure Ethan will put this much better, but basically there's Federal government (country), state government, and then local government. For your reading pleasure (because I rather not write it all out).

 

And Amazon should be just fine. If you consider how often you can get an item, or bulk of items, at a discounted price, all a sales tax would do is reduce the immense discounted price to a slightly less immense discounted price. So if I get something for 53% off of $19.99, making it $9.40, adding 6% (my current sales tax) of that price would then make it $10.18.

 

Basically, the discount went from 53% to roughly a 51%.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Atomsk88