Political Discussion

Chucktshoes said:
That figure comes from the number of guns submitted to the US government by Mexico for tracing, not the entire number of guns seized in crimes in Mexico. The Mexican government only submits guns to the ATF for tracing that have markings on them that indicate they possibly originated in the US. Of those submitted for eTrace, 70% +/- are positively traced to the US. The vast majority of the guns seized are never submitted to for tracing because the markings indicate they originated with Mexico’s police, armed forces or from other various points of origin. The actual number of seized guns that are positively identified as having a US origin is around 12%.

The “Iron Pipeline” isn’t real, but it sounds real good to folks already inclined to believe in it.
Click to expand...


So where do those guns that aren’t traced get made? How did the Mexican police get a hold of arms? I’m assuming there are some pretty strict tracking regulation regarding the arm trade?
 
Dtknuckles said:
So where do those guns that aren’t traced get made? How did the Mexican police get a hold of arms? I’m assuming there are some pretty strict tracking regulation regarding the arm trade?
Click to expand...
I imagine in various countries around the world. Guns are made all over the world, not just in the US. I personally own guns manufactured in several countries on multiple continents. My favorites come from Belgium, but I like the German, Italian, Israeli, Russian, Portuguese, Turkish, Czech and Brazilian ones I have as well. For the record, I have a bunch of US made ones too of course. There are a couple of British and French guns I want, but I haven’t gotten around to getting them yet.

Well, police in Mexico are routinely armed (for good reason) and once again, I imagine their weapons are bought on contract from potentially multiple places around the world. I honestly don’t know the ins and outs of how they source weapons for official government use. However, the availability of firearms to US civilians wouldn’t have anything to do with that as I don’t see the Federales sending someone up to Billy Bob’s Guns N Gear to buy gear for the station. Also, if the Mexican government buys AR-15s/M-16s on an importation contract and then corrupt individuals within it sell those guns to the cartels, I don’t see how that’s the fault of the US gun owner.

ITAR covers the exportation of arms out of the US, but those regulations are for the safeguarding of sensitive technologies to hopefully prevent our own troops from facing our own weapons. The international trade of arms doesn’t have a single effective governing body of regulations. So it’s a lot more open than you think.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Maybe you should try using folks other than partisan hacks who repeat lies like “70% of guns in Mexico come from the US” to support your positions.

-Edited to add-

In the modern era of click driven media, journalistic standards have gone by the wayside in favor of choir preaching and partisan hackery. It’s reached a point where most “news” is 90 percent bullshit designed to keep the emotions high so folks stay engaged and increasing ad impressions. I hold sites like Vox and Breitbart in the same contempt. They don’t give anyone anything close to a semblance of truth, they just tickle ears by telling folks what they want to hear so that they can feel righteous and know that the folks on the other team are wrong.

There’s nothing of value to be gained there.
Click to expand...
There are actual links to actual data embedded in the site, Chuck. Your flippant attitude is pissing me off.
 
Sonicpharmacist said:
There are actual links to actual data embedded in the site, Chuck. Your flippant attitude is pissing me off.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous things deserve to be ridiculed. Vox is a ridiculous thing worthy of the contempt I hold for it. They don’t employ any journalists, just partisan hacks who write left wing advocacy pieces. If I posted an article from Breitbart or Infowars* to support a stance I was taking, I wouldn’t expect you to treat it anymore seriously than I’m treating the dreck you posted.

I read the article, I looked at the links. There is a little bit of truth mixed in with a whole lot of misrepresentation and selective presentation of data to present an incomplete and ultimately untruthful narrative, like the Mexican gun smuggling already discussed. But after all, the best lies are always seeded with a grain of truth.

As far as my “flippant attitude” goes, if it’s pissing you off, maybe you should try something else other than stomping your feet and demanding that I take dreck from some hack at Vox seriously. I promise you that continuing to do so isn’t going to get a result you like. I just can’t take an argument that cites writing from sites like them or buzzfeed seriously.

(*For the record, I wouldn’t because those sites are ridiculous and I understand the difference between factual, data driven reporting and misleading, partisan screeds.)
 
Last edited:
Hey Iowa - your crazy is loose again! Please come get him and put him back in his cave where he belongs.
 
Chucktshoes said:
What’s changed?
Click to expand...
Melt Face Molly Drop said:
The more prominent presence of the internet, mostly.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, and would put in a list including (but not limited to) the following. No particular order, although I think they're all intertwined.

1. Internet: Allows for people with fringe ideologies to connect and amplify their ideas in subcultures that reinforce radicalizing beliefs. It also makes it easier to research the growing number of shooters and to immerse yourself in their mindset, particularly those who left behind agenda-driven manifestos.

2. Demographics: I'm broadly generalizing here, but I'd speculate that most people who went to a school where students kept long guns in the parking lot without incident (as I did, also) went to a school that was predominantly rural and white. The presence of weaponry has always been a more volatile ingredient for more urban and/or more diverse populations. Schools themselves are not successfully integrated in the 21st century, but the changing demographics of America overall mean that the guns at schools are less likely to be hunting rifles locked in a pickup all day. One thing that HASN'T changed, though, is that the overwhelming majority of these shootings are carried out by the same demographic who used to not have any problems leaving their rifles in their cars (by which I mean young white males, regardless of political affiliation).

3. Polarization: The increasingly political nature of all corners of public life mean that 1 & 2 combined are a potent mix.

4. NRA: The NRA's position of the last few decades that no negotiation is permissible, period, has moved the window of conversation to a point where the solution to guns is *always* more guns. The more that violence is acknowledged as a (if not THE) viable path to ending violence, the more violence itself is normalized. (I think, @Chucktshoes, that you've acknowledged the same phenomenon with respect to the stance on negotiating gun controls, although you definitely see it from the other side of the fence.)

5. Complacency: As a corollary to number 4, the more shootings that occur, the more shootings will occur. If we aren't going to do anything as a society to prevent them, they will continue.

6. Reduction of overall violent crime: as the overall violent crime rate has gone down, the more any one of these events is an outlier relative to the national averages. In conjunction with several of the items above, that means there's a constant push to 'outdo' previous events to continue to make an impact on a culture that is largely de-sensitized to body counts that don't break new ground. It's the gamification of murder, in a way (which is not the same as implying that games are responsible for murder).

Those are just some thoughts off the cuff. The number of guns may very well be a secondary condition and not the underlying primary disease, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat it.
 
Chucktshoes said:
I imagine in various countries around the world. Guns are made all over the world, not just in the US. I personally own guns manufactured in several countries on multiple continents. My favorites come from Belgium, but I like the German, Italian, Israeli, Russian, Portuguese, Turkish, Czech and Brazilian ones I have as well. For the record, I have a bunch of US made ones too of course. There are a couple of British and French guns I want, but I haven’t gotten around to getting them yet.

Well, police in Mexico are routinely armed (for good reason) and once again, I imagine their weapons are bought on contract from potentially multiple places around the world. I honestly don’t know the ins and outs of how they source weapons for official government use. However, the availability of firearms to US civilians wouldn’t have anything to do with that as I don’t see the Federales sending someone up to Billy Bob’s Guns N Gear to buy gear for the station. Also, if the Mexican government buys AR-15s/M-16s on an importation contract and then corrupt individuals within it sell those guns to the cartels, I don’t see how that’s the fault of the US gun owner.

ITAR covers the exportation of arms out of the US, but those regulations are for the safeguarding of sensitive technologies to hopefully prevent our own troops from facing our own weapons. The international trade of arms doesn’t have a single effective governing body of regulations. So it’s a lot more open than you think.
Click to expand...


What other stats do you have issue with in the article?
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I agree with this, and would put in a list including (but not limited to) the following. No particular order, although I think they're all intertwined.

1. Internet: Allows for people with fringe ideologies to connect and amplify their ideas in subcultures that reinforce radicalizing beliefs. It also makes it easier to research the growing number of shooters and to immerse yourself in their mindset, particularly those who left behind agenda-driven manifestos.

2. Demographics: I'm broadly generalizing here, but I'd speculate that most people who went to a school where students kept long guns in the parking lot without incident (as I did, also) went to a school that was predominantly rural and white. The presence of weaponry has always been a more volatile ingredient for more urban and/or more diverse populations. Schools themselves are not successfully integrated in the 21st century, but the changing demographics of America overall mean that the guns at schools are less likely to be hunting rifles locked in a pickup all day. One thing that HASN'T changed, though, is that the overwhelming majority of these shootings are carried out by the same demographic who used to not have any problems leaving their rifles in their cars (by which I mean young white males, regardless of political affiliation).

3. Polarization: The increasingly political nature of all corners of public life mean that 1 & 2 combined are a potent mix.

4. NRA: The NRA's position of the last few decades that no negotiation is permissible, period, has moved the window of conversation to a point where the solution to guns is *always* more guns. The more that violence is acknowledged as a (if not THE) viable path to ending violence, the more violence itself is normalized. (I think, @Chucktshoes, that you've acknowledged the same phenomenon with respect to the stance on negotiating gun controls, although you definitely see it from the other side of the fence.)

5. Complacency: As a corollary to number 4, the more shootings that occur, the more shootings will occur. If we aren't going to do anything as a society to prevent them, they will continue.

6. Reduction of overall violent crime: as the overall violent crime rate has gone down, the more any one of these events is an outlier relative to the national averages. In conjunction with several of the items above, that means there's a constant push to 'outdo' previous events to continue to make an impact on a culture that is largely de-sensitized to body counts that don't break new ground. It's the gamification of murder, in a way (which is not the same as implying that games are responsible for murder).

Those are just some thoughts off the cuff. The number of guns may very well be a secondary condition and not the underlying primary disease, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat it.
Click to expand...
Indymisanthrope said:
I agree with this, and would put in a list including (but not limited to) the following. No particular order, although I think they're all intertwined.

1. Internet: Allows for people with fringe ideologies to connect and amplify their ideas in subcultures that reinforce radicalizing beliefs. It also makes it easier to research the growing number of shooters and to immerse yourself in their mindset, particularly those who left behind agenda-driven manifestos.

2. Demographics: I'm broadly generalizing here, but I'd speculate that most people who went to a school where students kept long guns in the parking lot without incident (as I did, also) went to a school that was predominantly rural and white. The presence of weaponry has always been a more volatile ingredient for more urban and/or more diverse populations. Schools themselves are not successfully integrated in the 21st century, but the changing demographics of America overall mean that the guns at schools are less likely to be hunting rifles locked in a pickup all day. One thing that HASN'T changed, though, is that the overwhelming majority of these shootings are carried out by the same demographic who used to not have any problems leaving their rifles in their cars (by which I mean young white males, regardless of political affiliation).

3. Polarization: The increasingly political nature of all corners of public life mean that 1 & 2 combined are a potent mix.

4. NRA: The NRA's position of the last few decades that no negotiation is permissible, period, has moved the window of conversation to a point where the solution to guns is *always* more guns. The more that violence is acknowledged as a (if not THE) viable path to ending violence, the more violence itself is normalized. (I think, @Chucktshoes, that you've acknowledged the same phenomenon with respect to the stance on negotiating gun controls, although you definitely see it from the other side of the fence.)

5. Complacency: As a corollary to number 4, the more shootings that occur, the more shootings will occur. If we aren't going to do anything as a society to prevent them, they will continue.

6. Reduction of overall violent crime: as the overall violent crime rate has gone down, the more any one of these events is an outlier relative to the national averages. In conjunction with several of the items above, that means there's a constant push to 'outdo' previous events to continue to make an impact on a culture that is largely de-sensitized to body counts that don't break new ground. It's the gamification of murder, in a way (which is not the same as implying that games are responsible for murder).

Those are just some thoughts off the cuff. The number of guns may very well be a secondary condition and not the underlying primary disease, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat it.
Click to expand...
I would agree with most of that actually even though I am on the other side of the issue. One glaring exception. The NRA is not no compromise in the least. The joke in the gun community is that NRA stands for “negotiating rights away” because they gave been partybtk and endorsed most major gun control regs with the exception of the 94 AWB.
 
Twentytwo said:
This is a great chart to use when you are looking whether a site has a particular bias. I find this chart to be pretty spot on.

View attachment 14382
Click to expand...
Well look at that, Vox is pretty close to the middle towards the top, while Breitbart and InfoWars are all the way on the bottom at the far right. Tell me again how Vox is the liberal Breitbart, @Chucktshoes.
 
Dtknuckles said:
What other stats do you have issue with in the article?
Click to expand...

The other main points I take issue with are the point where he talks about the guns coming from Indiana to Chicago/NY and he frames it like it’s a perfectly ok thing, but then throws in at the end that it’s already illegal. It’s illegal not just for the person bringing the guns into Chicago/NY, but the person who sold them to the trafficker as well. It’s a very dishonest phrasing.

He does the same thing with the CT crime rate decline and their gun laws. First attributing the decline to the stricter laws, then throwing in at the end in a very minimized fashion how CT’s rate of decline in deaths involving a firearm mirrored national trends.

I do give the author credit in being honest about Australia’s “buyback” being a confiscation and then his openness about wanting the same thing here. A government “buyback” is confiscation, pure and simple. To frame it otherwise is dishonest, and it doesn’t fool anyone who actually understands the issue.

As far as a lot of the stats, it’s easy to find other studies from conversely aligned orgs that counter them. That’s why I focus on where the data comes from. If it comes from an advocacy group like gunpolicy.org, I’ll generally discount it out of hand for bias. Any sufficiently talented researcher/statistician/pollster can make the numbers appear to be whatever they want.

One of my favorite data points involves the very scary “assault weapons” (not a real thing) that everyone loves to go on about banning. More people are killed annually by feet and fists than by rifles of any kind.

Folks’ view on gun control are generally more informed by their presuppositional worldviews than by facts and data of any stripe because there is mountains of data to support both arguments. So these debates are generally pretty pointless.
 
Sonicpharmacist said:
Well look at that, Vox is pretty close to the middle towards the top, while Breitbart and InfoWars are all the way on the bottom at the far right. Tell me again how Vox is the liberal Breitbart, @Chucktshoes.
Click to expand...
This Site lists them as really far left.
2AB95903-C499-4FF4-B762-0A28AF672459.png

It all depends on who makes the lists and what criteria they use.

Vox is straight up left wing and attempting to deny that is just plain silly. You need to look no further than at their founders and executives to see that.
 
Twentytwo said:
Most news today has been editorialized, so that is why it is 90% bullshit. I have no problem with opinions, I get mad at the fact that our president is a pusher of vast conspiracy theories and lots of right wing publications follow suit.
Click to expand...
On the flip side you had Dem politicians and msnbc pushing the Trump-Russian collusion conspiracy theory for over 2 years. They’re all liars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top