Another Mass Shooting: It's Those Darn Video Games!

[psych]

Voters, especially GQP, voters are the problem. If there were fewer idiots in Florida, Ron Desantis would be lucky to have an AM radio overnight show on the weekend conspiracy talk show circuit. If there were fewer idiots in Texas, Ted Cruz would be selling used cars. If there were fewer Nazis and other flavors of fascists in Wyoming we could go back to hating Liz Cheney for her shockingly cruel and backward voting record instead of viewing her as some sort of savior of democracy.

As for the bill being discussed by the Senate, it might pass, or, as Swangsong notes, it might not. Hopefully it does. But the real problem I see with it is it is like having a horribly dislikable coach for your college football team who finds a way to never be worse than 7-5, but will never be 11-1 and play in a New Year's Day bowl game. If this bill passes, it gives fodder to the Biden-esque notion that republicans are honest brokers and takes a lot of wind out of the sails of voters who might possibly be moved enough in places like Texas or Florida to actually vote the right way for once. While we can't let any improvements -- no matter how miniscule they may be -- fall by the wayside, I fear in the long term it does more harm than good. You never want to root against your team, but sometimes 2-10 is better in the long run than 7-5.

You’re the guy we can count on for saying our democracy is on the precipice of collapsing, and you’re saying let’s risk collapsing a few more times before we bounce back down the road?
Hovey’s argument that Democrats back-slap too much when they pass anything of marginal value with the odds stacked against them is apparently only applicable to me. And I’m not even back-slapping, while Swansong isn’t a lifelong Democrat. I don’t think it should be that way. Those suburban people in Texas and elsewhere are more worried about inflation than any cultural issue. Take the potential small win now, and then if we somehow miraculously have an opportunity to expand it in the future, do so then. I feel like taking the incremental wins toward our ultimate goals is Kepler’s vision? We’re negotiating with fucking terrorists on one of the things they claim to hold nearest and dearest.

 

[SJHovey]

Voters, especially GQP, voters are the problem. If there were fewer idiots in Florida, Ron Desantis would be lucky to have an AM radio overnight show on the weekend conspiracy talk show circuit. If there were fewer idiots in Texas, Ted Cruz would be selling used cars. If there were fewer Nazis and other flavors of fascists in Wyoming we could go back to hating Liz Cheney for her shockingly cruel and backward voting record instead of viewing her as some sort of savior of democracy.

As for the bill being discussed by the Senate, it might pass, or, as Swangsong notes, it might not. Hopefully it does. But the real problem I see with it is it is like having a horribly dislikable coach for your college football team who finds a way to never be worse than 7-5, but will never be 11-1 and play in a New Year's Day bowl game. If this bill passes, it gives fodder to the Biden-esque notion that republicans are honest brokers and takes a lot of wind out of the sails of voters who might possibly be moved enough in places like Texas or Florida to actually vote the right way for once. While we can't let any improvements -- no matter how miniscule they may be -- fall by the wayside, I fear in the long term it does more harm than good. You never want to root against your team, but sometimes 2-10 is better in the long run than 7-5.

The blueprint for fighting guns in this country has been laid before us, and anyone who wants to take up the charge and use it will likely achieve a sizable level of success. Maybe it'll be a group like the survivor groups from previous school shootings. Maybe it'll be another group.

Think about it. You have something (guns) that arguably have some level of constitutional protection, while at the same time you have a sizable portion of our country that questions the viability (pun intended) of that constitutional protection and want to do away with a person's "right" to do certain things.

Hmmmm. I wonder where I've seen something like that before, since say 1973 or so? Can't put my finger on it.

You attack it at the local/state level. That's where it's easiest to get laws passed, not Congress. You don't need all states doing it, just a handful of states. Even one. What is wrong with California or NY or any other solidly blue state? Keep passing laws that press the boundaries of what may or may not be "constitutional." You lose a case in the courts, don't give up. Keep pushing the boundaries and taking the case to the courts. The makeup of courts change. Decisions will too. And more like minded states will take up your cause.

Stop whining and just do it if you want it done. If Mississippi can do it to you on abortion, I see no reason why California can't do it right back. It isn't going to happen tomorrow. It may not happen in your lifetime. But it can happen.

 

[psych]

You realize those laws are being, or have already been, passed in those states, right? Can you at least acknowledge that? There’s a reason Massachusetts has a lower gun death date than Texas. Or New York. Or California. Your snark about California’s strict gun laws not stopping a California shooter last year aside, their stronger laws work. Not as strong as a gun ban, but they work.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

You’re the guy we can count on for saying our democracy is on the precipice of collapsing, and you’re saying let’s risk collapsing a few more times before we bounce back down the road?
Hovey’s argument that Democrats back-slap too much when they pass anything of marginal value with the odds stacked against them is apparently only applicable to me. And I’m not even back-slapping, while Swansong isn’t a lifelong Democrat. I don’t think it should be that way. Those suburban people in Texas and elsewhere are more worried about inflation than any cultural issue. Take the potential small win now, and then if we somehow miraculously have an opportunity to expand it in the future, do so then. I feel like taking the incremental wins toward our ultimate goals is Kepler’s vision? We’re negotiating with fucking terrorists on one of the things they claim to hold nearest and dearest.

I said twice in the post you quoted that it should pass, first by noting that hopefully it passes, and again by saying that we can't let anything fall by the wayside no matter how small the improvement. Yes I think democracy here is on the precipice of collapsing, but I am not saying that I WANT it to. I literally said what I believe the outcome to a watered down bill might be. Again, I don't want that to happen. I always HOPED Brian Kelly would win a championship at Notre Dame even while believing it was NEVER going to happen.

 

[psych]

I said twice in the post you quoted that it should pass, first by noting that hopefully it passes, and again by saying that we can't let anything fall by the wayside no matter how small the improvement. Yes I think democracy here is on the precipice of collapsing, but I am not saying that I WANT it to. I literally said what I believe the outcome to a watered down bill might be. Again, I don't want that to happen. I always HOPED Brian Kelly would win a championship at Notre Dame even while believing it was NEVER going to happen.

You also said you fear this bill will do more harm than good, and listed one of the reasons as people considering voting Democrat in the midterms or for POTUS may stick with the GOP or not vote at all, based on the potential of this bill passing. I disagree with both of those premises. That all said, there’s a long way to go between the framework of a bill and the actual passage of a bill. We’re both in agreement on that.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Cramer sounds like our resident cons

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1536773840839360518?s=21&t=xUrG-GQxqgLy9ee8EhoiuA

 

[SJHovey]

You realize those laws are being, or have already been, passed in those states, right? Can you at least acknowledge that? There’s a reason Massachusetts has a lower gun death date than Texas. Or New York. Or California. Your snark about California’s strict gun laws not stopping a California shooter last year aside, their stronger laws work. Not as strong as a gun ban, but they work.

Great. Solve your state's problems first and stop trying to figure out how to solve some other state's problems. I have no intention of living in Texas. I don't even have any plans to visit. If they want to have a state that is dangerous, with crappy roads, terrible schools and poor water, they can live there.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

Great. Solve your state's problems first and stop trying to figure out how to solve some other state's problems. I have no intention of living in Texas. I don't even have any plans to visit. If they want to have a state that is dangerous, with crappy roads, terrible schools and poor water, they can live there.

Ah yes, the time-tested conservative viewpoint of "I've got mine, fuck everyone else."

I get that Republicans pretend to love state's rights when it suits their narrative, but what happened to "one nation, under God"?

Children and those voters who can't afford to move to another state will be glad to know you don't give a shit about them. But, alas, they just need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

You also said you fear this bill will do more harm than good, and listed one of the reasons as people considering voting Democrat in the midterms or for POTUS may stick with the GOP or not vote at all, based on the potential of this bill passing. I disagree with both of those premises. That all said, there’s a long way to go between the framework of a bill and the actual passage of a bill. We’re both in agreement on that.

To be clear I stated I fear it would do more harm than good, for the reasons I stated. But I'm wrong a lot and maybe instead it will do no harm and not enough good, or no harm and measurable good. We'll see if it passes, and then we will see. Admittedly I spout things in absolutely absolutist terms most of the time, a clear flaw of mine.

 

[psych]

Great. Solve your state's problems first and stop trying to figure out how to solve some other state's problems. I have no intention of living in Texas. I don't even have any plans to visit. If they want to have a state that is dangerous, with crappy roads, terrible schools and poor water, they can live there.

Careful, you’re starting to sound like Sicatoka with your “states’ rights” spiel. I’ll accept this paragraph as your tacit acknowledgment that the states who have enacted gun reform, and continue to do so, are seeing better results than the ones that don’t. So your whole “Quit whining and do something about it” is again, well, disingenuous. If your argument is somehow “Get it done at the federal level”, well, I’ll wait for you to untwist yourself before we continue.

 

[psych]

To be clear I stated I fear it would do more harm than good, for the reasons I stated. But I'm wrong a lot and maybe instead it will do no harm and not enough good, or no harm and measurable good. We'll see if it passes, and then we will see. Admittedly I spout things in absolutely absolutist terms most of the time, a clear flaw of mine.

It’s all good in the ‘hood. At the end of the day, we’re on the same side.

 

[SJHovey]

Careful, you’re starting to sound like Sicatoka with your “states’ rights” spiel. I’ll accept this paragraph as your tacit acknowledgment that the states who have enacted gun reform, and continue to do so, are seeing better results than the ones that don’t. So your whole “Quit whining and do something about it” is again, well, disingenuous. If your argument is somehow “Get it done at the federal level”, well, I’ll wait for you to untwist yourself before we continue.

There is nothing disingenuous about it, and it has nothing to do with "states rights" issues. I think you struggle sometimes to read and understand my posts.

It is, and always will be, much simpler to adopt legislative change at a local level. That has to do with whether you are doing it at a township, city, county or state level, as opposed to nationwide at the federal level. For example, many employment law changes start in the state of California, and after years or even decades they make their way across the country in various forms.

Yes, there are states that have adopted stricter gun laws than other states. Has that had an effect? Sure, maybe marginally. But no state has had more mass shootings this year than California, so while on a "per capita" basis they might be better off than some other states, they haven't exactly solved the problem.

But one of my main points was this. Why are they resting on their laurels, patting themselves on the back for having the "strictest" gun control in the US, while 20 mass shootings occur in the first six months of the year in their state?

Andy why are you wasting time at the federal level trying to get real change accomplished? When Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago, did opponents of abortion spend the next 50 years trying to get Congress to abolish abortion? No. That would have been a complete waste of time.

Instead, they got laws passed in places like Texas and Mississippi and other states demanding parental notice, demanding a waiting period, etc... And every time they got another restriction passed, whether it was ultimately upheld or not, they went right back to work and adopted even more restrictions, or different restrictions. Never stopped.

I don't give a rats azz whether California passed gun legislation in 2017 to restrict certain types of guns, or add a waiting period, or raise the eligible age for owning a gun. Unless they were back at it in 2018, 2019, 2020, etc..., they've sat around patting themselves on the back as you guys run around crying "do something."

 

[psych]

There is nothing disingenuous about it, and it has nothing to do with "states rights" issues. I think you struggle sometimes to read and understand my posts.

It is, and always will be, much simpler to adopt legislative change at a local level. That has to do with whether you are doing it at a township, city, county or state level, as opposed to nationwide at the federal level. For example, many employment law changes start in the state of California, and after years or even decades they make their way across the country in various forms.

Yes, there are states that have adopted stricter gun laws than other states. Has that had an effect? Sure, maybe marginally. But no state has had more mass shootings this year than California, so while on a "per capita" basis they might be better off than some other states, they haven't exactly solved the problem.

But one of my main points was this. Why are they resting on their laurels, patting themselves on the back for having the "strictest" gun control in the US, while 20 mass shootings occur in the first six months of the year in their state?

Andy why are you wasting time at the federal level trying to get real change accomplished? When Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago, did opponents of abortion spend the next 50 years trying to get Congress to abolish abortion? No. That would have been a complete waste of time.

Instead, they got laws passed in places like Texas and Mississippi and other states demanding parental notice, demanding a waiting period, etc... And every time they got another restriction passed, whether it was ultimately upheld or not, they went right back to work and adopted even more restrictions, or different restrictions. Never stopped.

I don't give a rats azz whether California passed gun legislation in 2017 to restrict certain types of guns, or add a waiting period, or raise the eligible age for owning a gun. Unless they were back at it in 2018, 2019, 2020, etc..., they've sat around patting themselves on the back as you guys run around crying "do something."

I understand your posts just fine. Your mantra of “back-patting is worse than restricting rights” is never more evident in your post. Or your privilege. Thousands, if not millions, of people living in Texas, Mississippi, etc., may not choose to live there, but can’t afford to move for whatever reason. Waiting for California’s laws, or New York’s laws, or Connecticut’s laws to maybe, just maybe, trickle over won’t work for many of them. And those states are passing laws as efficiently as Republican states. You know this. Federal change takes care of those people, like ACA expansion in states that otherwise wouldn’t have ratified it. You mocked ACA expansion, but it works. Maybe not as well as other types of healthcare or systems, no, but it works. It seems to me that it comes down to you think states should be allowed to choose what’s best for their state without federal intervention (“states’ rights”). If states adopt each other’s rights, great. If not, thank God I have the privilege of not living there (or have the means to move). Yes, yes, I understand your posts just fine.

Edit: To clarify, I recognize states have the ability to opt into the ACA expansion. The incentive was the 90-100% paid for by the federal govt., so not entirely “This is what you must do” from the federal govt., but a nice incentive that works on both ends.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

LOL

California or New York passing stricter gun laws is worthless when all the guns used illegally in their state come from states that have lax gun laws.

But, hey, State's rights. Cause we all know the borders on the States are as tight as the border between Mexico and the US.

 

[unofan]

LOL

California or New York passing stricter gun laws is worthless when all the guns used illegally in their state come from states that have lax gun laws.

But, hey, State's rights. Cause we all know the borders on the States are as tight as the border between Mexico and the US.

The point Hovey is trying to make is that states kept passing anti abortion laws to keep doing away at it. Which he's not wrong about from a technical stand point.

What he's missing is that the court has been majority conservative the entire time and receptive to such arguments, even if they kept things narrow to this point. Doing the same thing from the other side when facing a 6-3 majority against is just asking the court to dig in further and further.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

The point Hovey is trying to make is that states kept passing anti abortion laws to keep doing away at it. Which he's not wrong about from a technical stand point.

What he's missing is that the court has been majority conservative the entire time and receptive to such arguments, even if they kept things narrow to this point. Doing the same thing from the other side when facing a 6-3 majority against is just asking the court to dig in further and further.

Ok. Great argument. Doesn't do anything. Doesn't fix anything. We going to try and do that over the next 50 years like they had to with Abortion while 5 year olds are shot up with AR-15's all over the country? Good plan. Guns are the number one killer of children. If this were a virus at #1 it would be all hands on deck. Instead, we need to follow the State's Rights 50 year plan. Awesome.

 

[psych]

The point Hovey is trying to make is that states kept passing anti abortion laws to keep doing away at it. Which he's not wrong about from a technical stand point.

What he's missing is that the court has been majority conservative the entire time and receptive to such arguments, even if they kept things narrow to this point. Doing the same thing from the other side when facing a 6-3 majority against is just asking the court to dig in further and further.

I’m aware of his point. Your second paragraph will be met with a “quit whining”, or “you have a trifecta in Washington- do something” so I didn’t bother spilling the ink.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Your second paragraph will be met with a “quit whining”, or “you have a trifecta in Washington- do something” so I didn’t bother spilling the ink.

Yeah, that's two of my faves. It's like when Manchin takes over legislation so it can get passed and Susan Collins doesn't even vote for it.

 

[rufus]

. If this were a virus at #1 it would be all hands on deck. Instead, we need to follow the State's Rights 50 year plan. Awesome.

Ummm, no. Have you been asleep the past two years?

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

If this were a virus at #1 it would be all hands on deck.

You're giving RWNJs far too much credit there Scoob. I don't seem to recall them being part of an all hands on deck response to the last virus that was killing more people than anything else in this country.