Augie RayThe kind of person who trusts a child with a firearm but not a book is the kind of person who shouldn't be elected to any office.
RevJeber@augieray
Or be allowed to have children.
Computeforloot 
@augieray no one with half a fucking brain and a child of any age, leaves a loaded weapon outside of a gun safe 🤬
Aaron@Computeforloot @augieray I don't leave a loaded gun outside of my safe, and I DON'T have any children. If I am not carrying my gun, it is in my safe. I live alone and do it. Why is it so hard for families with children?
Ben Evans@Computeforloot @atomic @augieray
Is it that unsafe in America that you need a gun next to your bed?
@atomic @Benevans @Computeforloot Interesting, since both the odds and the stakes indicate that having a weapon in the home only increases risks of death. This isn't really about actual risks or stakes but about perceived risks and stakes (but gun owners all think they are immune from these risks.)
@augieray @Benevans @Computeforloot "We detected much larger differences for particular types of homicide. Most notably, people living with handgun owners were seven times more likely to be shot by their spouse or intimate partner."
It is things like this that are completely non persuasive. I support reasonable gun control, ERPOs, background checks, licensing, etc. No law will prevent the deaths that occurred in that study. Regular murder will never go away.
Mandatory training can help prevent accidental deaths, safe storage laws can help prevent children from getting their hands on guns. Better mental health care and universal healthcarw can help mitigate suicides. But you cannot stop all gun deaths.
I am not interested in making America perfectly safe, just safer. There are always risks. I choose to accept those risks to allow the right to self defense, which I believe is fundamental to a free society.
@atomic @Benevans @Computeforloot We agree more than we disagree. No one is claiming we can stop all gun deaths. But, the fact we can't shouldn't stop us from trying.
As for that study, I find it hard to understand how it's unpersuasive. Spouses and intimate partners can kill each other any number of ways--every house has plenty of knives, right?--but the presence of a handgun raises the risk 7x.
You do you. But if we made better decisions based on available data, we'd all be safer.
@augieray @Benevans @Computeforloot By unpersuasive, I mean what exactly does knowing that do? You can't outlaw all guns. One, the constitution protects them, and two there are more guns than people in this nation. They are never going away. So we should focus on the things we can improve. Random spousal murder is not one of those things. Because I guarantee that those people probably bought those guns legally, passing every background check. There is no law that can prevent that kind of murder.
We already make it illegal for people convicted of domestic abuse to own guns. ERPOs can help prevent murders before a conviction. But beyond that, there isn't a law that can stop it.
What we really should do is step up the enforcement of restraining orders. Cops regularly do nothing when they are violated.
@atomic @Benevans @Computeforloot Thank for explaining what you mean by unpersuasive. I think people can use data in numerous ways--it can impact their personal decisions, or how people vote, or how political leaders legislate. I'd think that data might encourage people to avoid firearms in their homes or encourage them to a great deal more security in how they are stored. (Leaving a loaded weapon out at night feels like an unsafe decision, but that's a personal decision, I guess.)
@atomic @augieray @Benevans we have that mandatory safety training here in California and carry a card which you need to renew every 5 years, without which we can’t buy guns or ammo - we also have all of the laws which are being discussed federally, even more than those…we even have background checks to buy ammunition
@atomic @Computeforloot @augieray
What does that mean?
@Benevans @Computeforloot @augieray It isn't about the chances of someone breaking in, but the potential consequences of a break in. It isn't about the chances of getting mugged, but the potential consequences of a mugging.
You know the saying, I would rather have it and not need it, rather than need it and not have it.
@atomic @Benevans @Computeforloot A gun could turn a theft where you hand over your phone to a criminal into a shootout that could leave one or both of you (or bystanders) dead. Feels like it raises the stakes, not decreases them. I think of the case a few years ago where a guy yelled at some kids for their loud music at a gas station. He felt safe doing so because he had a gun in his car. He thought one of them flashed a gun, so he pulled his & shot. No gun was found. The gun raised the stakes.
@augieray @Benevans @Computeforloot No him being an idiot raised the stakes. I long ago decided that if I was going to carry a gun, it was my responsibility to do everything in my power to ensure I never had to use it. I don't provoke fights. If someone cuts me off while driving, I back off. If someone wants my parking spot, I give it to them. If someone mugged me and wanted my wallet or phone, I give it to them. I let people go ahead if me in line.
I don't go to bad areas of town. I keep my eyes open and try to be aware of who is around me. I don't wear earbuds and listen to music when I am carrying my gun.
I am the one with the gun, therefore I have a responsibility to make sure that it is never used. I have it for the worst case acenerio, not so I can be some macho man or a vigilante.
Frankly, I'm not sure what makes me carrying a gun any different than a cop carrying a gun. I have just as much training, if not more.
@atomic @Computeforloot @augieray
So why do the stakes change when his grandkids are staying over?
@Benevans @Computeforloot @augieray They don't, they get even higher. Imagine the stakes if his grandchildren get ahold of the gun. I imagine he can get to his safe quickly enough if something happens and he needs it. It is better to have that small delay than to have a tragedy.
Gwladys Pendlebury@Benevans @Computeforloot @atomic @augieray This is an important issue the US isn’t willing to address. Suicide rates are highest in wealthy countries and US is the highest. Fatal police shootings are higher in the US. US is an outlier in firearm deaths. Women and children experience the most violence and they aren’t the gun holders. When looking at the larger systemic issues, gun reform is really more of diversion than a solution.
@GwladysPendlebury @Benevans @Computeforloot @atomic I agree except with your last sentence. Why wouldn't gun reform be PART of a solution rather than a diversion? Last I noticed, every nation had mental illness, violent movies and video games, and the same issues as the US. Isn't the difference the guns in the US? Or do you really think the US is so unique from other Western nations that Americans would kill each other in high numbers regardless of the assault weapons? (I don't.)
@augieray @GwladysPendlebury @Benevans @Computeforloot I do think the US has a couple key differences that do contribute to gun violence that is not entirely related to guns. This stems back to jim crow and the redlining practices of that time. They created the culture of the poor inner city black ghetto. The right love to point out that black people contribute to so much crime, but that is because of historical systemic racism. This creates a tension that may not exist in other countries such as australia or japan. Even if they had guns, they likely wouldn't have the gang violence issue we have.
Also, the income inequality we have combined with a lack of proper social safety nets just further pushes people into poverty. Creating hopelessness. This combined with a lack of proper mental Healthcare increases gun violence and suicide.
@atomic @augieray @GwladysPendlebury @Computeforloot
Those countries also don't have anything like the US second amendment.
Switzerland has almost as many guns per person as the US but zero gun violence.
Australia and UK are countries that have successfully all but eliminated gun crime, what have they done differently to the US?
@Benevans @augieray @GwladysPendlebury @Computeforloot those societies are almost monolithic in racial makeup. They also don't have the deep history of systemic institutional racism that we have. The racial tensions we have are just not present in Switzerland.
Another thing is they don't have is a war on drugs in the same way we do. Because of historical redlining creating poor inner city black ghettos, you find a lot of drug use there. Especially because it is the primary fundng source for gang activity. This causes further institutional racism in the form of racist policing and disproportionate enforcement. Further increasing the racial tensions.
It is basically a snowball effect.
@atomic @Benevans @GwladysPendlebury @Computeforloot
UK's always had strict gun laws. And Australia passed strict gun reform after one mass shooting. That's how they impacted gun violence. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/
Calling Australia or the UK "monolithic" in racial makeup is absolutely false.
What can Australia's reaction to a mass shooting teach us about guns and gun control?
In 1996, after 35 people were killed in a mass shooting, the Australian government enacted strict gun control laws, including a ban on semi-automatic weapons and a gun buyback program. In the past 26 years, there has been one mass shooting in the country.
@augieray @Benevans @GwladysPendlebury @Computeforloot The UK is 82% white. Australia is 85.4% white. Switzerland is 78.8% white.
These numbers are as of 2019.
The US however is only 57% white. With the black popation being 14.2% as of 2020.
America is a vastly more diverse nation than either the UK or Australia. I also said almost monolithic, not totally monolithic.
@augieray @atomic @Benevans @Computeforloot The UK ‘always’ had strict gun laws is my point. The differences in why US came to be as it is are innumerable and unique to the US. The 2nd A is because of the Revolutionary War, westward expansion, militarization, the US being in constant war for its entirety, individualism, world power, colonization, massive privatization… there are innumerable conditions that make us very different.
@Benevans @atomic @augieray @Computeforloot Right, US constitution is a large party of the problem. Are you familiar with our 13th? "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." We have the worlds largest incarceration rate,…minority, racially profiled incarceration rate.
@GwladysPendlebury @Benevans @augieray @Computeforloot that is another contributer to gun violence I didn't think of. Our prisons are basically criminal incubators. Small time offenders get incarcerated and are forced to join gangs to survive. Then when they get out, they are hardened criminals. Our prisons are the opposite of rehabilitation.
@Computeforloot @Benevans @atomic @augieray I think you hit the nail on the head in calling it the billion dollar question. In some part, not wholly of course, there's a trillion dollar answer - the US relationship, proximity and involvement in South Americas drug and gun trade. US largest military, US has largest gun manufacturer that signed a contract with its military. Very different than Australia.
@atomic @GwladysPendlebury @Benevans @Computeforloot If you think the US is the only nation struggling with nationalism and racism, I think you need to read more. Nationalism is rising in Europe, and violence against immigrants and ethnic minorities is common. It's just less deadly because--you got it--fewer guns. (I'm an American living in Europe, so I know what I'm talking about.)
https://www.statista.com/topics/3911/racism-and-prejudice-in-europe/#topicOverview
@augieray @GwladysPendlebury @Benevans @Computeforloot I'm not at all saying those problems don't exist in Europe or elsewhere. They are just more intense in the US. That is also why I picked Japan and Australia as my example countries.
Carlos Guerreiro@augieray @atomic @GwladysPendlebury @Benevans @Computeforloot
Need to second that. My life and family are spread between Finland, Portugal and Spain. This is how things are going:
FI - Xenophobic eurosceptic nationalists are the second largest party in a near tie between the largest 3 after recent elections. With plenty of youth support. They main join the government (again) now.
PT - Populist extreme right nationalists have grown over the last few years to be the 3rd largest party and may join a government in the foreseeable future. Their leader is inviting Bolsonaro and Salvini for a far-right summit in Lisbon in May
ES - Far right conservatives are the 3rd largest party and may join the center right in government already this year. They have a lot of support among young adults, particularly male.
These societies are for sure more liberal and tolerant than they were 20 years ago, but there's a build up of support for the far right which has entered the mainstream with various flavours of nastiness.
Need to second that. My life and family are spread between Finland, Portugal and Spain. This is how things are going:
FI - Xenophobic eurosceptic nationalists are the second largest party in a near tie between the largest 3 after recent elections. With plenty of youth support. They main join the government (again) now.
PT - Populist extreme right nationalists have grown over the last few years to be the 3rd largest party and may join a government in the foreseeable future. Their leader is inviting Bolsonaro and Salvini for a far-right summit in Lisbon in May
ES - Far right conservatives are the 3rd largest party and may join the center right in government already this year. They have a lot of support among young adults, particularly male.
These societies are for sure more liberal and tolerant than they were 20 years ago, but there's a build up of support for the far right which has entered the mainstream with various flavours of nastiness.
@carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Benevans @Computeforloot Why is it that fascism is on the rise everywhere? When did it become suddenly acceptable? I mean, after WW2 we were pretty much united against it. Will it take another world war to defeat it again?
@atomic @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Benevans @Computeforloot
Portugal and Spain were ruled by fascists for decades until the mid 1970s. It definitely did not go away after WWII.
Portugal and Spain were ruled by fascists for decades until the mid 1970s. It definitely did not go away after WWII.
@carlos @augieray @Benevans @Computeforloot @atomic Exactly, and it isn't gun laws which are driving nationalism and fascism the US or Europe. There are other issues at play, in large part economic insecurity and inequality and the US which is arguably a large part a contributor to this problem is busy bickering over issues it won't resolve and hasn't resolved for 50 years as things get worse.
@GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Benevans @Computeforloot @atomic
I think economic anxiety and growing inequality are key factors in all 3 countries.
Also, some of the nastiness never really went away. License to show it openly has been reduced over the last decades. Now there's a push to make room for it again, and that effort is cross-national.
I think economic anxiety and growing inequality are key factors in all 3 countries.
Also, some of the nastiness never really went away. License to show it openly has been reduced over the last decades. Now there's a push to make room for it again, and that effort is cross-national.
@carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Computeforloot @atomic
If you step back, you realise the same few people are funding the far right in both the US and the UK.
Probably also in many EU countries, although I haven't looked into that.
Not sure what conclusion to draw, other than it is dangerous for democratic countries to allow some people to get rich enough that they can destabilise democracy.
@Benevans @carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Computeforloot I agree. The consolidation of news media under a few large for profit corporations is absolutely a threat to democracy. Money ruins journalistic integrity. It is a massive conflict of interest.
I'm not sure how we solve that problem however. Platforms like mastodon are a start. But I don't think it is enough to fix it
@atomic @carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Computeforloot
Insisting that news programmes tell the truth would be a start.
@Benevans @carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Computeforloot But who determines what the truth is? So much of what the news does nowadays is editorializing. It is all opinion based. Who determines who's opinions are the truth?
I agree, we can probably outlaw outright lying for news organizations, but there are so many ways to spin something while still technically saying the truth.
And then there are large implications for freedom of speech of we start regulating the 4th estate.
@atomic @Benevans @carlos @augieray @Computeforloot It's a real mess. Our schools are starting to include curriculum to help students spot fake news. How do you realistically do that when our politicians and authority figures lie to us. Fox is the most popular news. Public ed encourage students to use MSM as a primary reference for research rather libraries or peer reviewed academic journals.
@atomic @carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Computeforloot
Let's start at the beginning.
Was Trump's inauguration crowd "the largest ever"?
No it wasn't. It's not my opinion.
The right see lying without consequence as a power move. That's part of the problems. The Russians have a single word for it. I'm lying and I know you know I'm lying, but I don't care.
Trump's supporters see his lies as a sign of power. It's not that they don't care, they actively want it.
@atomic @carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Computeforloot
It's similar over here with Boris Johnson. His lying and hypocrisy is seen as strength or cleverness by his supporters.
Pointing out that he's a lying hypocrite makes him more popular with his supporters.
His problem now is that everything he said in parliament was recorded and he is being investigated for lying to parliament.
His popularity will disappear as soon as he's punished for lying. Hopefully very soon.
@atomic @carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Computeforloot
It's also a problem now that johnsons policies, or lack of them are having an impact.
His shitty deal with the EU wiped 4% off UK GDP. The EU didn't cave on to our demands as Johnson said they would and now we're fucked.
He insisted he would build 40 new hospitals, now he says that he's built them, but they don't exist and everyone can see they don't exist.
He's just a lying shitbag and 90% of UK hates him.
@atomic @carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray @Computeforloot
Johnson's excuse for lying about lockdown parties was that no-one told him he was breaking the law. A law he signed.
His excuse for lying about his brexit deal was that he didn't think the EU would implement it.
As soon as his shitty policies actually started impacting people, they realised he was just full of shit.
Best scenario in US IMO is that trump runs a 3rd campaign and they both get humiliated.
@Benevans @atomic @carlos @augieray @Computeforloot I hope so. That there were so many people with COVID on their death beds still against vaccines and calling it a lie worries me. On the other hand, conservative states have started a push back in the voting booths on the abortion issue. Of course that’s also radicalizing the politicians. I hope we come to our senses.
@Benevans @atomic @carlos @GwladysPendlebury @augieray great discussion folks - I have followed you all!!! Great group, excellent range of opinions
@Benevans @atomic @carlos @augieray @Computeforloot I don’t know about UK, but in the US there’s a tendency among conservatives to say they believe in law, but skirting the law is considered smart, lying or exaggeration is ‘smart business’. What you are saying is absolutely true and it ties into this worldview. They know it’s untrue, but it’s getting them what they want (or what they think they want).
@GwladysPendlebury @atomic @carlos @augieray @Computeforloot
Their power is that they get away with it.
If trump is the republican candidate the he won't do any debates, or interviews except with fox. Because he doesn't want to be challenged. His policies will be insane, but they'll be rationalised by a compliant media.
If he gets in, you will never be able to vote for another president. He will install himself as dictator like Putin did in Russia and like trump tried to do last time.
@Benevans @GwladysPendlebury @atomic @carlos @augieray I honest don’t think the idiot will get the Repub nomination 🤞🏻
@Benevans @GwladysPendlebury @carlos @augieray @Computeforloot The only thing we can do is to encourage everyone we can to go out and vote blue down the entire ticket.