General US Politics

[Nobody]

I don't understand this either; why would this be a political topic? Why isn't this left to the pregnant woman and possibly her partner?

where are you from, that abortion isn't a political matter? And I ask this as someone who is 100% pro choice

Edited August 13, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[CyborgZeta]

What would you say guns contribute to the American society?

My right to own firearms and use them to defend myself and my property; particularly since I'm out in the country, and the local police cannot respond quickly enough. If someone or something breaks into my house, I'm legally allowed to make them regret it.

In addition to reasons like those, some people use guns to hunt. Others use them for sport, or recreational shooting. That's just part of having freedoms.

I'm sure we could get into a circular discussion on other aspects of the right own guns, so we'll leave it at that.

I feel that guns that fire one round at the squeeze of a trigger should not be banned, however the military grade ones should not be civilian hands because those were made to kill scores.

You are kind of contradicting yourself here. You say semi-automatic firearms should not be banned...and then say they should be banned.

If you're definition of a military grade firearm is something like an AR-15 or an AK, then those are only semi-automatic. Fully automatic firearms became prohibited in 1986, so to get one, you'd have to buy one that was made before that; and those are very rare and expensive. You also have to jump through a fair bit of hoops to own one.

You might say "The issue with rifles like the AR-15 are the high-capacity magazines", but I personally don't agree that getting rid of them would solve anything. Very few of those magazines are registered, and banning them won't keep them out of the hands of a criminal. Reloading can also be a very quick and simple action, so 10 or 30 rounds won't make a huge difference either way.

[-Cynthia-]

The thing about gun control is that there are many different degrees to it- restricting the types of guns that are legal, restricting the people who can buy guns (more extensive background checks, not buyable for anyone on the no-fly list), restricting how people can buy guns (closing the gun show/online loophole). In terms of American politics, arguing against whether guns should be banned or not is a bit of a strawman because very few to no American politicians are looking to completely ban guns.

[Moblin Major General]

Even though I consider myself liberal, the right to defend yourself shouldn't be limited by what Washington or any state capitol tells you. As much as I want to live away from where I am now, I would rather live in a place where I can have a green and orange colored combat weapon without being judged. However, my preferred weapon would be a Model 1911, with some sort of older military rifle, all the way out to an M1A. Also, as far as cities go, the less restrictions on guns, the less crime there will be.

[Crysta]

The states with heavy gun restrictions are worked around by runners who get them from states with little gun restriction (usually the South and private buyers). They're pretty ineffective.

But in cities with heavy gang violence, where everyone has a gun for protection because everyone else has a gun too, is a good case against the argument that more guns means less crime lol. I suspect in that environment people shoot first and ask questions later. The Right likes to insist this means heavy gun restrictions are what lead to higher crime rates; no it's because everyone is capable of shooting each other.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Crysta

[-Cynthia-]

A number of cities with the highest gun crime rate have the strictest gun laws- but some of them also have weak gun laws so there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation either way. Stricter gun laws do seem to work better on the state level- though all the data is correlational of course and thus could be subject to other factors. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

[CyborgZeta]

The states with heavy gun restrictions are worked around by runners who get them from states with little gun restriction (usually the South and private buyers). They're pretty ineffective.

It is a federal felony to sell a firearm to someone who is not a resident of your state. It is also against the law for someone in California to buy a gun out of state and bring it back to California.

[Crysta]

You are assuming that a) all private sellers ask the person and care about the law when they're not likely to be caught and b) gun runners are upstanding citizens who give a fuck.

They're aware it's against the law. It's also against the law to shoot someone.

This may shed some light on the issue.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Crysta

[CyborgZeta]

Exactly. Criminals will always find a way to circumvent the law and acquire guns.

[Crysta]

Yeah, and more guns doesn't = less crime.

[CyborgZeta]

Never said it did.

[Crysta]

Okay.

I guess you skimmed over the part where I said the current gun control laws are ineffective and that's why you brought up the law?

[CyborgZeta]

It's ineffective because criminals will always find a way to get access to guns.

I don't think increased gun control will work, but that doesn't mean I'm advocating for more guns either.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

yeah, we should find ways to combat people that break the laws, not make the law more restrictive to the people that do listen to them, as criminal's don't care if its illegal to rob, vandalize, and assault.

[Tryhard]

Well, like 92% of Americans polled agree about universal background checks as far as I know, but every time it is proposed it always gets smacked down by Republicans and the Democrats are too meek to actually accuse them of not following the will of the people when they repeatedly blow off legislation.

I'm not going to get into the wider issue of gun control, but something like that should be a done deal on a federal level already since most Americans agree that it should be a thing.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

Well, like 92% of Americans polled agree about universal background checks as far as I know, but every time it is proposed it always gets smacked down by Republicans and the Democrats are too meek to actually accuse them of not following the will of the people when they repeatedly blow off legislation.

I'm not going to get into the wider issue of gun control, but something like that should be a done deal on a federal level already since most Americans agree that it should be a thing.

I don't blame you for avoiding gun control, even though your country at least had the balls to fully implement it without significant issues. Also, you don't seem to realize that the NRA probably funds the Republican Party, so any legislation that even thinks about curtailing even a dangerous aspect of gun ownership will automatically go down the shitter because the NRA wills it.

[Tryhard]

I don't blame you for avoiding gun control, even though your country at least had the balls to fully implement it without significant issues. Also, you don't seem to realize that the NRA probably funds the Republican Party, so any legislation that even thinks about curtailing even a dangerous aspect of gun ownership will automatically go down the shitter because the NRA wills it.

I don't like to discuss it because it's been the subject of many arguments here that just seem to go around in the same circles and it's not like I expect anything to really happen. Guns are pretty ingrained in American culture, wasn't so much in British. Of course I have an opinion on it, that it's anecdotally worked quite well here and other countries and I think it would heavily reduce the number of gun-related deaths in the US, but that's what I think. I'm not sure if the NRA has anything to do with it, but it may be the case.

It's just surprising that even the most approved idea could be overruled. Perhaps it is not actually as high as 92% but it is very likely to be the vast majority. Maybe people don't care so much about the outcome, but when your political opponents are against such a popular policy, you should be railing them over and over again in the media that they don't support the people in this case. Democrats pretty much dropped it as far as I know when they were opposed.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Tryhard

[CyborgZeta]

The link you posted says opposition to universal background checks is primarily because it would require checks even for a private transfer between individuals. So, someone gifting their firearm to a friend or family member, would require the recipient to go through a background check.

The idea is also to close the "gun show loophole", which is basically just non-FFL holding (private) citizens looking for a place to sell their firearms; and is technically not a loophole, since the law says private sellers are not required to perform background checks. Some states, however, already require universal background checks.

Interestingly, there was a poll done when a gun control bill failed in Congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/

It appears like polls asking people about specific ideas gets wide support, but when they actually try to pass legislation for gun control, the usual partisan split happens.

[eclipse]

What would you say guns contribute to the American society?

I don't understand this either; why would this be a political topic? Why isn't this left to the pregnant woman and possibly her partner?

(yes I'm quoting this again)

If you want an answer from the guy you asked, you'll have to a bit under five days.

[Thane]

Why would child abuse be a political topic? Why wouldn't it be left to the mother and possibly her partner?*

*I don't actually believe fetus are children. This is just devil's advocating.

This might sound crude, but child abuse implies there actually is a child to abuse.

From what I've heard about pro-life people, as they're called over there, it almost sounds as if they talk about people having abortions left and right because it's fun. It's a serious thing for everyone, and the overwhelming majority take decisions such as those very seriously. Prohibiting and limiting choices seems really strange to me, and very un-American, if I may say so, seeing as personal freedom is a very big thing there.

My right to own firearms and use them to defend myself and my property; particularly since I'm out in the country, and the local police cannot respond quickly enough. If someone or something breaks into my house, I'm legally allowed to make them regret it.

In addition to reasons like those, some people use guns to hunt. Others use them for sport, or recreational shooting. That's just part of having freedoms.

I'm sure we could get into a circular discussion on other aspects of the right own guns, so we'll leave it at that.

So you'd shoot someone who entered your house, just like that? What if they had guns and shot you first? This oversaturation of guns in America seems to lead to an incredible paranoia.

I'm not saying that to be mean or try to belittle the U.S while praising my own country, I'm just so genuinely confused by this topic. What's your opinion on the gun laws in European countries?

Of course, when I talked about guns, I primarily meant handguns or the heavier stuff people want to defend themselves with, not sports or hunting rifles - that exists pretty much everywhere in the Western world.

Normally, this is where I'd tell you to read backwards, BUT it's a mess back there, so I'll try to remember what I posted earlier. Also, my cursor keeps changing colors.

America is big. Like, really big. Imagine living in a place where the nearest town is half an hour away, and your neighbors are fifteen minutes from you. Now let's say that something big and dark shows up on your property. You'll want to be able to take care of it yourself, especially if "big and dark" turns out to be something like a bear/coyote/other animal that is a danger to livestock or humans.

Second, some people hunt. Sometimes, it's because the government asked them to (boar hunts, since they're considered pests). Sometimes, it's for fun. And sometimes, it's cheaper to get meat that way. Deer is plentiful here, and edible.

There's also the usual gun debate things, but eh.

One reason is so that people don't have to cross state lines to get an abortion. I wouldn't be surprised if some states outright banned abortion if it wasn't under federal jurisdiction.

Ah, of course, like I mentioned above, I mostly talked about the guns that people buy to "protect themselves with" and not ones just used for hunting or sport. I apologize for not being clear about that.

So why are conservatives the ones wanting to ban abortion if they're against things that affect the personal freedoms of others? Is it for religious reasons?

I really appreciate all the answers to my questions. I can only imagine how strange I must sound, but I come from a vastly different country politically, and I really like hearing arguments I'd never hear at home.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Thane

[eclipse]

Ah, of course, like I mentioned above, I mostly talked about the guns that people buy to "protect themselves with" and not ones just used for hunting or sport. I apologize for not being clear about that.

So why are conservatives the ones wanting to ban abortion if they're against things that affect the personal freedoms of others? Is it for religious reasons?

I really appreciate all the answers to my questions. I can only imagine how strange I must sound, but I come from a vastly different country politically, and I really like hearing arguments I'd never hear at home.

If you're in the middle of nowhere, having a gun to chase away big animals counts as protection. Might not be the same as protecting yourself from people who wish to do you harm, but it's still a valid reason.

Yep, religious. One of the Republican pandering points is the Christian right.

[CyborgZeta]

So you'd shoot someone who entered your house, just like that? What if they had guns and shot you first? This oversaturation of guns in America seems to lead to an incredible paranoia.

I'm not saying that to be mean or try to belittle the U.S while praising my own country, I'm just so genuinely confused by this topic. What's your opinion on the gun laws in European countries?

Of course, when I talked about guns, I primarily meant handguns or the heavier stuff people want to defend themselves with, not sports or hunting rifles - that exists pretty much everywhere in the Western world.

If they're armed, yes, I would not hesitate to shoot someone who's broken into my house and threatens my family. If they're unarmed, then what happens depends on them. If an intruder somehow shot me first, then there's nothing I can do about that, but my family is armed so someone is bound to get them. Either way, I'm on the second floor, so no one is likely to ever get the drop on me. I also keep my Glock next to my bed, so I can grab it quickly in an emergency.

I don't live in Europe, but I think countries like Switzerland and the Czech Republic have decent gun laws; the Czech Republic even accepts the use of firearms for self-defense. If I were to live in Europe, the Czech Republic probably sounds like the best place for me to be if I wanted to enjoy similar gun rights.

What type of gun is used for home or self-defense depends on whatever the person feels comfortable with. Although for self-defense, handguns are pretty much your only real option, due to being easily concealed. In some states, like my own, you are legally allowed to open carry anything (pistol, shotgun, rifle, whatever), but the average person isn't going to use anything but a handgun for self-defense. I'm considering getting a CCW permit myself in the future, but I'm not sure yet. Most people who conceal carry use compact or subcompact pistols or revolvers, but I prefer full-size pistols due to them fitting better in my hands; full-size doesn't lend itself as well to being concealed.

[Alertcircuit]

As far as gun control goes, I think everyone considered a non-suspicious person should be entitled to own a handgun, for concealed carry or for self defense at home. When it comes to automatic rifles, I'm way less defensive because I'm not entirely sure I see the practical use there. I mean it sounds like people want to have them in case a "revolution" happens, but in a world with missiles, tanks, and drones, I don't think you can form a Minutemen militia like you could back then. There's hunting, so maybe there can be exceptions for that, I don't know.

[Balcerzak]

This might sound crude, but child abuse implies there actually is a child to abuse.

From what I've heard about pro-life people, as they're called over there, it almost sounds as if they talk about people having abortions left and right because it's fun. It's a serious thing for everyone, and the overwhelming majority take decisions such as those very seriously. Prohibiting and limiting choices seems really strange to me, and very un-American, if I may say so, seeing as personal freedom is a very big thing there.

There a dozens of laws on the books allowing prosecutors to charge people suspected of murdering a pregnant woman for murdering the baby as well (provided it dies of course).

Additionally, miscarriage is a hugely traumatic thing for many couples. I know marriages that have broken up over the aftermath. Try telling a mother who just had a miscarriage they didn't just lose their child.

Frequency of abortion occurrence is not relevant towards its moral justness. Should we not have laws that cover rare crimes, simple because they're rare?

NB: Still mostly devil's advocating, fwiw.

[Phoenix Wright]

Let's go.

1) I believe in the 2nd Ammendment and believe that only proper policing will cut down fire-arm related murders. Sure, there are things that need to be cleaned up but there is no reason to eliminate guns from American society.

background checks? psych exams? not everyone can drive a car; there are things you gotta do first. because they're dangerous. and the democrats obviously do not believe in revoking the 2nd amendment.

2. I have issues with the way abortion laws are right now. As in, the second that there is a heartbeat going, it does become infanticide. Ben Carson is miles and away better than I am at explaining it.

I do not, however, believe that abortion should be entirely illegal because abortions would still happen but in much more unsafe conditions. But Obama's promise of abortion being "safe, legal and rare" turned into "safe, legal and commonplace".

source?

this says otherwise at least. also, statistics are hard to come by because reporting isn't mandatory.

3. I believe in the power of the free market (I'd love to see more laissez-faire markets) as opposed to the government controlling everything. It's more of a liberal attitude to conservative values.

laissez-faire markets are pretty much demonstrably bad. workers are always exploited, even to the point of death. the government does not control everything lol

4. I have serious issues with the left's moral superiority which always ends up being hypocritical at best. Any time Israel comes up in American politics (and we're not talking about presidential bids).

That's a good starter.

i don't think this is a fair point, nor a political one. but ok

Edited August 14, 2016 by Phoenix Wright