ChiGoose

Agreed. We don't have one gun problem, we have many gun problems: suicides, homicides, mass murders, accidents, etc. A law that mitigates one of them likely won't mitigate all of them. 90% of people who survive suicide attempts do not end up dying by suicide. But people who attempt suicide by firearm are far more likely to die than survive because it is an exceedingly lethal method of suicide. Finding ways to reduce the chance that someone in that moment of crisis will have access to a firearm would be a good place to start.

Everyone seems to think there are dials on the resolute desk for things like gas prices. Like, all Jimmy Carter had to do to save his presidency in the 1970's was take the lever marked "economy" and move it from "bad" to "good." The line of argument might be more convincing if the prices in the US were disproportionately high compared to other countries, but they are not. It is also telling that no matter the actual thread topic, it ends up getting derailed into either inflation, the summer of 2020, or Hunter Biden.

Here were some things I suggested several pages ago: License and regulate guns like we do automobiles National red flag laws Repeal PLCCA Safe storage laws Also, I find this article helpful on understanding some of the facts around gun violence and possible ways to mitigate it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html For those who may not have access, here are some highlights (stats are from 2017): America has ~120 guns per 100 people, far more than other advanced countries like Canada (34.7), Switzerland (27.6) or England (4.6) America has 3.4 gun murders per 100,000 people, much more than peer countries like Canada (0.6), France (0.4) or Switzerland (0.2) There is a correlation between the prevalence of guns in a state and the rate of gun deaths. More guns means more gun deaths There is also a correlation between how heavily regulated guns are in a state and the state's gun death rate. States with stricter regulations have lower rates of gun deaths Causes of gun deaths in 2016: 22,000: Suicide 11,760: Homicide 589: Self defense (good guy with a gun scenario) 456: Mass shootings 3,500: Other or uncategorized When Connecticut passed stricter gun laws in 1995, the rate of gun homicides went down by 40% and the rate of gun suicides went down by 15% When Missouri repealed its licensing requirement in 2007, the rate of gun homicides went up 25% and the rate of gun suicides went up 16% The CDC barely studies gun violence despite how many Americans die via guns. When they wanted to, Congress cut their funding. Having good scientific research into firearm deaths would help identify better solutions to the problem. NRA training, which used to focus almost entirely on safety, now promote NRA talking points Some things the author suggests for gun laws: Better background checks (22% of guns are obtained without one) Protection Orders (similar to red flag laws): prevent people who are subject to domestic violence protection orders from having guns Ban purchases for people under 21 Safe storage Tighter enforcement on straw purchases Background checks on ammunition Repeal PLCCA Ban bump stocks (this has been done since the article came out) Research smart guns

To ensure safety, we need to pass a law that the family members of all SCOTUS justices must be fully armed and that their homes have only one door. The assailant here clearly had mental issues that could only be solved if we allowed him to buy more guns.

The Capitol Police are not police?

We need to pass a law that the homes of SCOTUS justices can only have one door to keep them safe from this.

I am a bit confused because when I look at this thread’s title, it seems to be about the Jan 6 insurrection, not the summer of 2020. Either I have that wrong, or people keep bringing up 2020 as a distraction from actually talking about Jan 6…

This is some of the most unhinged nonsense I’ve ever heard in my life. I sincerely hope you are ok and that there is somebody in your life that can help you.

This may come as a surprise to some of the people on this board, but the summer of 2020 and January 6th, 2021 were completely different things experienced by different people in different ways. Comparisons between them are generally just whataboutism crap from people who either don’t understand reality or are acting in bad faith. In any case, roughly 80 officers were injured as they fought off assault for several hours during the January 6th riots. I do not know if you are one of those ACAB people, but personally I do not dismiss the harm that came to the police on that day.

I absolutely believe it, just as the police department and the family of the deceased cops believe it: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna19433 I also have friends who are cops and I think we ask FAR too much of them and put them in bad situations that they may not be able to handle. Jan 6. is no different. Cops are humans. They are not superheroes. They are people trying to do their best at a job that often involves conflict. They were not prepared for the violence on Jan 6 and even those that survived have to deal with trauma. Some of them were unable to do so and took their own lives.

Ashli Babbitt died on the scene, killed by police while while the rioters tried to breach a door. That alone should be enough. There were also a couple of heart attacks and at least one person who died of a stroke. While those may have been underlying conditions, it stands to reason that they may not have died that day had they not been at the scene. Also, more than one police officer died by suicide after experiencing the riot. You cannot handwave Babbit's death away. The heart attack / stroke deaths are debatable. But, I would argue that the riot was the "but-for" cause of the suicides. In any event, people died because of the riots, dozens of police officers were assaulted and the certification of the election was interrupted. It was a stain on our history. However it may have started, it was not a peaceful protest.

@Tiberius You have a golden toilet and bankrupted a bunch of casinos???

They literally breached the Capitol building. Broke into the offices of members of Congress. Interrupted the certification of the election. People died. I get it messes with your worldview, but to handwave this away as basically nothing is irresponsible.

Much of this is completely made up garbage. I'll give you this one. While we can debate how much inflation was created by whom, but Biden is clearly trying to push the blame to Putin, who is responsible for some, but definitely not all, of the inflation. I've seen Republicans claim over and over that the Dems want people to wear masks all of the time forever. This is a garbage straw man claim and when you push them on it, they move the goal posts around by trying to equate their claim to things like masking when there is a spike, or promoting regular vaccines. The whole thing is clearly a disingenuous gambit by hacks. You can have this one too. Moving to electric cars will be a net positive for everyone and we should encourage growth, competition, and development in that market. We literally had slaves. Like for hundreds of years. I'm sure there are some Very Online lefties who make this claim, but is there actually polling or evidence that Democrats as a whole believe we are more racist now than when we literally enslaved people? Or is this just another straw man anecdote pushed by bad faith actors? Absolutely ridiculous claim that can only be believed by people who have so much isolated themselves from reality that they'll believe literally anything that makes them feel good or makes their perceived enemies look bad. Please point to the legislation drafted by the Dems and supported by the party that confiscates all guns. Another garbage take that completely misconstrues the facts. Late term abortions are a hot topic because it sounds really bad until you actually think about it. The claim being made is that someone will carry a baby for 8 months and then suddenly decide they don't want it and get an abortion. This is completely unbelievable to anyone who knows anyone who has been pregnant. When an abortion occurs in the third trimester, it's usually because the baby is wanted but there has been some development that endangers the life of the mother or the baby is no longer viable. In these cases, they probably have a name picked out and a nursery decorated with a crib waiting. Banning abortions in this scenario is to say the government knows better how to handle this than the woman and her doctor. It would seem to me that keeping the government out of this situation would be the small "c" conservative approach, but once again, none of this is about actual policy. It's about putting out bad faith arguments to rile people up. I would critique the GOP platform but... they don't have one. They decided that the GOP line is whatever their God King wants it to be. When the head of the RNSC actually came up with a platform, it was so unpopular that the GOP vocally distanced themselves from it. They have replaced it with... nothing. In reality, the plan is to use bad faith and straw man arguments to rile people up so that they can enact their real goals of transferring wealth from working Americans to their corporate and donor overlords. Which, by the way, is why basically everything they do propose fails a basic root cause analysis (i.e. supply side tax cuts or preventing shootings by having fewer doors).

Don't forget assaulting police officers while waving a Blue Lives Matter flag.

Imagine a world where breaking into the Capitol building and assaulting cops is dismissed as "taking selfies"

Because the crime of seditious conspiracy does not require guns? This isn't hard. They are charged with a specific crime. If you want to know what that means, look up the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 If you want to play media critic and tell people off for how they cover this stuff, go ahead. I'm probably with you on that. But making up some standard that has no basis in the law and then mocking people for not meeting that arbitrary standard is a pretty weak approach to all of this.

Even if that’s what happened, that would not be overturning an election. It would be influencing the voters before the election. Trying to change the results after the election to nullify the voice of the people is a bit different.

Part of the problem with actually charging some of these people is that a lot of the election crimes require mens rea, which is difficult to prove. Evidence that they were asking everyone to work in secret would help with that (why make it secret if you believe it’s legal?) but is by no means dispositive.

Yes, from what I can tell, if they made a material lie, that could constitute fraud and give Musk an out.

It wouldn’t be that hard for him. He could either sell stock or borrow against it. Though he would try to avoid that by claiming Twitter was in breach of the deal. In any case, I believe the billion dollar penalty would be paid to Twitter, not the SEC. Likewise, if Twitter pulls out, they would owe the penalty to Musk.

Did not realize that the Department of Justice was in charge of gas and grocery prices. You learn something every day! Can someone tell Merrick Garland to turn the gas price dial down a bit?

Apparently: https://www.investopedia.com/musk-says-twitter-deal-temporarily-on-hold-5272098

I suppose it’s good that somebody is doing the due diligence since Musk waived that in the deal.