Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Eric the Green]

(05-28-2018, 08:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-24-2018, 11:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Gun control works; that is clear from any perusal of the facts. As has been well publicized, the assault weapons "prohibition" reduced mass shootings by 37%. I never understood why it wasn't a permanent ban. But when it ended, mass shootings went up 200%. Stats have been posted here and elsewhere for a long time that prove my "facts." Just like climate science deniers, gun advocates refuse to look at facts. It is clear that, just as you call it, you have a "values lock" on this issue. As the students point out, you and other gun advocates are not addressing the real cause of the problem: the easy availability and increased technological danger of guns and the refusal of lawmakers to act, partly due to the power of a criminal organization. This is not absurd, but the real fact that any criminal or gang member in the USA can get one by fair means or foul, because there are so many around even in blue states, and so many red states right next door. Bob prefers to ignore this fact and claim that it is I that is ignoring facts.

I'd like to say a little about values lock.  There was a time when lead additives were common in gasoline and the environment, and these happen to be violent times.  Some have said lead is a mind altering pollutant that contributed to the violence.  The blue mind pattern credits the assault weapons ban on the reduction in violence.  The red credit the concealed carry laws which were becoming common at the time.

It seems to me that when the assault weapons (military rifles in civilian society) ban was in effect, mass shootings declined, and when the ban was lifted, they rose precipitously. Since conceal carry laws, iirc, have been gaining ground continuously, the correlation would not be established between reduction in mass shootings and conceal carry laws.

Quote:Values Lock in part reflects an understanding of how the world works.  Is there a inhibition against violence which was reduced by lead additives?  Does prohibition work?  Is it best that the good guys are better armed, trained and ready to deal with violence than the bad guys?  The weapons issue is complex.  I just chose three of many issues which are involved.  The common use of drugs potentially effecting active shooters is another.

Values lock will have an individual so obsessed with one aspect of an issue that he doesn't weigh in or understand others.  I find your presentations present the blue values well and strongly, not so much the many other values and perspectives, many of which are important.

Today's red values, as I experience them, do not correspond with anything that I consider valuable, nor with the real world as I know it. Republicans used to serve a purpose in cautioning against excesses in liberal values, and had values worth considering. Today, they have grown so extreme that they would only be worth considering again within the context of blue values. Today, the only alternative is to defeat the red values. This is our 4T cold-civil war situation. Perhaps after a red defeat, a new consensus will be established with a range of worthwhile values and opinions. Now, to say the red and blue values are both worth considering, is just like saying slavery should be valued, or almost like saying Nazism should be valued.

Quote:I for one think attention deficit order is a disease, might blame the disease rather than the attempted cure, but would not dismiss the problem out of hand.  People are different.  Not everyone thrives in the particular environment of the schools.  Bullies following the main line are apt to handle roughly many that are ill suited for that environment.  I was a victim of the bullies.  I would try to find their victims another place, and am dubious about drugging them into pseudo compliance with a demanding society.  I would also have the school adults inhibit more actively the bullies, whose intent is often to harm others.

And this perspective should not go away just because it aligns with others.  Because one way of looking at a problem might be considered valid by some, it does not necessarily disqualify others.  Active shooters are a problem.  Prohibition is not the only and obviously correct solution.

That is what I mean be values lock, an obsession on one perspective that leads to an automatic rejection of others.  It reflects alignment with one perspective so tight that it renders one incapable of accepting others.

I don't reject attempts to deal with mental illness or bullying. I have been bullied as well, at many stages of my life; including by some posters here such as terror marie, kinser and vandal, and by various authority figures in my life. We can all benefit with an increase in consideration for others, and remedies to heal the dis-ease that afflicts human beings too often. Regarding gun control, it is better if we recognize the fact that the gun industry and culture are the main contributor to the problem of gun violence, since all countries have mental health issues, crime issues, etc., but the USA has an outsized gun problem. So this issue can't be deflected by attributing it to other causes. That said, no doubt there are other causes, and we'd be a less violent society if we dealt with them as well. Blue states have less violence, overall, and that's because they are willing to deal with all its causes.