Republicans: continued

[Cunt]

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

[JimC]

We should examine who is responsible for more deaths with their 'gun rights'

Individuals, or governments?

OK, let's try a nuanced answer. Clearly, in some ways, the individual who pulls the trigger is responsible. If it was illegal (as opposed to real self-defence, a justified police shooting, or legal military actions), then the individual will face the consequences of his actions (if caught, of course...)

But we move beyond that, to see if government policy in a given nation plays a role, in a statistical sense. Very clearly, gun deaths in the US are an anomaly in comparison with any comparable western countries. State and federal governments set the laws which control how easily available guns are, and the type of guns that can be obtained. Historically, the US has a culture where the possession of firearms is a real and tangible element, whether for personal reasons, or the weird concept of defence against tyranny by militias. Faced with a plague of gun deaths, including mass shootings made easy by the ready availability of military-style semi-automatic rifles and hand guns, few governments in the US have been willing or able to do more than enact token, ineffective legislation to bring gun violence down to a moderate level. Hence, a significant level of responsibility rests with governments as well as individuals.

[Cunt]

Well, I think governments are responsible for FAR more deaths than individuals. No matter how nuanced you want to be.

Governments should be required to get checked out first. Make sure they haven't just gone through a bad break-up, or lost their jobs. Make sure they don't have any history of mental illness supports. THEN they can be allowed to have guns.

[Hermit]

Well, I think governments are responsible for FAR more deaths than individuals. No matter how nuanced you want to be.

Governments should be required to get checked out first. Make sure they haven't just gone through a bad break-up, or lost their jobs. Make sure they don't have any history of mental illness supports. THEN they can be allowed to have guns.

We elect governments...

[Joe]

Well, I think governments are responsible for FAR more deaths than individuals. No matter how nuanced you want to be.

Governments should be required to get checked out first. Make sure they haven't just gone through a bad break-up, or lost their jobs. Make sure they don't have any history of mental illness supports. THEN they can be allowed to have guns.

We elect governments...

And since governments are made up of individual people...

[Brian Peacock]

Well, I think governments are responsible for FAR more deaths than individuals. No matter how nuanced you want to be.

Governments should be required to get checked out first. Make sure they haven't just gone through a bad break-up, or lost their jobs. Make sure they don't have any history of mental illness supports. THEN they can be allowed to have guns.

Yes, governments do all sorts of things that harm people, sometimes fatally. Governments devise policies, mandate laws, exercise authority, and even act negligently on occasion, in such ways as to have a detrimental effect on the well-being of individuals, communities, and society as a whole. For example: governments might authorise military action, which is predicated on institutionalised forms of harm visited on combatants, and often civilians, on both sides of a conflict; governments and the systems they enforce may deny people access to justice for harms caused to them; they may deny people healthcare based on arbitrary rules which would otherwise alleviate suffering; they may deprive people of their livelihoods and homes by enforcing property and contract laws they themselves have devised, forcing people into crippling debt which may itself be criminalising; they might incarcerate, torture or even execute innocent people or remove children from their parents based on hearsay or unsupported assumptions about the character, morals, or competence of certain groups of people, or in order to adhere to some ideological or religious doctrine; they might allow corporations to pollute the environment or subsidise commercial activity to the same effect; they might allow employers to operate unsafe or unhealthy workplaces; they might strictly enforce the rights of some people while at the same time neglect or derogate obligations to secure and uphold the rights of others; they may mandate by statute or facilitate by deregulation practices which promote unhealthy food standards, waste management, air or water quality, housing or transport provision; they may even institute systems which favour a tiny minority of citizens at the expense (both literally and figuratively) of everybody else. This list goes on. A government may do any or all of these harms to society and to individuals in the full knowledge that they have the authority to do so as well the means, by dint of having a monopoly on the use of violence. In fact, one might argue that where such things as these do cause harms to people, communities, and/or society at large then the government is directly responsible for committing acts of violence against their own citizens - whether that's the result of incompetence, ignorance, or by design.

My question to you is: where such harms occur, do you think the solution is less government, no government, or better government?

[Hermit]

My question to you is: where such things occur, do you think the solution less government, no government, or better government?

And whatever the proposed solution, isn't it determined by individuals at polling booths in democratic countries and the USA?

[pErvinalia]

Not all freedum is good...!

[Tero]

It's racist to ban assault weapons cause Graham needs one to protect his house from...antifa?
https://mobile.twitter.com/FoxNews/stat ... 7294039044

It's also racist to make it easy to vote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/politico/sta ... 7901957124

985334E8-BB99-4124-B43B-6DE37EF1DE72.jpeg (90.87 KiB) Viewed 1466 times

[Tero]

more

"I own an AR-15. If there's a natural disaster in South Carolina where the cops can't protect my neighborhood, my house will be the last one that the gang will come to because I can defend myself."
OK, so Graham justifies owning an AR-15 -- the same style of weapon used in the Sandy Hook School shooting in 2012, the Pulse Nightclub shooting in 2016 and the Las Vegas shooting in 2017 -- because, and stick with me here, there could be a natural disaster in South Carolina that would occasion the breakdown of civil society and the only way he could keep away the roving gangs that would undoubtedly crop up (???) is with his AR-15.
If this seems outlandish to you -- or, maybe more accurately, like the plot of some "Purge"-like movie -- that's because, well, it is.
(Sidebar: Graham's imagery of gangs coming to try to take what's his more than dabbles in racial stereotyping, and is even reminiscent of some of former President Donald Trump's rhetoric in the 2016 race.)
Graham's fantasy of defending himself and his property from lawless gangs is of a piece of the broader scare tactics that groups like the National Rifle Association have perfected over the years to keep Republican members of Congress from supporting measures with broad public support -- like increased background checks.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/29/politics ... index.html

The South is still the South
Democrat Jaime Harrison challenged Graham in the 2020 Senate election.[58] The race was unexpectedly competitive, with many polls in the last few months of the race showing it as very close. Harrison also had record fundraising numbers. Despite this, Graham defeated Harrison by over ten percentage points, 54.4% to 44.2%, in the November 3 general election.

[Cunt]

Well, I think governments are responsible for FAR more deaths than individuals. No matter how nuanced you want to be.

Governments should be required to get checked out first. Make sure they haven't just gone through a bad break-up, or lost their jobs. Make sure they don't have any history of mental illness supports. THEN they can be allowed to have guns.

Yes, governments do all sorts of things that harm people, sometimes fatally. Governments devise policies, mandate laws, exercise authority, and even act negligently on occasion, in such ways as to have a detrimental effect on the well-being of individuals, communities, and society as a whole. For example: governments might authorise military action, which is predicated on institutionalised forms of harm visited on combatants, and often civilians, on both sides of a conflict; governments and the systems they enforce may deny people access to justice for harms caused to them; they may deny people healthcare based on arbitrary rules which would otherwise alleviate suffering; they may deprive people of their livelihoods and homes by enforcing property and contract laws they themselves have devised, forcing people into crippling debt which may itself be criminalising; they might incarcerate, torture or even execute innocent people or remove children from their parents based on hearsay or unsupported assumptions about the character, morals, or competence of certain groups of people, or in order to adhere to some ideological or religious doctrine; they might allow corporations to pollute the environment or subsidise commercial activity to the same effect; they might allow employers to operate unsafe or unhealthy workplaces; they might strictly enforce the rights of some people while at the same time neglect or derogate obligations to secure and uphold the rights of others; they may mandate by statute or facilitate by deregulation practices which promote unhealthy food standards, waste management, air or water quality, housing or transport provision; they may even institute systems which favour a tiny minority of citizens at the expense (both literally and figuratively) of everybody else. This list goes on. A government may do any or all of these harms to society and to individuals in the full knowledge that they have the authority to do so as well the means, by dint of having a monopoly on the use of violence. In fact, one might argue that where such things as these do cause harms to people, communities, and/or society at large then the government is directly responsible for committing acts of violence against their own citizens - whether that's the result of incompetence, ignorance, or by design.

My question to you is: where such harms occur, do you think the solution is less government, no government, or better government?

Government should be with consent. Mostly, it ends up looking like wealthy elite hiding behind well-oiled guns (such as Washington after the capitol threats) while trying to insist that individuals should not have well-oiled guns.

Lots of people prefer the authoritarian approach though. It's popular among those who don't trust individuals with deadly force.

since governments are made up of individual people...

[Brian Peacock]

Well, I think governments are responsible for FAR more deaths than individuals. No matter how nuanced you want to be.

Governments should be required to get checked out first. Make sure they haven't just gone through a bad break-up, or lost their jobs. Make sure they don't have any history of mental illness supports. THEN they can be allowed to have guns.

Yes, governments do all sorts of things that harm people, sometimes fatally. Governments devise policies, mandate laws, exercise authority, and even act negligently on occasion, in such ways as to have a detrimental effect on the well-being of individuals, communities, and society as a whole. For example: governments might authorise military action, which is predicated on institutionalised forms of harm visited on combatants, and often civilians, on both sides of a conflict; governments and the systems they enforce may deny people access to justice for harms caused to them; they may deny people healthcare based on arbitrary rules which would otherwise alleviate suffering; they may deprive people of their livelihoods and homes by enforcing property and contract laws they themselves have devised, forcing people into crippling debt which may itself be criminalising; they might incarcerate, torture or even execute innocent people or remove children from their parents based on hearsay or unsupported assumptions about the character, morals, or competence of certain groups of people, or in order to adhere to some ideological or religious doctrine; they might allow corporations to pollute the environment or subsidise commercial activity to the same effect; they might allow employers to operate unsafe or unhealthy workplaces; they might strictly enforce the rights of some people while at the same time neglect or derogate obligations to secure and uphold the rights of others; they may mandate by statute or facilitate by deregulation practices which promote unhealthy food standards, waste management, air or water quality, housing or transport provision; they may even institute systems which favour a tiny minority of citizens at the expense (both literally and figuratively) of everybody else. This list goes on. A government may do any or all of these harms to society and to individuals in the full knowledge that they have the authority to do so as well the means, by dint of having a monopoly on the use of violence. In fact, one might argue that where such things as these do cause harms to people, communities, and/or society at large then the government is directly responsible for committing acts of violence against their own citizens - whether that's the result of incompetence, ignorance, or by design.

My question to you is: where such harms occur, do you think the solution is less government, no government, or better government?

Government should be with consent. Mostly, it ends up looking like wealthy elite hiding behind well-oiled guns (such as Washington after the capitol threats) while trying to insist that individuals should not have well-oiled guns.

That's a nice, tidy point. Care to answer the question now?

[Cunt]

The solution is no government that isn't 'by consent'.

It isn't a neat answer, but the question is pretty broad. I doubt you could answer any cleaner, when considering whether Brussels or Sanikiluaq should govern a given issue.

[Joe]

The solution is no government that isn't 'by consent'.

It isn't a neat answer, but the question is pretty broad. I doubt you could answer any cleaner, when considering whether Brussels or Sanikiluaq should govern a given issue.

Well, governments deriving their power from the consent of the governed is one of the truths the US Declaration of Independence listed as self evident, but what does that look like in practice?

Our government does a lot of things that we aren't explicitly asked to consent to, but we don't rebel, withhold our taxes, or even vote the bums out. Is that passive acceptance considered consent?

[JimC]

The solution is no government that isn't 'by consent'.

It isn't a neat answer, but the question is pretty broad. I doubt you could answer any cleaner, when considering whether Brussels or Sanikiluaq should govern a given issue.

In practice, how does "by consent" work?

Clearly it doesn't work at all in military dictatorships, and only marginally in various authoritarian governments where voting is a complete sham. But in most western-style democracies, there can be a change of government via the ballot box; the outgoing government can be said to have lost the people's consent (as happened to Trump).

Otherwise, if you take "by consent" to be approval by the populace (or at least most of it) of all government policies and decisions, then a workable solution in large, modern societies has yet to be found...