A Deeply Fractured US

[KevinB]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[KevinB]

I get the same in NS.

Apparently it was removed from IG.

 

[Altair]

I’m going with it was an extreme right/maga op to ultimately give the Orange One a type casus belli to escalate the existing political fracture and increase the police/military use in cities. Or it was just a disaffected nutjob.

We know it's going to be one of the usual suspects.

Transgender/LGBTQ activist.

Right winger mad about the Epstein files.

Anarchist nutjob.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am—I think it's worth it.

So, as I wrote: he was explicitly OK with a less-than-zero-defect 2A. That doesn't extend to assuming any of the deaths are "acceptable"; at most the word "tolerated" could be used. A 2A absolutist can still regret every death.

Universal background checks.

Red flag laws.

Sales reporting and registration.

Waiting periods.

All of those are present in at least some jurisdictions of the US. The requirement for licenced dealers to create and retain records is federal. "But the system is patchwork!" is a customary objection. Yes, but that situation in itself provides vital information: it reveals that the jurisdictions with the tightest laws do not necessarily have the safest societies with respect to firearm violence. That means simply passing more laws won't do, and suggests that other causes of violence ought be addressed. Critically, it suggests that laws already on books ought first be sufficiently enforced to determine whether they will ever in fact have the effects intended by their proponents. Otherwise, the calls for more laws are just the bleating of sheep reluctant to solve causes of violence head-on because other evidence suggests they're going to have to up-end their other fucked-up policies.

 

[QV]

So, as I wrote: he was explicitly OK with a less-than-zero-defect 2A. That doesn't extend to assuming any of the deaths are "acceptable"; at most the word "tolerated" could be used. A 2A absolutist can still regret every death.

All of those are present in at least some jurisdictions of the US. The requirement for licenced dealers to create and retain records is federal. "But the system is patchwork!" is a customary objection. Yes, but that situation in itself provides vital information: it reveals that the jurisdictions with the tightest laws do not necessarily have the safest societies with respect to firearm violence. That means simply passing more laws won't do, and suggests that other causes of violence ought be addressed. Critically, it suggests that laws already on books ought first be sufficiently enforced to determine whether they will ever in fact have the effects intended by their proponents. Otherwise, the calls for more laws are just the bleating of sheep reluctant to solve causes of violence head-on because other evidence suggests they're going to have to up-end their other fucked-up policies.

Exactly. And this goes for both sides of the 49th.

 

[Altair]

So, as I wrote: he was explicitly OK with a less-than-zero-defect 2A. That doesn't extend to assuming any of the deaths are "acceptable"; at most the word "tolerated" could be used. A 2A absolutist can still regret every death.

I agree. I think that's the point I was trying to make that is unfortunately being caught up in peoples emotional responses to his death being broadcasted on social media.

He was a 2A absolutist who was willing to pay to the price of deaths to gun violence in order to prevent any restrictions to the 2A. When I said "
Makes me wonder if his view on the second amendment has changed any. Ahh well." the response I expected was, no, probably not. Wasn't expecting the clutching of pearls that occurred but it is what it is.

I didn't like Charlie Kirk. I didn't like his message. I didn't like his stances. I definitely don't condone murder, but in terms of getting worked up about us gun violence, this shooting ranks with the other 47 school shootings in the USA this year. A big ole meh. 1/10 in terms of me caring or being worked up about it. It's the price of doing business in the USA and if the US political class is okay with that butchers bill, I am beyond caring about the results.

All of those are present in at least some jurisdictions of the US. The requirement for licenced dealers to create and retain records is federal. "But the system is patchwork!" is a customary objection. Yes, but that situation in itself provides vital information: it reveals that the jurisdictions with the tightest laws do not necessarily have the safest societies with respect to firearm violence. That means simply passing more laws won't do, and suggests that other causes of violence ought be addressed. Critically, it suggests that laws already on books ought first be sufficiently enforced to determine whether they will ever in fact have the effects intended by their proponents. Otherwise, the calls for more laws are just the bleating of sheep reluctant to solve causes of violence head-on because other evidence suggests they're going to have to up-end their other fucked-up policies.

It's patchwork because there are no federal laws. Laws vary by state, sometimes by county, and it's not like just because someone purchases a gun at a gun show on the spot, they cannot transport that gun across multiple jurisdictions. If there were federal restrictions set in place, a uniformed code that everyone needed to follow, that would go a long way to tackling the problem. The USA is a big boat, with a lot of leaks. Certain places patching their holes does not suddenly mean that the boat has stopped taking on water.

So yes, enforcement is crucial, you're right. But enforcement of the laws as they are written is futile when the next jurisdiction over the rules are as lax as can be. Federal gun laws are needed, federal gun laws will NEVER happen, so thousands will die and I am beyond caring about it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A couple of "safe bets" based on history.

1. The shooter will be a lone wolf without a coherent political agenda other than one specific reason for selecting Kirk (eg. because he was pro-Trump, or pro-Israel).

2. The political right will vent its rage mostly in words and go back to being a bunch of people who simply aren't as physically active as the political left, whether it be peaceable or violent assembly/protest, let alone escalation to assassination. They're mostly normies who have too much invested in reasonably stable lives.

If someone wanted to set the US on fire, they'd target a prominent Democrat to push the violent activist fringe of progressives over the edge.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's patchwork because there are no federal laws. Laws vary by state, sometimes by county, and it's not like just because someone purchases a gun at a gun show on the spot, they cannot transport that gun across multiple jurisdictions. If there were federal restrictions set in place, a uniformed code that everyone needed to follow, that would go a long way to tackling the problem. The USA is a big boat, with a lot of leaks. Certain places patching their holes does not suddenly mean that the boat has stopped taking on water.

So yes, enforcement is crucial, you're right. But enforcement of the laws as they are written is futile when the next jurisdiction over the rules are as lax as can be. Federal gun laws are needed, federal gun laws will NEVER happen, so thousands will die and I am beyond caring about it.

Now you're just hand-waving.

I've been following politically-related US events much more closely than most Canadians for over 20 years. Here is how a tragedy involving firearms generally unfolds:

1. The event.
2. A chorus of calls for laws to prevent such events.
2a. If the shooter is obviously white and male, early speculation about right-wing extremism; otherwise, "motives remain unknown" until the weight of information becomes too absurdly overbearing to pretend otherwise despite efforts by authorities to keep it wrapped.
3. The pro-2A community digs and reveals that the shooter(s) violated all sorts of laws already on the books in the jurisdiction in which they lived and (in some cases) worked, without any fanciful ideas about acquiring and transporting guns. They were too young; they were criminals or under some other legal restraint; they retained and transported weapons in violation of some regulation or other; they purchased weapons and ammunition from licenced dealers and had no priors which would flag them; they had expressed desires which raised alarms among peers, relatives, neighbours, friends, acquaintances. Etc.

There are communities in the US in which firearm ownership is common and the people still practically live in the no-one-locks-their-doors-at-night era.

 

[Altair]

Now you're just hand-waving.

I've been following politically-related US events much more closely than most Canadians for over 20 years. Here is how a tragedy involving firearms generally unfolds:

1. The event.
2. A chorus of calls for laws to prevent such events.
2a. If the shooter is obviously white and male, early speculation about right-wing extremism; otherwise, "motives remain unknown" until the weight of information becomes too absurdly overbearing to pretend otherwise despite efforts by authorities to keep it wrapped.
3. The pro-2A community digs and reveals that the shooter(s) violated all sorts of laws already on the books in the jurisdiction in which they lived and (in some cases) worked, without any fanciful ideas about acquiring and transporting guns. They were too young; they were criminals or under some other legal restraint; they retained and transported weapons in violation of some regulation or other; they purchased weapons and ammunition from licenced dealers and had no priors which would flag them; they had expressed desires which raised alarms among peers, relatives, neighbours, friends, acquaintances. Etc.

There are communities in the US in which firearm ownership is common and the people still practically live in the no-one-locks-their-doors-at-night era.

There are safe communities, sure.

But I don't pick out the outliers.

The leading cause of death amongst children and teens in the USA is firearm related. The only western country which this is the case. Other countries, accidents, car crashes. USA, guns.

So I don't buy the entire "its not the guns, it's the people" argument because every country on earth has people. Every country in the west has people. And Americans aren't special. Everyone is dealing with mental health, gangs, violence video games, violent movies, political polarization, but only in the USA is this rate of gun violence an issue.

And it's because other countries put in federal legislation to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

The only handwaving I see is from those who continue to talk about everything wrong with the individuals who do these acts but don't look at the tool used to do the acts with. And that's a choice Americans have made, Americans are willing to pay that price and I respect their decision.

 

[QV]

A couple of "safe bets" based on history.

1. The shooter will be a lone wolf without a coherent political agenda other than one specific reason for selecting Kirk (eg. because he was pro-Trump, or pro-Israel).

2. The political right will vent its rage mostly in words and go back to being a bunch of people who simply aren't as physically active as the political left, whether it be peaceable or violent assembly/protest, let alone escalation to assassination. They're mostly normies who have too much invested in reasonably stable lives.

If someone wanted to set the US on fire, they'd target a prominent Democrat to push the violent activist fringe of progressives over the edge.

You are probably correct. Past events demonstrate this to be true such as George Floyd vs Iryna Zarutska.

Though I wonder how far away a line exists that the political right can be pushed over.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Sadly, given the current climate any fantastical explanation could actually be possible…

5 years ago, I would’ve been extremely skeptical that it was potentially a foreign operation. Having recently watched a documentary on how much time/money/effort Putin has spent on sowing division thru spooling up all sides of the political spectrum in the west, I am now at least willing to consider it as a plausibility. Admittedly, most of these efforts to date have been social media based, but I think it’s too early to rule out the possibility, though it may not be as likely as some of the other examples people are suggesting.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The leading cause of death amongst children and teens in the USA is firearm related. The only western country which this is the case. Other countries, accidents, car crashes. USA, guns.

Reported data and analyses are not uniformly in agreement, and conclusions depend on where the threshold is set between "child" and "adult". For under-18s, vehicle deaths in at least some years outnumber firearm deaths. And the massive disparity between whites and blacks, especially in any counts in the age range 15 to 20 (some anti-gun advocates set the child/adult bar much higher than it should be to cook their results), should prompt a reasonably well-informed observer to understand that gang violence is a major driver of homicides. Outlaw gangs do not respect laws by definition, and firearm control laws will do almost nothing in that milieu.

A rational person looks for the keys in the area where they are known to be. But about the time it dawns on anti-gun activists that education and family structure and urban decay and under-employment are among the roots that have to be addressed, whether to reduce homicides or suicides, they adopt that blank "these go to 11" look and repeat their talking points about more laws. That's deeply ignorantly callous because truly addressing the roots would help to prevent the other-than-firearm suicides and homicides also.

So I don't buy the entire "its not the guns, it's the people" argument because every country on earth has people. Every country in the west has people. And Americans aren't special. Everyone is dealing with mental health, gangs, violence video games, violent movies, political polarization, but only in the USA is this rate of gun violence an issue.

Most countries don't have some state and municipal governments that have decided the solution to too many people in prisons is to simply not put them there, whether by deliberate policy (discretion) or simply by the expedient of under-funding.

 

[Remius]

Though I wonder how far away a line exists that the political right can be pushed over.

Elections that don’t go their way seems to be a line.

The fringe of the right has enough recent history of non peaceful protest to show they can take extreme actions.

Not to mention extend things like assassinations, house burning, attempted kidnappings and hammer attacks.

This isn’t limited to one side.

We don’t even know the motivation and both sides are already calling each other out…

 

[Altair]

Reported data and analyses are not uniformly in agreement, and conclusions depend on where the threshold is set between "child" and "adult". For under-18s, vehicle deaths in at least some years outnumber firearm deaths. And the massive disparity between whites and blacks, especially in any counts in the age range 15 to 20 (some anti-gun advocates set the child/adult bar much higher than it should be to cook their results), should prompt a reasonably well-informed observer to understand that gang violence is a major driver of homicides. Outlaw gangs do not respect laws by definition, and firearm control laws will do almost nothing in that milieu.

Highlighted are where other countries have similar issue without the results that the USA is seeing.

Am I saying these don't play a part? Of course I wouldn't say that. What I am saying is that its no coincidence that in the country with the most liberal gun laws in the western world we are seeing the highest rates of deaths to firearms in the western world. All things being equal, that's the one outlier. Not the gangs, not the racial disparity, other countries have similar issues. I think in the UK they have very similar numbers in terms of racial disparity and gang affiliation, but that shows up in stabbings, which are more survivable and don't tend to have as many victims as gun violence.

So yes, crime will crime, but the USA has a say in how it happens, and they are saying that they are willing to tolerate this level of gun violence, again, all things being equal, highest in the western world, so long as it doesn't infringe on their 2A rights. And...well, fair. That is their choice to make. But choices have consequences and yesterday we saw one of them.

A rational person looks for the keys in the area where they are known to be. But about the time it dawns on anti-gun activists that education and family structure and urban decay and under-employment are among the roots that have to be addressed, whether to reduce homicides or suicides, they adopt that blank "these go to 11" look and repeat their talking points about more laws. That's deeply ignorantly callous because truly addressing the roots would help to prevent the other-than-firearm suicides and homicides also.

Anti gun. I know you're talking about a broad swath of people, groups and organizations. But I'll ask this. What, in what I have suggested, would you consider to be anti gun?

Red flag laws?

Waiting periods?

Universal background checks?

Which one of these is anti gun?

As for root causes, sure. Granted. But you're never, ever, going to be able to get every person, whether they are mentally ill, or in poverty, or whatever, from wanting to do harm. What you can do is restrict those who want to do harm while trying to address the root causes. And sure, there will still be those who slip through both of those approaches, but I doubt, I sincerely doubt that the USA would be having on average one school shooting every 3-4 days with more robust regulations and laws on the books.

Most countries don't have some state and municipal governments that have decided the solution to too many people in prisons is to simply not put them there, whether by deliberate policy (discretion) or simply by the expedient of under-funding.

American isn't some special magic unicorn. We in Canada have been having the same discussion when surrounding bail reform, and how prisons are full due to under funding.

The common denominator is easy access to guns, and until that is addressed, gun violence, political or otherwise, will continue to be a sad reality for Americans. Or put another way, a happy reality for Americans because the 2A is standing strong.

 

[Brad Sallows]

All things being equal, that's the one outlier. Not the gangs, not the racial disparity, other countries have similar issues.

Which other western countries have urban gang violence on the scale of the US? Which other western countries still have racial tensions on the scale of the US?

You are simply making assertions about things unknown because they have been untested (just as I am, but I'm asserting that because we don't know and because there are a lot of obvious other causes there is no point jumping straight to the conclusion "more laws"). I stipulate that more controls will have some non-zero useful effect, but if the effect is small and much greater gains can be obtained elsewhere, it is foolish not to go fishing where the fish are. And as long as the causes of violence and disorder are unaddressed, there isn't much point asking Americans to give up a little bit of something that at least gives many of them the reassurance that they can secure themselves if they put their minds to it. People who want the 2A right to be more tightly constrained have to first demonstrate that they can govern really well.

What, in what I have suggested, would you consider to be anti gun?

Red flag laws?
Waiting periods?
Universal background checks?

All of those. Ultimately any policy curtailing firearm ownership could be construed as "anti-gun", and is definitively "anti-gun" if the motivation of the person proposing the measure is really to gradually eliminate firearm ownership entirely rather than to promote public safety. (Intent matters absolutely.)

But since most pro-2A advocates support some measures, mainly limiting ownership to people without criminal records involving violence or court-imposed restrictions owing to histories of violent behaviour, the simple answer is of no particular use. What happens in the US is that often the people proposing restrictions have clearly declared themselves to be in pursuit of gradual elimination, and the prudent response of the collective pro-2A lobby is "no concessions, then". They won't submit to being nibbled to death by ducks.

As for root causes, sure. Granted. But you're never, ever, going to be able to get every person, whether they are mentally ill, or in poverty, or whatever, from wanting to do harm.

Of course a reasonable person would not argue that unless perfection can be obtained, nothing should be attempted.

Alleviate the suggested root causes. Enforce the existing laws in the jurisdictions that have them. Analyze outcomes and reinforce the initiatives that produce the most useful results. That's my view. I suspect the people in charge fear what the outcomes would reveal about governance in the places where firearm violence is worst.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Hillary did it.

 

[OldSolduer]

Prediction:

The alleged shooter will not be taken alive or if he is he will die shortly thereafter.

There will be an inquiry of sorts.

Nothing will get solved.

 

[QV]

There are reports the rifle and some rounds were located, the rounds had trans and anti-fascist markings on them. Shocker.

Ammo Found Near Charlie Kirk Assassination Scene Engraved with Transgender, Antifascist Writing: Law Enforcement Memo | National Review

The FBI released a photo of the suspect and asked the public for help with identifying the individual.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Altair]

Which other western countries have urban gang violence on the scale of the US? Which other western countries still have racial tensions on the scale of the US?

You are simply making assertions about things unknown because they have been untested (just as I am, but I'm asserting that because we don't know and because there are a lot of obvious other causes there is no point jumping straight to the conclusion "more laws"). I stipulate that more controls will have some non-zero useful effect, but if the effect is small and much greater gains can be obtained elsewhere, it is foolish not to go fishing where the fish are. And as long as the causes of violence and disorder are unaddressed, there isn't much point asking Americans to give up a little bit of something that at least gives many of them the reassurance that they can secure themselves if they put their minds to it. People who want the 2A right to be more tightly constrained have to first demonstrate that they can govern really well.

France, the UK, parts of Canada.

The deaths in these countries are not at the level of the USA for reasons I'm sure you can guess by now.
As for what the Americans are willing to do, we have seen it. Shooting happens. Emotional outbursts from both sides of the isle. A week passes, nothing is done. Nothing regarding root causes as you, in my opinion anyways, continue to opine about, and nothing in regards to common sense gun controls.

Time passes and the same thing happens again and again, and we all become more numb to it. School shootings used to be a very big thing, but since they are happening on average 2-3 times a week, nobody cares*. Not unless there is a high body count, or a celebrity gets shot. And eventually we will all be numb to that as well.

All of those. Ultimately any policy curtailing firearm ownership could be construed as "anti-gun", and is definitively "anti-gun" if the motivation of the person proposing the measure is really to gradually eliminate firearm ownership entirely rather than to promote public safety. (Intent matters absolutely.)

But since most pro-2A advocates support some measures, mainly limiting ownership to people without criminal records involving violence or court-imposed restrictions owing to histories of violent behaviour, the simple answer is of no particular use. What happens in the US is that often the people proposing restrictions have clearly declared themselves to be in pursuit of gradual elimination, and the prudent response of the collective pro-2A lobby is "no concessions, then". They won't submit to being nibbled to death by ducks.

Noted. Any form of responsible gun laws is in your view anti gun. Despite probably 99 percent of people being able to own guns as per normal, even this is unacceptable.

Of course a reasonable person would not argue that unless perfection can be obtained, nothing should be attempted.

Alleviate the suggested root causes. Enforce the existing laws in the jurisdictions that have them. Analyze outcomes and reinforce the initiatives that produce the most useful results. That's my view. I suspect the people in charge fear what the outcomes would reveal about governance in the places where firearm violence is worst.

America is the perfect example of the worse of both worlds, and until Americans start electing people who will change the status quo, they are complicit in what is happening.

Dems get into office, cannot pass gun laws. GOP gets into office, guts health care and mental health programs.

A pox on all their houses. I feel bad for the kids. Everyone else...

*Unless people can point to where they have been talking about the 47 other school shootings this year alone, I will continue to assert that nobody cares.

 

[Altair]

There are reports the rifle and some rounds were located, the rounds had trans and anti-fascist markings on them. Shocker.

Ammo Found Near Charlie Kirk Assassination Scene Engraved with Transgender, Antifascist Writing: Law Enforcement Memo | National Review

The FBI released a photo of the suspect and asked the public for help with identifying the individual.

www.nationalreview.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966169557669974504

Doesn't look like your typical trans activist. Home of the brave shirt? I dunno...