• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is suggesting policy to address tragedy directly after tragedies happen inappropriate?

?


  • Total voters
    41
Let's say that the tragedy is someone running over multiple folks with a red Ford SUV that Ford has specifically designed to run over multiple people with, and be as lethal as when running over people. Moreover, Ford makes a lot of money selling accessories for the SUV that allows you to run over even more people with it, in as short of time as possible. Ford also spends massive amounts of money on campaigns and lobbying to block any red flag laws that would allow families and the police to petition the courts to have the SUV taken from people that are deemed a danger to themselves or others.

In that case, how long after such a tragedy would it be appropriate to discus policy options to prevent another tragedies from occurring? ;)

OK, but lets say that folks are calling the red Ford SUV a ”SUV style” truck because, to the uneducated, all scary looking vehicles are similar enough in their capabilities to ban them all. ;)
 
Tell me about what realistic policy talk might look like?

I mean that the loud appeals to emotion aren't helpful to a policy discussion.

We aren't going to produce successful policy that obviously conflicts with the 2nd amendment, so for gun control like with abortion you need to challenge the law from as many different directions as possible to find the weaknesses in the court, and then craft policy around that. It's slow and incremental, and it requires patience in the face of tragedy.

When your starting position is "WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!!!" you are not producing good policy.

Doesn't mean the emotions aren't authentic legitimate or real. It's just not what policy is made of.

I also don't see gun control as any sort of solution to the issue in any case. To my eyes, it's more about doing a better job of preparing kids to be adults.
 
Yes. Knee-jerk reaction to serious situation is usually a bad idea ("inappropriate")

There is a natural human instinct to react hastily to a threat or danger. In the jungle, this is essential to survival.

However in Law, we must take a deep breath and use critical thinking to determine the best course of action on important matters.
No one is suggesting passing a law the next day.... suggesting policy is the beginning of the process, not the end of the process.

Wanting to do something about a tragedy is very human and a part of grief. No one is saying that you ACT on day one, but certainly talk about it. Talking about it is a healthy and very human response; suppressing discussion is that opposite.

Suggesting stupid, ineffective, agenda driven policy that has nothing to do with the tragedy is always wrong.
Dismissing discussion of policy, even "stupid ideas" is always wrong, particularly when a tragedy exists (and is repeated, over and over and over again) from a policy that is not working.

Great ideas are often developed from ideas that appear to be "dumb" at first blush. When the existing policy fails to work, it is by definition a stupid policy.
 
I also voted no. When exactly is a good time? We have been talking about this since Sandy Hook in 2012

The GOP has put the NRA above the lives of our children :mad:
Actually since since Columbine at least.
 
Then what can we do?
Impact the supply of weapons. Attempt to provide resources to gun owners that creates a situation where they see that some gun owners are driving the bus that could lead to more stringent gun laws. Try to create a situation where gun owners do more to police their own.
 
I mean that the loud appeals to emotion aren't helpful to a policy discussion.

We aren't going to produce successful policy that obviously conflicts with the 2nd amendment, so for gun control like with abortion you need to challenge the law from as many different directions as possible to find the weaknesses in the court, and then craft policy around that. It's slow and incremental, and it requires patience in the face of tragedy.

When your starting position is "WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!!!" you are not producing good policy.

Doesn't mean the emotions aren't authentic legitimate or real. It's just not what policy is made of.

I also don't see gun control as any sort of solution to the issue in any case. To my eyes, it's more about doing a better job of preparing kids to be adults.
So there are no "realistic" policies from your side.
 
So there are no "realistic" policies from your side.

Well, by all means let's crowd the field with unrealistic ones then.

And I don't recall picking sides. Am I shirts or skins?
 
Yes. Knee-jerk reaction to serious situation is usually a bad idea ("inappropriate")

There is a natural human instinct to react hastily to a threat or danger. In the jungle, this is essential to survival.

However in Law, we must take a deep breath and use critical thinking to determine the best course of action on important matters.

Literal survival is what this discussion is all about. Apparently life after birth isn't high on the list of priorities for gun enthusiasts.
 
Impact the supply of weapons. Attempt to provide resources to gun owners that creates a situation where they see that some gun owners are driving the bus that could lead to more stringent gun laws. Try to create a situation where gun owners do more to police their own.
Sorry but I have to pin you down here….
Can you be more specific?

Sorry just saw your other post. I could be on board with that stuff.
 
Sorry but I have to pin you down here….
Can you be more specific?
Supply? All constitutional rights are limited. Enact laws that limit the supply of guns. Part of the issue in America is the massive oversupply of guns. Outlaw ghost guns. Pass Red Flag laws. Spend money 'educating' gun owners that irresponsible gun owners are impacting the future of the gun culture in America. What specifically here? I don't know. How about a tax on gun owners that splits the cost of gun violence in America between all taxpayers but puts a greater % on those that own guns?
 
So leaving single-shot rifles and shotguns, things like that?
I'm not a gun guy. Shooting is fun, but after I had killed a few animals I found that I just didn't enjoy it. I still shoot at cans and such when I'm with one group of my friends. If I was King...I'd ban them all. But I'm not and I accept that others feel differently. I just want anything to be done so that we can stop saying...'There's nothing we can do.'
 
So there are no "realistic" policies from your side.

My own pet "solution" involves universal health care screening, run through the school system, at appropriate developmental stages, to pick out the bad seeds and identify abuse.

Couldn't make it mandatory, but maybe could make clearing such a screening a pre-req for gun ownership.

Is that realistic? Probably not.
 
Ban what?

What are commonly (yet erroneously) called “assault weapons”. Basically semi-auto guns with detachable magazines and, per the 1994 federal AWB law, having at least two other ‘scary looking’ (some refer to that as being cosmetic) features or traits.

More details are contained in the following link:

 
Ypu are kidding right? The Dems led by the CT Rep Chris Murphy as well as Obama tried to get common sense gun laws passed but the GOP blocked every single bill and continues to do so

There was also an activist group led by the Sandy Hook parents who actually took their case to Congress ............ Just the facts .
Yes. Psychos who won’t follow laws on the books will certainly follow common sense gun laws. 😣
 
I'm not a gun guy. Shooting is fun, but after I had killed a few animals I found that I just didn't enjoy it. I still shoot at cans and such when I'm with one group of my friends. If I was King...I'd ban them all. But I'm not and I accept that others feel differently. I just want anything to be done so that we can stop saying...'There's nothing we can do.'
I’m not a gun guy either. I’ve been shooting a few times and mostly found it to be an expensive and not so entertaining hobby. Maybe a handgun for the house one day but it’s not a priority for me. I totally understand where you’re coming from but as we see here there’s a lot of “that won’t do anything” that goes on with these discussions so we always land on nothing being done. I personally think it would be helpful to analyze this particular shooting and figure out what may have prevented it. You’d say if he didn’t have an assault rifle it wouldn’t have been as bad. I’ll say if he wanted to kill as many he could have just as easily with a few handguns and extra magazines. The idea of “just do something” comes off as a little knee jerk to me but I also understand the desire. I’m always cautious to not confuse activity with accomplishment.
 
I’m not a gun guy either. I’ve been shooting a few times and mostly found it to be an expensive and not so entertaining hobby. Maybe a handgun for the house one day but it’s not a priority for me. I totally understand where you’re coming from but as we see here there’s a lot of “that won’t do anything” that goes on with these discussions so we always land on nothing being done. I personally think it would be helpful to analyze this particular shooting and figure out what may have prevented it. You’d say if he didn’t have an assault rifle it wouldn’t have been as bad. I’ll say if he wanted to kill as many he could have just as easily with a few handguns and extra magazines. The idea of “just do something” comes off as a little knee jerk to me but I also understand the desire. I’m always cautious to not confuse activity with accomplishment.

I’ve been hearing quite a few suggestions to raise the age to buy or possess (unsupervised by an adult) any gun to 21. The ‘logic’ being that is the legal age for drinking (alcohol).

I don’t like the idea that the age for being an adult varies. If you can be drafted, vote, sign a legal contract and be tried as an adult in court at age 18 then that is also the proper age to buy a gun or alcohol.
 
Yes. Knee-jerk reaction to serious situation is usually a bad idea ("inappropriate")

There is a natural human instinct to react hastily to a threat or danger. In the jungle, this is essential to survival.

However in Law, we must take a deep breath and use critical thinking to determine the best course of action on important matters.

So, I take it you think the FAA should have just kept the 737 Max flying and not grounded it?
They shouldn't recall cars for faults until years later?
 
Back
Top Bottom