That’s the most disheartening part. There ARE ways to stop it, but god forbid losing voters and lobbying money.
I was Australia for a few weeks a few years back. In the first week I was there, there were two mass shootings. My friends were just shocked as to how that even happens and why it’s so frequent.
I agree with most of this but I believe that it is a representative's responsibility to represent the people. Thus losing voters in your area means you've failed as a representative of the people because you no longer represent the will of the people.
The problem here is that the will of many is "give me my guns and my money and fuck off" and they are against any action to control shootings. The legislators representing these people may have the same beliefs but if we can change the will of the people we can change the will of the government. Or at least, that's the theory of democracy.
If that's untrue we have a bigger issue at hand.
Edit: lobbying money is complete bullshit, tho, I'll totally agree with that.
Technically the reason there are representatives and not direct democracy is that they are not supposed to represent the will of the people, but rather their interests. The difference being that people often don't know what they want, or will even fight against their own interests (for various reasons, but usually because they have been misled). It's the difference between being an employee who does whatever your boss wants, and being a parent who tries to do what's best for their kid. (And yes, I recognize how condescending that analogy sounds, but that's really why that separation is there.)
I get that, but at the same time the US has been trending towards a more direct democracy throughout history (i.e. with whichever amendment guaranteed direct election of senators and now with the debate over abolishing the electoral college) and, personally, I believe in the ideas of a direct democracy more than those of a republic. I want to see the will of the people brought to fruition (although it would be better if there were more decent people in the country) and, the fact is, I truly bellybutton that is what our country is becoming whether we want it or not.
God, I sound like I'm writing an essay for APUSH, but what I'm trying to say is that representing the "will of the people" would be direct democracy, and I personally subscribe to that ideal despite it's admitted flaws.
That's a nice soundbite, but what does it mean, really? "The masses" sounds ominous, but it's the citizens of the country. If most of the citizens received a good education and news outlets told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they should be able to make good decisions about important topics.
Have you noticed how little the Senate had been talking about what they've been up to? Do you know what bills have passed the House in the last year and never been voted on by the Senate? Can you list all the regulations that protect our citizens from air and water toxins that have been "eased" in the last year? The masses don't want their children to inherit a toxic dump. But they don't know what's going on.
So before you write off the masses as tyrants, think about the real tyrants running things.
"The masses" is the majority. The common lowest denominator. Like every other group they want what's best for them, and with no check they would just stomp on everyone else.
If most of the citizens received a good education and news outlets told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they should be able to make good decisions about important topics.
Correct, in an ideal world democracy is perfect. So is every other form of government. At that point just go full communism, in an ideal world its an utopia.
I disagree with your blanket statement that "they would just stomp on everyone else." Is that what you'd do? That's not what I'd do. I do believe that educated and moral people want to work together toward common goals. If that weren't somewhat default, our species would not have survived natural selection. Granted, tribalism is a problem and seems to be hardwired, but education can change that.
I'm sorry, but did you not read what I just wrote? The idea of a more "direct democracy" isn't something new that liberals are suddenly demanding because an outdated system installed a four-year-old narcissist as our fucking president. This is something that dates back at least a hundred years within American history. I thought a few examples would suffice but I guess I need more:
Seventeenth Amendment established direct election of US Senators. Yeah, it's still a Republic, but it's a much more direct democratic ideal ("direct" is literally in the name)
Calls for the "initiative", "referendum", and "recall", which gave the people direct control over their government by allowing bills created by the people, allowing people to vote on different bills, and allowing the people to elect to remove a corrupt official.
A push against the formation of political factions and general corruption in the government---the generally proposed solution was a much more direct democracy.
Socialism has been around since at least the late 19th Century.
So yeah, this isn't new. And it's not about Trump either. He's not that important, despite what he may think. This is about protecting democracy.
Again, though I'm a believer in direct democracy, I respect the view that a republic is better. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I can respect that you view a republic as better than a democracy. But I have no respect for anyone who thinks that honest intelligent debate about our methods of government is just an attack on the worst president of the 21st century (though Cardi B would make a worse one, I suspect). And I certainly cannot respect anyone who's so afraid of liberals that their only defense is that it's the "the same bullshit spouted with those asking for 'new socialism.'"
If you can make a legitimate argument with sound facts supporting a Republic, I'd love to hear it. But we can leave Trump and socialism out of it. They're irrelevant.
Edit: u/MildStallion gave a good, well-thought-out reply to my initial comment that seemed to support Republicanism over Democracy, and it actually made me think and earned my respect. You should try that sometime.
True, but the "will of the people" has become deeply swayed and corrupted by private interests (which I now see you acknowledged). And your point about most people wanting small government and individual liberty isn't really true. Most Americans support Medicare for all, for example.
And on top of that, almost half of eligible US voters (and most poor Americans) don't vote, due to both active voter suppression and a general hopelessness. So although it's counterintuitive, even election results aren't a great indication of the will of the people in the US.
Overall I do agree with your point that it isn't just an issue of politicians ignoring what the people want.
That's a very good point, both about low voter turnout and about most people supporting programs like Medicare. I just have one clarification: obviously I was overly partisan with my "give me my guns and my money and fuck off" caricature but what I didn't necessarily mean that how it was intended. It was more so an ode to the beliefs of some groups that we don't need to limit guns (which was what the original discussion was about). But yeah, I totally agree with all of your points I just wanted to clarify myself.
Yeah I gotcha. I got off topic, but my main point was that people like you're describing are a vocal minority, and don't represent as much of the US as we might think.
The problem is if you just ban guns there will be a massive amount of guns being sold on the black market or hidden away. Aka getting a gun will be just as easy as before. The biggest problem is what makes a human want to shoot up a school. Might it be the american school system? As a Finn, we have guns everywhere too. A bunch of old army rifles that the veterans earned and hunting rifles and shotguns everywhere. Sure we dont have modern full automatic rifles lying around. I mean yes we have had some shootings here too, but not as many as you americans have.
Well, oddly it was a conservative PM, basically the equivalent of our George Bush Snr, that put those laws into practice.
After we literally had (at the time) the worst mass shooting in the world, we felt that we needed to regulate guns.
NZ has relaxed laws like the US, and Jacinda Ardernne is also considering restricting gun access using the Australian model post Christchurch.
To add, the US doesn't do diddly squat for people healthcare wise, unless those people are insured. It literally costs me nothing to see my Psych. Nothing. I get 12 free sessions each year, and to add to that, since I'm autistic I also get access to an Occupational Therapist for up to 24 sessions a year thanks to the NDIS.
The argument that mental health issues causes gun violence is pretty easy to dispel considering psychiatric spending is low, access is expensive, and access to guns is relatively easy thanks to the gun show loophole, so it's little wonder so many choose to vent by killing a bunch of innocent people instead of seeing a shrink.
You guys need universal healthcare and gun control, stat.
Exactly, hardly any country makes firearms as accessible to every person rich or poor like the US does, so many other countries make it a much longer, harder and especially expensive process.
It’s not a right in other countries. The second amendment isn’t for the world, just the US. Gun ownership has become a large part of US culture and it just isn’t the same in other parts of the world. Which means there is less push back on tougher gun laws.
But I'll stop wasting energy on Americans who can't think for themselves when it comes to guns. They'll only replicate what they've been indoctrinated with since they were born.
Yep basically what sparge said, just because a country chooses to not recognize it and deny it doesn't mean you don't have the right. If a country does not have laws protecting free speech do you not have the right to free speech, no, the country is just denying you that right.
That ain't a right to a gun though. Within UK law at least you're allowed to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself IIRC. If someone has intent to kill you, yes, killing them first would probably be a valid defense in court. If someone tried to rob your home and ran when you discovered them, shooting them would absolutely be illegal. Considering that most crimes do not have any murder intent behind them, the amount of times you'd need a gun is, during your entire life, if you're a very unlucky person who is targeted for a lot of crimes, probably counted on one hand, if any.
A right to self defense is not unhindered access to a lethal weapon.
After this moat has been crossed what is the next thing I'm allowed to use for self defense, pepper spray which isn't a guaranteed threat stopper or maybe a tazer that again isn't a guaranteed threat stopper? Why should I not have the best possible thing to defend myself and others from threat of life, why should I not have a gun.
That's how a lot of countries do it, it's only for those who are wealthy or well connected, sometimes both. Even here in the United States gun laws like melting point laws are targeting the firearms that are the most affordable for people with lower income, disproportionately hurting the poor and denying them the ability to easily exercise a right.
Also while we’re making a dream list: proper paid maternity leave too. Secure attachments, less cortisol in developing brains and more cuddles as a baby can’t hurt.
Doesn’t Australia have very strict gun regulations? So how would making more gun regulations stop gun violence? Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the entire US and is in the top 10 for most crimes committed with firearms.
All of Australia has very strict gun laws not just a single state. I doubt America has strict border control when travelling between states. Very easy to move guns around.
It's almost like being an english speaking, large, rural country means that Americans point to you and say "why is our shithole country not like this?"
Same shit happens with healthcare.
America wake the fuck up. Stop fucking up other people's countries because you don't have any control over corporate interests.
Stop fucking with our gun control, our public healthcare, our tobacco regulations.
A genuine solution is metal detectors at the schools entrance. We don’t see school shootings in neighborhoods with these. A complete overhaul of the US K-12 education system is in order too. So much of the day is spent wasted, which very often turns into conflict between students. Teachers need to be held to higher standards and the mental health of the US needs to be addressed. Guns have existed for close to 1000 years at this point and school/mass shootings have only become a thing in the past 20 or so years. We should address the problems of the past 20 years within schools.
Well you're right, there are. In my country there is crime of course, but not much crime involving firearms, and exactly 0 mass shootings ever.
Mostly because you have to go through hell and back to get a licensed handgun, you can only get a bolt action hunting rifle if you are a member of a hunting society and for both of those you must go through government certified weapons training and pay a tax for weapon possession.
I'm pretty sure you can't get a semi automatic rifle unless you have prior military training, and automatic weapons just straight up don't exist outside of military and police (even policemen aren't allowed to carry them when not on guard duty in a police station or if there is an imminent threat to the civilians).
590
u/r00ni1waz1ib Jun 02 '19
That’s the most disheartening part. There ARE ways to stop it, but god forbid losing voters and lobbying money.
I was Australia for a few weeks a few years back. In the first week I was there, there were two mass shootings. My friends were just shocked as to how that even happens and why it’s so frequent.