General Politics Discussion (V) [ARCHIVED] • Page 6

I mean, it would presumably not go any further than "You didn't pass the NICS background check to purchase this weapon".

 

its a list of names of people with mental illnesses that is given to the police. the intent is prevent them from buying guns. how are we getting from point A to point B? Somewhere, someone has to look the person up or do a background check to see their status. Likely law enforcement. If its a background check - something anyone can do - then we're making mental illness a matter of public record which is despicable. If its not a standard background check, and the info is stored in some place that needs access, then who has access? Surely no one would recommend the people selling the guns should have access. So that leaves law enforcement. And we all can trust law enforcement to surely only ever use that list (probably stored on a computer which would have to be searchable, so pretty much a database) for its intended purpose, right?

 

The balance between reporting to NICS and protecting the privacy rights of people suffering from mental illness is something I am in no way qualified to comment on. It’s a serious issue that needs to be handled very, very respectfully and delicately. So I dunno.

 

So, why not allow people to criticize the bad things about it and offer up alternatives? If the argument is, “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”, it’s worth asking “good for whom?” Because, for example, if it strengthens the carceral state, makes policing of schools more dominant, and puts the onus of violence on the mentally ill, then marginalized group bear the brunt of your “good”. It seems to me that, in response to the critiques, people are just dusting off the same ideological arguments we saw in the crime bill and the violence against women act, eg, we have to do this, and consequences be damned.

 

I know when I personally say “let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good” I’m saying, in this case, let’s excise the two or three bad things for now, get the rest in a bill and pass it, and simultaneously work out the problems with the other portions to come up with something effective that is also respectful and doesn’t create as many problems as it may or may not solve. The good portions of that platform need to be implemented as policy yesterday, can’t wait anymore.

 

If they pop up in a background check specifically for purchasing guns, the reason for failure of that background check does not need to be broadcast to the gun shop owner putting in for the check. It can simply say "pass" or "fail".

 

Because there seems to be a lot more emphasis on the "criticize" portion of this, and the alternatives being offered up are being offered up in a "Fuck you kid, shut the fuck up and stop talking" sort of way.

The rest of the manifesto is quite clear that it is not putting the onus of violence on mentally ill, hence the numerous other regulations proposed that would gather up way more people than allowing relaxation of HIPPA laws for doctors when it comes to gun purchases. The large majority of the onus is falling on the so-called "responsible gun owners", they are the ones getting the brunt of the regulations in this manifesto.

 

I’m trying to figure out what it is about how we’ve seen law enforcement treat mentally ill people that makes one say “yes, cops should have a list of mentally ill people and, even though they’re more likely to be subject to violence at the hands of the state and others, this remains a good idea in my mind”

 

God damn I am so tired of the argument (some leftists do this as well tbh) from liberals that's like "But the right wing!!"

Get over it. The right-wing exists, and will continue to exist. They will capitalize on and exploit things for political gain all the time. They're reactionaries. They will find a way to attack something when you do address it, and when you don't. That doesn't mean you don't talk about it at all.

Just because the right-wing talks about something doesn't mean the left-wing shouldn't - that's not how you combat a problem. That's a weakness of ours, not a strength. We're supposed to be the ones with nuance and context, not "Uhhhh but the right-wing" *goes silent*. That's exactly what's been happening to MENA Christians here and I'm beyond tired and impatient with it. We can address the right-wing's dishonesty and framing while criticizing things! Two things can be true at the same time.

 

A new poll found that a majority of Americans support a radical change to the US healthcare system

 

I mean, the tweet that incited Jason’s response was pretty clear as to why it was bad to them. Moreover, it’s worth considering the role that the military industrial complex plays in the holding up of gun culture and how the dehumanization abroad invariably finds its way back to these shores.

 

I'm sure that's all that information would be used for

 

It's the most important part imo. You don't get 300m guns without making them

 

Remember how people said that democrats/liberals have the learned the mistakes of the 90’s, that they’ll never sacrifice marginalized groups again, in order to get policy done? Well, about that...

 

Yeah, it was pretty clear in a "fuck you kid shut the fuck up stop talking" sort of way. Like, we're going to berate the kids for saying "citizens shouldn't have the same arsenal that soldiers do" because it shows disregard for people overseas??? We're talking about United States gun laws. Maybe let's not treat the kids that wrote this like they are awful people for using language that focuses on US gun laws that doesn't take into account American imperialism overseas.

I understand you want them to understand all the issues and how they interconnect all at once, but you also say you want to educate. I can tell you as an educator that you need to fucking scaffold. Which means getting them to understand how language pertaining to gun laws can also play into the imperialism and dehumanization of people abroad is like lesson fucking 24, not lesson 1. You need to start with the basics, which yes, means issues are going to be compartmentalized and simplified into an issue at a time. Once you have the scaffolding in place, which takes a lot of time, THEN you can get into educating them on why the language used isn't exactly ideal and the reasons why. If they don't have that scaffolding, they will check out.

 

If the info is ONLY accessible within a NICS background check, it can't be used by anyone else for anything else.

 

is that really how you took it

 

The same NICS that's run by the FBI?

 

For me, I’ll admit that I tend to get a bit hyper sensitive when reading things online. It’s hard to discern tone, and when so much on the internet is negative it becomes easy to just apply that to everything with a broad brush, even if it was never the intent of the writer. That’s something I’m trying to actively work on while also trying to just reduce the amount I let myself get sucked in.

With that said, I think there’s a lot of good in the back and forth going on here. The manifesto is obviously flawed and if taken as a whole, yes, it needs a lot of work. If anything it opens up room for not just the Parkland kids, but everyone, to learn and consider things they hadn’t before. I know I have.

 

I didn’t take that from that. I took it as someone who says the manifesto is bad and offered up a criticism of it. No one is saying not to educate them, but part of educating people is demonstrating why beliefs they hold are incorrect and can be damaging. The fact of the matter is, while I empathize with these kids, it’s not just their lives at stake and we need to bring in more people in order to not have an infusion into the prison industrial complex or mentally ill people being killed by cops, as we’ve seen over the past few decades.

 

I mean, they can be in the same college classes.

 

Anyway, if someone's only platform is twitter, its not exactly prudent for them to employ classroom teaching methods

 

That is absolutely the tone that is put off in that tweet, and I say that as an outsider. If you're the kids who that tweet is actually directed at, how are you not taking it as nothing more than insults and fuck you for writing this?

Yeah, do you really think the FFBI has individual agents stalking people who pop up in the NICS? It is, as you said, a database. The FBI isn't targeting the specific people in NICS and following them around and then shooting them, so why would we assume that would change with more names being added to the database? If I had my way, the police officers that do engage regularly in the day to day killings of unarmed Americans would't have any access to this database. It would be used strictly for the purchases of guns.

Yeah, but if you go at those kids with "you're abelist and using victims as scapegoats", what response are you going to get from them? Do you really think saying it like that to them is going to be perceived as "constructive criticism"?? No, they're going to look at it as being attacked.

I wasn't saying anyone was saying don't educate them, I'm just saying that the way to do that isn't to start yelling words that can be taken as insults at them and expecting them to understand not only why they were wrong, but the philosophies and research behind it. That type of education takes time and careful wording. I don't really see much in any of these tweets or comments that could be mistaken for any real 'education' on the issues.

 

its extremely easy to imagine an activist getting mysteriously killed (see: Ferguson) and it ~somehow~ leaking that well, they were mentally ill anyway, not all that surprising.