Let's Discuss!

[~N~]

You know, I was just thinking, the amount of married people only seems high when you take into account those marriages that limit themselves to two people. Otherwise, the amount of marriage in this country is astronomically low!

Interpreting the Constitution is almost a daily occurrence, what with challenges being brought before the SCOTUS and the vociferous debates on what it *could* be saying that are part of the daily life of every member of Congress. So, really, that doesn't seem like such a hurdle after all...

And I'm not one to discredit the value of emotions, though I would agree that, certainly they can benefit from other reasons to compliment and give justification for those emotions...

... you know, like the statistics that Fallen posted in the op.

[Miss Devil]

Well, I was going to post the actual mass shooting statistics as the FBI's Universal Crime Report details them, but apparently my post on that subject was deleted in some other thread. I don't feel like digging through all the information again, but basically, the number of mass shootings only seems high when you include family murders and gang-related crime. The number of mass shootings of the nature of Sandy Hook and this San Bernandino attack are astronomically low, happening around once a year and with a total body count that falls within the margin of error for reporting homicides.

"The vast majority of gun deaths are not mass shootings, which account for well under 5 percent of all shooting deaths."

Not to come off as rude or mean but could you please read my first post from start to finish? My issue is that innocent people are being slaughtered and for what? We need a stronger gun control policy throughout the U.S. It can't just be one state or one county changing. The country needs to do it as a whole for us to see change.

And another thing: the FBI reports is linked in my first post for anyone who wants to read through it.

[Miss Devil]

Bumping and going to add the whole thing with Obama that happened today. Opinions anyone?

[~N~]

Personally, I loved the tears.

I think he's doing something that is both characteristic of a president in his last year of his second term, and something characteristic of his term as president in general. Obama has gotten the most accomplished when he works alone, on his own authority. I'm not necessarily supporting that course of action, and I think there's some credibility to the argument that any president should make attempts to work with Congress whenever possible.

But considering how polarized American politics have become in the past twenty years (a rather disturbing normality that most of you here have grown up with) it's not surprising to me that the last two presidents (Bush, Jr and Obama) have both been presidents who have just off and done their own thing, generally without support from Congress -- whenever they've actually done anything, that is.

And I don't think this is exclusively a presidential issue with these two men; Congress has made its bed by making itself impossible to work with. Lately it's been the Republicans, because they can't even work with each other much less those other people. But Democrats have been just as bad in the past. I remember Obama's first two years; super majority Democratic Congress, and all they did was bicker and fight amongst themselves (like Republicans are now).

Partly, that's democracy. Partly, it's dysfunctional.

It highlights a rather alarming trend: that we feel the only way to get anything done is to do it without trying to work with anyone. Sure, that can work, but it also sacrifices many of the strengths of democracy: namely, different perspectives, consensus, willingness to compromise.

Politicians are winning points by not doing any of those things, and that's sending what I feel is the wrong message.

So Obama is doing what no one else can right now, what really only a president with no elections left to win can pull off -- a politically contentious move without Congressional approval and support.

It's sure to give the nominees for both parties something to put on their platforms and discuss; it's sure to be challenged ad nauseum (like the notorious Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare"), and I don't know how effective it will be.

All in all, I think it's more political flourish and brandishing (like we've seen so many times before from our politicians), and less stable, consensus-based action.

Do I think we could benefit (ie, save lives) from more comprehensive, intelligent gun control? Yes. But I've said that already. Do I think this latest move by Obama will necessarily result in the implementation of that? I'm unconvinced and doubtful at this point.