How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

You say military weapons are meant to kill. I say all guns and rifles are meant to kill. Just some can hold much larger and deadlier bullets. If you want to cut down on the rapid rate of fire that allows more people to get killed, you have to eliminate almost all guns and rifles, but western like revolvers that only shoots six shots and takes time to eject and reload the shells and bolt action rifles and shotguns.

 

And I would agree. Did you have a point?

 

I defer to your comments Marine 1. However certain state legislators consider the fact that it has a clip an assault weapon and not necessarily whether the 30 caliber bullet is less or more high powered then hand gun or other rifle calibers. Next I know in fact handguns are far more likely to be used in gun violence related behaviour and the AR 15 seems the rifle of choice for mass shooters at the moment. I also think a former serviceman such as yourself trained on the M1 with due respect is someone I am not interested in unfairly regulating or insulting. My concerns are not with people like you but laypersons who do not store their guns properly and get them or laws that make it too easy for unstable people to get their hands on guns without proper screening. I have spoken strongly about gun regulation but I do not address any person in the military or who was in them military as I would not presume to. Whatever my personal and legal opinions are they must defer to you with respect. I know you know what my concerns are. If everyone with a gun had your training and background which of course we can not guarantee you would not see my lengthy comments and strong support of Golem's comments all done with respect to you.

 

There is an alternative to all or nothing positions with any weapons and that is gun regulations other than banning of all weapons. Some want all weapons banned, some like me want stricter screening prior to purchase and mandatory training (prior to purchase and it could be done by a non profit association gun club); enforcement of proper storage of weapons. I personally do not think certain standard hand guns or single load rifles are the issue or shot guns over a certain length. I am very cognizant of necessity hunters or people in rural areas that need rifles for protection or to protect livestock. That is just me. You should also know I have great contempt for people that claim they need an AR15 to hunt a dear, duck or rabbit and that is a personal bias brought up in Canada with many necessity hunters or people who eat what they hunt and respect what they kill to eat. An AR15 shows no respect for the animal. I myself was brought up to show reverence to what I eat. Its just my personal biases Marine 1 I admit it. I also do think though any weapon that promotes multiple round shooting without having to reload can be problematic and is what attracts criminals and mass killers to use them and we have a moral responsibility to reduce the risk of them getting these weapons all of us including legitimate gun owners. Just putting are hands up in the air and saying impossible I do not buy as a solution.

 

I really don't think many people buy an AR 15 to hunt with. I think it's mostly for home protection and target shooting. I think many buy it because it looks like a military rifle and maybe the only rifle they have. There are simi automatic hand guns that have big magazines and a round just as powerful. The 38 I use to have held a 17 round magazine as standard issue. I think most guns now are semiautomatic and it has people pulling the trigger to easily. I would bet if records were kept on police killings, they would see more people have been killed by police sense dropping the revolver and going to a semiautomatic.

 

Death, I can agree sir with most everything you say. Many of these mass killings is where kids were able to easily get the parents gun. I do keep mine loaded but with the safety on and all are locked up in a gun cabinet, but one and no one else is in the house but me. I keep the one out on a top shelf in my closet to easily get if needed and out of sight of anyone who may visit. I also agree I think the age of buying a gun should be raised. You can buy a gun even if your to young to buy cigarettes

 

Well according to this graph which I checked and is on a law firm site but does come from FBI stats ( see
https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/):

1-there were 13,922 homicides in the US in 2019
2-10,228 were caused by guns
3-2.6 of the of homicides or 364 deaths were by rifle
4-1.4% or 200 deaths by shot gun
5-23.9% or 3,326 gun deaths by unknown weapon type
6-45.7% of deaths or 6,365 by hand funs

Then according to: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/ :

Number of mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and June 2022, by legality of shooter's weapons

Number of incidents
Legally obtained Illegally obtained Some weapons were legally obtained others possible Illegally obtained/to be determined

86 16 1 25


Then according to: https://abcnews.go.com/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story?id=78689504 :

1-there are about 20 million assault rifles in the United States, of a total estimated number of 400 million guns


According to:https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/"

Number of murder victims in the United States in 2020, by weapon used

8,029 -handgun, rifles, 445, shot-guns-203, other guns 113, 1,739-knives or cutting instruments, 662 - hands/feet, blunt objects-393, fire-106, asphyxiation-71, strangulation-58.posion 16, dorwning 5, explosives 4
and unknown causes 4,863

Then according to: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

the break-down of % of deaths by murder and suicide is:

Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400).

the share of murders & suicides in the US involving guns

Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) U.S. murders in 2020 – 19,384 out of 24,576 – involved a firearm. That marked the highest percentage since at least 1968, the earliest year for which the CDC has online records. A little over half (53%) of all suicides in 2020 – 24,292 out of 45,979 – involved a gun, a percentage that has generally remained stable in recent years.

gun deaths over the years

The 45,222 total gun deaths in 2020 were by far the most on record, representing a 14% increase from the year before, a 25% increase from five years earlier and a 43% increase from a decade prior.

Gun murders, in particular, have climbed sharply in recent years. The 19,384 gun murders that took place in 2020 were the most since at least 1968, exceeding the previous peak of 18,253 recorded by the CDC in 1993. The 2020 total represented a 34% increase from the year before, a 49% increase over five years and a 75% increase over 10 years.

The number of gun suicides has also risen in recent years – climbing 10% over five years and 25% over 10 years – and is near its highest point on record. The 24,292 gun suicides that took place in 2020 were the most in any year except 2018, when there were 24,432.


Here's some Canadian stats from Canada at : https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510007201 that show that in 2018 of a total of 249 deaths by weapons in Canada, 143 were by hand gun, 56 by rifle/shot gun, 18 by sawed off rifle/shot gun, 2 by fully automatic weapons, 30 unknown weapons.

 

I myself much to the dismay of gun owners argue semi assault weapons like the AR 15 should be banned and I will explain why,

First I do not buy at all the NRA's marketing of the weapon as a modern sporting weapon or target weapon to justify it being owned because the AR-15 was engineered to create a “maximum wound effect” when shooting at people. No it was not designed for target practice or hunting. It uses tiny needle-nosed bullets weighing less than four grams which enable it to travel nearly three times the speed of sound and so when it makes contact with a human body because of its kenetic energy rip open a cavity inside the flesh (inert space) which collapses back on itself, destroying inelastic tissue, which would nerves, blood vessels and vital organs. If you hunt this is unecessary over kill of the flesh you claim you will be eating and it when its aimed at humans as well as animals it creates devestating wounds. So pretending it was intended for sport or target practice is bull ****. No one that respects the animals they kill would use it.

Its a lazy man's gun precisely because it has little recoil and is easy to use. By the way I say lazy man's gun because according to the marketing stats, most people who buy it are men in their mid fourties to older.

Next be very specific on why people like them. First off the rifle shoots faster than most people who aim it but they can quickly learn to work with its upword bounce.Even if its semi-automatic, and shoots only one bullet per trigger pull the standard 30 bullet clip can be emptied very quickly giving the shooter a feeling of power. Unlike a non clip rifle where you must load one bullet at a time and through that self restraint and concentration, it allows you basically not think about what you are doing before you aim and this is why it never ever surprises me to see idiots on gun ranges with them closing their eyes as they shoot AR 15's and giggling at how fast the shots are.

When a soldier uses it, its to save their lives and avoid getting killed by the enemy not for the fun of feeling the gun energy. For a medic or other first responder or trauma doctor or nurse, the holes and wounds it creates are horrendous and no not all humans or animals automatically die when hit, some linger in great pain.

So let's be honest-te AR 15 and other similar rifles were designed for intense, immediate and violent short clashes at very close ranges and so I ask though why would any stable, well adjusted person need the an AR 15? What is missing in their life they need to get power from such a weapon?

Why though does the average American think they need a military weapon for every day life? What has happened in the US that freedom is defined as owning a weapon? How is being afraid of fellow citizens and needing a weapon to be less afraid a freedom? Its a symptom of feeling trapped.

Why would anyone think using a weapon is freedom? Having to kill people is the result of political failure and humans failing to be civil and dumping their failures on soldiers to clean up.They carry our burden and they have to die and sacrifice themselves to protect or obtain the freedom we were too damn stupid to sit in a room and negotiate.

No I am sorry. I see weapons as a moral failure. I see soldiers, police, first responders, victims as having to carry the burden of that failure. For them and the victims who die, I owe respect as a civilian and the need to bloody well find a better way then thinking a weapon is an expression of being free. Its a symbol of failure of civilians to evolve past their most basic and primal instincts.

Me I fish so when I hear someone say they use an AR 15 to hunt I feel contempt. No I do not throw dynamite in the water to get the fish which is all using an AR 15 is when you hunt.

I say to young people learn martial arts or how to box if you think you need to own a gun. Start there first. Then if you really are serious about weapons use join the military don't play at being GI Joe like David Rittenhouse. Learn the discipline that must come along with the weapon.

Better still learn to find ways to build things not destroy them.

 

I’m a firearm owner who is not at all dismayed by your unsubstantiated opinions. I’ve noticed the most authoritarian amongst us are almost always the most ignorant of the thing they wish to control. Your post is a shining example of this and I’ll start off by thanking you for providing the opportunity for me to again show how the anti gun agenda is based on false premises and disinformation.

This is an entirely false premise. The 5.56 NATO or .223 cartridge was not designed to create maximum wound effect. It was designed to comply with the DoD request for a 6 pound .22 caliber rifle with a 20 round magazine capable of sustaining ability to penetrate a helmet at 500 yards. The only requirements on wounding was that it would be comparable to or better than the .30 carbine.

This requirement that it equal the effectiveness of the .30 carbine is key. The requirement wasn’t to equal the standard military rifle round of the time—the 7.62X51 NATO. Everybody knew the new lighter rifle and cartridge could never equal the wounding capabilities of the 7.62X51 NATO. That wasn’t the intention.

As an aside, if anyone is interested in seeing the disinformation Death provided PF concerning the M1 Carbine debunked go here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073475491/

The development of the new rifle and ammunition was based on the need for lighter ammunition and a more controllable weapon (compared to the cumbersome M14) in rapid fire use cases. (Lazy soldiers Death, LOL). The prevailing US theory of the future of small arms warfare at the time was “volley fire” which was essentially more shots fired per infantryman in a more controlled manner based on reduced recoil of the smaller cartridge. This was shown in theory and practice to increase “hit” ratios and this was the goal—not to create more severe wounds.

Now a bit more on the subject of temporary wound cavities and the claim an AR-15 is disrespectful and is more injurious to meat than other firearms. This is a false premise because all supersonic rifle cartridges create temporary wound cavities. These wounds are a function of velocity AND caliber (diameter of the bullet). This means common hunting cartridges like 30.06, .308 Winchester, .22-250, .243 and .270 Winchester all (far) exceed the temporary cavitation ability of the .223/5.56X45 NATO cartridge. For example, the .243 that is larger in diameter and has a velocity up to 20% higher than the 5.56.

By Death’s logic nobody with respect would EVER hunt with any of the above cartridges, yet they are the most popular and “respected” cartridges in the historical hunting world. They ALL create far more damage to tissue than the 5.56 cartridge. That is why in many states it is illegal to hunt deer with the 5.56 cartridge—it’s borderline ethical/unethical from a clean kill perspective.

Finally we conclude this section by pointing out the precursor cartridges to the 5.56 NATO including the .222 Remington and the .22 Hornet were indeed hunting cartridges. So there is another false premise.

So men in their mid forties and older are “lazy”? Soldiers are lazy? What about the exploding AR-15 ownership rates among women?

Can you document the claim people close their eyes and giggle while rapid firing AR-15’s on the range? Are there RSO’s at these ranges?

Can you document your claim people want AR-15 for a feeling of power? Just curious how you can know the motivation of 20 million people the majority of whom you have never met.

Are you sure? I know a lot of dudes who used M4’s in very offensive roles…

Can you document the claim 5.56 wounds are more egregious than other calibers? I believe that rumor was started by Vietnam war protestors and no evidence has ever been produced to substantiate the claim.

Well, how about listening a bit to someone who uses such weapons regularly for practical purposes? I posted this in the past on PF when asked to “rationalize” use of such weapons.

What military weapon? AR-15’s are not military weapons.
There are millions of us out here using firearms to build businesses that feed, clothe, and supply hundreds of consumer goods to you without you having to kill anything to get what you want. You are welcome.

 

Well, I don’t kill people, but I kill a lot of animals FOR YOU so you don’t have to. It gives you the freedom to consume food and hundreds of other consumer items you would have to kill for if not for people like me. You PAY me to do your killing.

Well, I suggest you come to my house and the next time a cow needs euthanized you can beat her to death with a shovel. You wouldn’t want to put her down with a firearm, that would be a moral failure. You haven’t evolved past your primal instinct—you just pay me to do the dirty work.

I love the “I fish” argument. Dynamite kills fish instantly. A hook is painful and causes slow death in 5-30% of catch and release cases. Well sir, I use an AR-15 to “hunt” on your behalf. But you aren’t abusing fish on my behalf. It’s all you.

Who is David Rittenhouse? Would you suggest the kids around my area that earn money for college and to buy their first vehicle by trapping and hunting should be boxing instead? LOL

We are. There are millions of us out here using firearms to supply you with food, clothing and consumer items. We are killing things all the time for you so you can pretend to be morally superior on Internet forums. You are welcome.

 

Wrong, your ideology makes you incapable of analyzing the problem.

Gun violence IS a national problem.

Gun violence is a problem there too, it's the largest state in the union and inequality might well be greater than elsewhere, ie the richest and the poorest.

That's the reverse of what I said, which is: vicious dog eat dog neoliberal economic orthodoxy causes poverty which is associated with gun crime.

Explained above.

No, its shows your blind, paranoid, gun-loving ideology - to defend against "tyrannical government" (!) - renders you incapable of analyzing the problem, as shown above.

At the federal level, by impeding national gun control.

Addressed above. You don't qualify.

...........

The part which required 10 repub (federal) senators to come on board with the much watered-down present bill restricting access (for 18-21 year olds).

Addressed above. Those 10 repub senators aren't even willing to ban military-grade weapons.

So said the blind man.

 

(quick google)

"Japan, with famously strict gun laws, has among the world's lowest rates of gun ownership and gun violence". (c. two dozen gun related deaths last year)

cf the US with the most lax gun laws in the world: c. 45,000 gun related deaths last year, including the slaughter of children in school.

Enjoy your paranoia re "tyrannical " government, you deserve it.

 

Could you elaborate on what makes you think I’m paranoid? Or are you just using fallacy as a cheap substitute for intellectual argument?

 

You wrote:

I'm joining the dots: many pro-gun people here have said the 2nd Amendment is about ensuring freedom from 'tyrannical government'.

Well, you only have to look at Japan versus US gun-related deaths, to see the outcome of paranoia re "authoritarian" government.

 

So you are making assumptions, not responding to what I’ve actually posted. Fallacy. Thanks for admitting it.

You are always welcome to address points I’ve actually made or statistics I’ve posted.

The main reason the 2A has been preserved along with the militias it supports has more to do with demands by the states for autonomy than individual citizen’s desire to avoid authoritarian federal government.

Since 0.33% of Japanese citizens are residing in the US and only 0.02% of US citizens have chosen to live in Japan apparently not a lot of Americans see what you see in Japan. It’s pretty easy to live in Japan as a US citizen if you are a US citizen. You may want to immigrate. If you aren’t a US citizen you likely aren’t qualified to make assumptions about me as I am a US citizen.

Anyway, thanks for the unique twist on fallacious argument.

 

To claim your use of the term "authoritarian" was/is entirely neutral in this gun debate, is disingenuous.

You said :

"I’ve noticed the most authoritarian amongst us are almost always the most ignorant of the thing they wish to control".

Like women's bodies? Union membership?

As for gun control, ignorance of guns - beyond the fact they are extremely efficient and convenient killing machines - is irrelevant, because the evidence is that unlimited access to guns (to the extent promoted by the NRA) is a social disaster. The US has the highest rate of gun deaths of any rich nation in the world - how much more evidence do you need?

See above.

Why do citizens of states require autonomy from the national government - which in modern times is tasked with providing for the nation's defense? But indeed posters here have expressed a desire to defend themselves against 'government tyranny'.

All I am seeing in Japan, and every other rich nation, is the stark difference in gun-related deaths compared to the US.

You might have to rethink that statement....

 

did you try and compare a homogeneous country like japan to the US? Do you not know who is committing most of the murders here?

 

I made a true statement. How is that disingenuous? Those in this thread that hire me to do their killing but oppose ownership of firearms are very ignorant. Read their posts full of disinformation and my responses for clear evidence my statement is true.

We’ll, probably. But not the subject of the conversation. Start a thread, link to it, and I’ll educate you on those subjects as well.

You just proved yourself wrong. Knowledge is very relevant. If you possessed knowledge you would not have made the blunder above. When Americans actually had unrestricted access to firearms before 1968 the firearm homicide rate was less than half what it is today. Immediately after prohibiting felons, mentally ill, and children from purchasing and implementing form 4473 for purchase, firearm homicides skyrocketed to a high of 7.1/100,000. In the late 1950’s and early ‘60’s when there was actually unrestricted access, the rates were under 3/100,000.

Using your logic, prohibiting firearms for the mentally ill and felons increases firearm homicides.

As a man of science I need evidence of causality, not just correlation.

I also find it amusing the same folks that say the rich US has the worst firearm crime say crime is caused by poverty!

I did not invoke abortion or unions. And you did not address my point about ignorance among firearm control activists. You just claimed ignorant people are best suited to form policy which is not a good argument.

States ratified the constitution with the understanding the federal government would never have monopoly on physical violence. Each and every militia act and amendment to militia acts has included provisions for continued militia rights for states and citizens because states demanded it. When the national guard was federalized in 1903, long after the standing army was default, special new considerations were implemented to satisfy the rights to militia needed for states to stay in the Union.

The United States is a union of states set up under principles of federalism. That is why.

You will only see what you wish to see. Facts that obstruct your view or expand your view will be rejected. That’s fine. As my statistics show Americans disagree with you. More Japanese wish to live in the US than US citizens wish to live in Japan by a factor of 16.

No, not at this point. You have not provided evidence you wish to abandon fallacy.

 

You can't count suicides, because Japan's suicide rate is higher that ours.

 

A problem of social disadvantage?
2A is hardly a good solution to that problem....

 

The issue of "authoritarianism" versus "freedom" is fundamental to the gun control debate, even if you wish to deny it.

You claimed "authoritarians" are the "most ignorant of the things they want to control" -- 'things' which indeed are not the subject of this conversation. So let's stick to "authoritarians" and their wish to control guns.

You are ignoring the effects of social inequality and disadvantage.

A short history:

Immediately after the war, and with America triumphant, capitalism boomed...and Detroit became the motor capital of the world.

But by the 70's, competition from low wage Asia, and the Arab oil embargo, resulted in 'stagflation' in the Western democracies, and well paid union jobs began to disappear - hence the '1st world rust belt', with all its associated social problems; over the following decades Detroit declined from a prosperous working class city of 1.8 million to a crime infested slum of 700,000 people.

Of course attempts to deal with these economic realities, such as LBJ's "Great Society", failed because they understood neither causes nor solutions to the problem.

In short, your lower gun homicide rates before 1968 are explained, not because gun control was tightened at that time, but because social disadvantage was increasing due to the global macroeconomic environment. [......it might be said, what Japan failed to achieve in the war eg leveling Detroit, it achieved by sheer competition 3 decades later, as Corollas became the world's best-selling vehicle).

Addressed above, mental illness also increases with increasing social disadvantage and inequality.

Addressed above. The economics profession likes to refer to itself as a 'science', but it is at least as much psychology and art as mathematics....

No, you misread the statement: the rich US has the worst firearm crime compared to other rich nations; and indeed it's not irrelevant that the US also has the highest inequality of any rich nation.

Addressed above. I said you don't need knowledge of guns beyond their efficiency and convenience as killing machines, which IS a good argument (unlike other fields like abortion and union membership etc which are more complex subjects) .

...driven by paranoia about "authoritarian" government. 2A should have been repealed as soon as the US was able to defend itself against war mounted by aggressor nations.

Yeh...and its an obsolete anachronism (like the 2A); the states should be down-graded to the status of regional government concerned with rubbish collection, traffic infringements and the like....just sayin'....

Indeed. And the US is almost on the verge of collapse, as a result of apparently irreconcilable ideological differences between Dems and Repubs....among a majority of the latter who think blue states should secede from the union...

Fallacy..in the eye of the beholder....as noted above.

I'm for collective well-being and security. You?

 

The problem is committing way more crime, the disadvantage is to those victims. The 2A helps keep us safe from criminals who don’t care about gun laws or any other laws.

 

I’ve not denied it’s importance. I’ve accentuated it’s importance by demonstrating

Sure. Fine by me. You are doing a fine job proving my point. You are advocating for authoritarianism and demonstrating you know about zero about firearms in historical context, how they relate to violence and economics, or why they figure into what allows the United States to exist.

I’m well aware of the correlation between poverty and violence. I’ve been expounding on it in other threads recently. The thing is, I never claimed firearm homicides increased because of added restrictions. You just made that up. You have created a strawman of epic proportions. Again. But you did one good thing. You unwittingly contradicted your previous position that availability of firearms is responsible for higher rates of violence. Apparently now you have abandoned that very simplistic explanation. I don’t blame you, in the face of the statistics I provided your initial position is untenable.

Oh, of course your “facts” are incorrect. I guess actually they are your unsubstantiated opinions. The percentage of US citizens in poverty in 1947 was 32%. By 1959 it was about 23%. By 1975 it was about 12%. Through the 1980’s and 1990’s the percentage in poverty never went above 15%, half what it was in 1950. Yet firearm homicides were essentially half in 1950f what they were by the 1990’s. In 1990’s twice the firearm homicides with half the percentage in poverty. Wow.

The civil rights movement resulted in increasing social disadvantage? Interesting.

But over the time period we are discussing, social disadvantage decreased through more civil rights and through cutting poverty in half. What you claim causes mental illness didn’t happen. The opposite happened.

But above you made the argument poverty/disadvantage was responsible for increasing firearm homicides. Now you say it’s guns again, or inequality. Inequality increased between 1980:and 2000 in the US. The firearm homicide and suicide rates both fell over that same time period.

You are becoming the perfect example of why ignorance of firearms and their history is not an appropriate trait for those wishing to form policy. You are wrong about every aspect of firearm usage in crime in relation to economics. As I said, those wishing to control others are the least informed. You are proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Clearly firearms and violence perpetrated with them is far too complex a subject for you. You have been consistently incorrect in your statements.

No. The people of my state are very different than the people living in New York or California. They are involved in very different occupations, have different pastimes, different values, etc. This country is far too vast and has too much diversity to be effectively governed by a central federal government. It isn’t what the original colonies wanted and it isn’t what most states want today. I understand you like central authoritarian government. But we don’t.

Who would downgrade the states? And for what purpose?

Actually I see more Dems advocating for secession nowadays. There is no danger of imminent collapse. The vast majority of Americans have no interest in civil war or secession. You take the theatrics here on PF seriously like a bored housewife takes soap opera seriously. It kinda cute.

Actually logical fallacies are more objective than subjective.

I’m for well being and security. It’s one reason I’m one of about 2-3 socialists on PF. I’m not sure what kind of collectivism you are talking about. I want a system that allows the most people possible to achieve what they want. But I don’t believe in punishing success and rewarding sloth.

 

You wrote: "When Americans actually had unrestricted access to firearms before 1968 the firearm homicide rate was less than half what it is today".

So apparently we have to consider "what I made up"...

Given the correlation between poverty and violence, it's reasonable to conclude that the relative prosperity before 1968 (compared with the 70's and beyond, eg, in Detroit) co-existed happily with unrestricted access AND low gun violence.

But in the 70's, as gun violence increased as a result of increasing poverty (in the '1st world rust belt'), governments felt impelled to introduce restrictions on gun access (after the 60's). I fail to see "what I made up", in that narrative.

After the 70's yes, but not before; ie, relative prosperity without extreme inequality and disadvantage, can co-exist with easy access; but the reverse is not true; inequality/poverty and easy access are a dangerous combination for society.

You are missing the correlation between violence, and inequality which has been increasing steadily since the end of the "Golden years of capitalism" (1946-1960's) which had been characterized by well-paying, secure, middle-class manufacturing jobs.

No, the macroeconomic events described above especially negatively affected black people, but also many working class whites.

Addressed above; increasing inequality - apart from reducing poverty - decreases social cohesion.

And inequality remains at levels which destroy social cohesion. Bernie Sanders has noted half of American are living paycheck to paycheck - the definition of chronic financial stress, even if they aren't living in absolute poverty.

You need to seriously consider issues like poverty, relative poverty, and inequality, and their consequences, as outlined above.

"We find that the Gini coefficient of labor income is higher in the United States (0.453) than in Japan (0.329), corroborating well-established previous findings" (a higher Gini means higher inequality)

and

" Income and wealth inequality is higher in the United States than in almost any other developed country, and it is rising. There are large wealth and income gaps across racial groups, which many experts attribute to the country's legacy of slavery and racist economic policies.20 Apr 2022".

Hmm.. not a promising environment for easy access....

Ok.......

Politicians, for a cohesive nation....

Still, not a good situation, actually wanting secession, as a solution to the nation's ills...

...One would hope so...

I'm an MMT'er, (though I'd vote for Bernie in a flash)...

Note; there is absolutely no reason for poverty in rich countries, so you don't need to concern yourself with "punishing success":

(link)

The Case for a Job Guarantee - Pavlina Tcherneva (pavlina-tcherneva.net)

 

Thank you for bringing ration and logic to this debate with your lengthy rebuttal addressing all of the disinformation offered up by death.You can tell who has swallowed the Kool-Aid by the consistency with which they pedal Miss and dis information.

Why do I get the feeling that such people would probably starve to death before they would ever be able to kill and butcher their own meat?