# Observations of the 3rd Democratic Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 13, 2019, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136 "2019-09-13T00:14:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/141 "2019-09-15T01:46:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > God our politics is so sad. This issue is so damn important to you that you would literally prefer an admitted sexual assaulter (not to mention all his other faults!) stay in office than some relatively honest and decent official who thinks some types of guns should be illegal. That’s incredibly nuts to me, and makes me pessimistic about the future of this country. And even more pessimistic about the future of how women and girls are going to be treated. > > How does that get bridged? Are there any circumstances you could imagine in which you’d prefer a relatively honest and decent Democrat who is party line on guns over a sexual abuser Republican who is on your side on guns? Or is this just how it is, that guns really are more important than refraining from elevating abusers of women? You did not respond or refer to your quotation of Bone at all; I’m confused. If one wants to replace Trump, is it necessary to threaten the Constitution? I prefer buffoon Trump over someone threatening lasting damage to the nation. Trump will pass, in one term or two, and nothing he has done can’t be undone. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/142 "2019-09-15T01:54:36Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > …For one thing, as just mentioned, we very recently lived through a period in which one class of weapons was illegal to sell, while many other classes of weapons remained quite freely available. No slope and no slip. And nothing really changed when the AWB expired. Look at all of last century’s Federal gun control. Which gun control bill made crime drop? None? Maybe we don’t need to restrict the rights of normal people. > [@Sherrerd](#): > > If you can’t buy—or even own—an AR-15, there is ZERO precedent for that being equivalent to ‘no guns may be owned by private citizens.’ None. Zip. Bupkis. > > How would that even work, slippery-slope fans? Seriously? If the AWB had been permanent, it would have been followed by more and more. Not equivalent, but Step One (or Step 7). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/143 "2019-09-15T02:06:48Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > … is it necessary to threaten the Constitution? I prefer buffoon Trump over someone threatening lasting damage to the nation … How would any of these things threaten the Constitution? If they passed Congress (they wouldn’t) the courts would rule them unconstitutional and void them. No harm to the Constitution done. Proposing a law that the court has already made clear is something they would rule against is no threat; it is posturing. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/144 "2019-09-15T02:09:08Z")
eh, nm. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/145 "2019-09-15T02:14:57Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > How would any of these things threaten the Constitution? > > If they passed Congress (they wouldn’t) the courts would rule them unconstitutional and void them. No harm to the Constitution done. > > Proposing a law that the court has already made clear is something they would rule against is no threat; it is posturing. This is getting off track from the debate itself, but the Second Amendment is the most apparent Constitutional issue, with Harris’ desire to skip the legislative branch’s power to make laws and issue edicts in second place. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/146 "2019-09-15T02:19:55Z")
Proposing something that is unconstitutional is a sign of stupidity but not a threat unless you think the court will view it as constitutional. Desire to do something does not equal the capacity to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/147 "2019-09-15T02:41:32Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Yes, exactly 20 years before this election. And no, Catholics are not WASPs. And yes, Episcopalians are. I’ll see your nitpicking and raise you with[pedantry.](https://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/article/what-makes-us-anglican) > [@The Episcopal Church](#): > > The Episcopal Church, having its roots in the Church of England, is also an Anglican Church. Like all Anglican churches, the Episcopal Church is distinguished by the following characteristics: > > **Protestant, Yet Catholic** > Anglicanism stands squarely in the Reformed tradition, yet considers itself just as directly descended from the Early Church as the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Episcopalians celebrate the “Mass” in ways similar to the Roman Catholic tradition, yet do not recognize a single authority, such as the Pope of Rome. More to the point, John Kerry was even more whitebread than Al Gore. And however you want to define WASP, in its entire history the Democratic Party has nominated only two candidates who weren’t white men for a total of three elections, and they were successful in two out of those three elections. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/148 "2019-09-15T02:48:06Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Proposing something that is unconstitutional is a sign of stupidity but not a threat unless you think the court will view it as constitutional. Desire to do something does not equal the capacity to do it. I don’t want to vote for someone that stupid. I hope for a better choice. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/149 "2019-09-15T02:52:08Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > This is absolutely true and isn’t receiving enough emphasis. Our memories are infamously short, but, yes: these weapons have been illegal to sell in the very recent past----and the republic failed to fall. > > Everyone was basically _fine_ when these weapons were not available. We could be fine again! > > … Sure, but as has been said, there is a vast difference between the AR15 being unable to be sold, and the ATF breaking down your door and confiscating it. Pretty much every Dem is fine with _banning the sale_ of AR15s. Few are ok with \*\*mass confiscation. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/150 "2019-09-15T03:02:04Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > First let’s get figures right. About 40,000 gun related deaths in the US each year. Fewer murders than suicides. Roughly the same number of people as die of breast cancer. Is breast cancer also small potatoes because something else kills more? > > No idea wtf you are talking about with “sociologists have shown …” but my point remains that mass shootings are horrible, school shootings tragic, but they are not the driver of those 40,000. Kids are in fact safer in their schools than in their and their friends’ homes. Yes some weapons amplify the harms in those rare events but the public health approach would be more interested in lowering the bigger sources of those death numbers. 33000 and 21000 of those are suicides. And Japan has NO guns and a higher suicide rate, so you dont need guns to kill yourself. > **[FiveThirtyEight breaks down the more than 33,000 annual U.S. gun deaths -...](https://andscape.com/features/fivethirtyeight-breaks-down-the-more-than-33000-annual-u-s-gun-deaths/)** > > Gun control has been a hot-button issue in America for many years. Unfortunately, general discussions often lead to intense debates with typically no concrete solutions. In a few days or months, the conversation dwindles, then quickly ramps back up... "_On Wednesday, FiveThirtyEight released an interactive map that outlines and analyzes the more than 33,000 annual gun deaths that occur in this country…nearly two-thirds of annual gun deaths in the United States are suicides, with more than 85 percent committed by males. Homicides, which trend toward 12,000 every year, make up the other third._ I have several times here posted peer reviewed journals from sociologists. Here’s a cite from NPR: [https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows) and another cite: > **[The Media Is an Accomplice in School Shootings](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crucial-conversations/201204/the-media-is-accomplice-in-school-shootings?fbclid=IwAR3mGMFLyVaQIqRHHMTUdJ-mmFXmPMP0elXGyZKr4gl68rJRTObuojybVyc)** > > The attention given to and glorification of school shooters amplifies the violence. We must balance the right to speak freely with the responsibility to influence ethically. _School shootings are a contagion. And the media are consistent accomplices in most every one of them._ [https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/communications/journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/153/2018/12/03-Lee.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3nyYZ8pS4pNOXS1OKyFnf\_44\_abrmB19KaOPkhRNt-pHzwQqHI2r9fjYM](https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/communications/journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/153/2018/12/03-Lee.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3nyYZ8pS4pNOXS1OKyFnf_44_abrmB19KaOPkhRNt-pHzwQqHI2r9fjYM) > **[Does Media Coverage Inspire Copy Cat Mass Shootings? - National Center for...](https://www.center4research.org/copy-cats-kill/?fbclid=IwAR0hBB80gcia9yoA7vqR4l4VM9oIiInLbUtRuAEuC3-k7M3lsW1yXPMrEQ8)** > > Decreasing media contagion could reduce the number of mass shootings, but other public health steps are needed like making it more difficult to obtain guns ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/151 "2019-09-15T03:23:41Z")
My point was that when no other candidate challenged Beto about his gun confiscation plan, no one said “hey wait a minute, we aren’t taking your guns, we are looking for solutions”, when it went unchallenged, it became a part of the Democratic Party’s platform. It should have been challenged. Because it was not challenged the statement stands. And will be viewed by voters as an official part of the platform. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/152 "2019-09-15T04:02:24Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Proposing something that is unconstitutional is a sign of stupidity but not a threat unless you think the court will view it as constitutional. Desire to do something does not equal the capacity to do it. You’re that confident in Scotus ruling an AR ban unconstitutional? I’m not. Arguably, the successor to Trump might not need new enabling legislation, if BATFE could be induced to taffy pull their reasoning on bump stocks to include all items that might increase the rate of fire for a semiautomatic firearm. Even if the current Scotus composition would not be amenable to an AR ban, an expanded Scotus might. Especially if Ginsburg’s cancer starts acting like everyone else’s who had pancreatic cancer and Trump nominates another Justice before the end of 2020. One giant difference between 1994 and today is the AR platform is unquestionably in common use. It’s probably the US’s most popular center fire rifle, in all its permutations. I think the oft-stated 15 million figure way understates the total number of functioning AR-pattern rifles out there, given the popularity of building them from parts kits and, increasingly, using ‘80 %’ receivers as the firearm. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/153 "2019-09-15T04:03:43Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > My point was that when no other candidate challenged Beto about his gun confiscation plan, no one said “hey wait a minute, we aren’t taking your guns, we are looking for solutions”, when it went unchallenged, it became a part of the Democratic Party’s platform. It should have been challenged. > > Because it was not challenged the statement stands. And will be viewed by voters as an official part of the platform. It appears you don’t understand how party platforms are formed or written. When a candidate puts forward an idea it does not automatically become a part of the party platform. In this case it could be considered part of Beto’s platform but that is the extent of it. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/154 "2019-09-15T04:07:09Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > My point was that when no other candidate challenged Beto about his gun confiscation plan, no one said “hey wait a minute, we aren’t taking your guns, we are looking for solutions”, when it went unchallenged, it became a part of the Democratic Party’s platform. It should have been challenged. > > Because it was not challenged the statement stands. And will be viewed by voters as an official part of the platform. I don’t know about an official part of the platform, but the lack of pushback by any of the other panelists after his statement was awfully damning. I think the statement was great. For O’Rourke. Should be good for another round of fundraising now that people are talking about him again. Not so good for the Democratic Party’s courting of the squishy middle. Then again, the election is over a year away. Memory is fickle. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/155 "2019-09-15T09:45:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Sure, but as has been said, there is a vast difference between the AR15 being unable to be sold, and the ATF breaking down your door and confiscating it. > > Pretty much every Dem is fine with _banning the sale_ of AR15s. Few are ok with \*\*mass confiscation. \*\* What kind of idea is it to ban something because it is so dangerous and resulting in mass casualties from unhinged gunman, but to say that the millions and millions already out there are fine, no problem? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/156 "2019-09-15T13:10:24Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > You’re that confident in Scotus ruling an AR ban unconstitutional? … Here’s what I am 100% confident in: neither the president nor the legislature can, even in concert, actually represent any threat to the Constitution while there is a SCOTUS in place that believes that their job is to accurately interpret and apply it. The ONLY threats to the Constitution comes from a hypothetical SCOTUS that believes in ignoring that role in favor of their political belief systems, or from the other branches deciding to ignore SCOTUS (a constitutional crisis). Barring a SCOTUS that intentionally disregards their job if SCOTUS allows it it is in fact constitutional … that is a matter of definition. In which case the threat was on our individual understandings of the document, not the document itself. Trump wants all sorts of things and even with a very Right leaning court and a Senate that wants to enable him as much as possible the courts have told him no multiple times. **sps49sd** … check who we have a president. People vote for stupid in large numbers if they agree with what stupid says. As for these nominees … I don’t in fact think any of them are stupid. I think some of them are saying stupid things, but that is different. For O’Rourke it is more desperation to find a way to get any traction in the nomination process at all. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/157 "2019-09-15T13:46:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > … you dont need guns to kill yourself. … A very true and very inane statement. You don’t need a very effective method available to use with no delay right in front of you to kill yourself or to kill someone else. But having such a thing very handy increases the chances that any given person with a period of suicidal thinking will die. (85% lethality from the attempt compared to 5% for other methods, if those methods are attempted.) Do you have a loved one? If they have guns (or there are guns in their household) and they ever have suicidal thinking would you be happy leaving a loaded handgun on the table in front of them when you left the house for the day? [Some facts and figures.](https://everytownresearch.org/reports/disrupting-access/) > [@](#): > > Access to firearms is strongly associated with an increased risk of suicide.42 This reflects a broad consensus among academic researchers, medical professionals, and other public health experts. When it comes to suicide, a meta-analysis of 14 different scientific studies concluded that having access to a firearm triples one’s risk of death by suicide.43 This elevated risk applies not only to the gun owner, but everyone in the household.44 > > People who live in states with high rates of household gun ownership are almost four times more likely to die by gun suicide than in states where fewer households own guns.45 Again, this relationship remains strong even when controlling for other factors associated with suicide, like poverty, unemployment, serious mental illness, and substance abuse.46 … > > … Research has shown that, in states requiring an individual to obtain a permit in addition to a background check during the process of buying a handgun, the laws are associated with a reduction in firearm suicide.81,82 This type of enhanced background check law, which is often referred to as permit-to-purchase (PTP), mandates that an applicant must pass a background check before obtaining their permit and often requires an in-person application at a law enforcement agency. As of 1994 and 1995, Connecticut required both a PTP and a comprehensive point-of-sale background check—laws that were associated with a 15 percent decline in the firearm suicide rate over the following decade.83 By contrast, when Missouri repealed its PTP law in 2007, this repeal was associated with a 16 percent increase in the firearm suicide rate over the following five years.84 > > Beyond PTP laws, a mandatory waiting period may also help prevent firearm suicides by delaying firearm acquisition. A waiting period law requires a certain number of days to elapse between the purchase of a firearm and when the purchaser can actually take possession of that firearm. In delaying immediate access to a firearm, waiting periods insert a buffer between impulse and action. Policies that create this buffer are associated with reduced rates of firearm suicide.85,86 … Red flag laws also provide an ability to disrupt access by someone at risk - to remove that loaded handgun sitting on depressed brother’s table from the household for a bit while we get him treatment. > [@](#): > > The impact of Red Flag Laws have been studied in two states: Indiana and Connecticut, and the evidence shows that these laws work to reduce firearm suicides.107 In the 10 years after Indiana passed its Red Flag Law, the state’s firearm suicide rate decreased by 7.5 percent.108 In Connecticut, the Red Flag Law was associated with a 14 percent reduction in firearm suicide rate in the period after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, when enforcement of the law increased significantly.109 Another study in Connecticut found that one suicide was averted for approximately every 11 gun removals carried out under the law.110 Researchers have noted implementation gaps in Connecticut may have blunted the initial impact of the state’s Red Flag Law, underscoring the importance of awareness campaigns aimed at educating the public and law enforcement agencies about the availability of ERPO as a tool to temporarily remove firearm access from a person at risk. Even for mass shootings, as relatively less of the bigger numbers that they may be, most of them gave some signs, somebody in their circle knew something was off. But they didn’t know what to do about it. POLITICALLY, the point of this thread and this forum, the policy suggestions above that would accomplish lots have broad agreement across partisan and gun owner/non-owner lines, and are not poison in a general election. Proposing to try to confiscate weapons? No. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/158 "2019-09-15T20:44:13Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > You’re that confident in Scotus ruling an AR ban unconstitutional? I’m not. Arguably, the successor to Trump might not need new enabling legislation, if BATFE could be induced to taffy pull their reasoning on bump stocks to include all items that might increase the rate of fire for a semiautomatic firearm. > … > One giant difference between 1994 and today is the AR platform is unquestionably in common use. It’s probably the US’s most popular center fire rifle, in all its permutations. … A Ban on sales looks perfectly passable under the 2nd- and I have no serious issue with it, even tho it likely wont do much. Door to door confiscation is something the Courts have not been happy with. One of the most common, certainly. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/159 "2019-09-15T20:45:55Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > It appears you don’t understand how party platforms are formed or written. When a candidate puts forward an idea it does not automatically become a part of the party platform. In this case it could be considered part of Beto’s platform but that is the extent of it. Of course it wont be. But as he said- it will be _considered_ part of the Dem platform, even when not. ☹ And I am ashamed none of the debaters challenged him, but Booker and Harris are also in favor of confiscation. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136/160 "2019-09-15T20:51:24Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > What kind of idea is it to ban something because it is so dangerous and resulting in mass casualties from unhinged gunman, but to say that the millions and millions already out there are fine, no problem? Well, because it isn’t _so dangerous and resulting in mass casualties from unhinged gunman_. Of the 10000 or so gun murders a year, rifles account for like 500. That includes the AR15 the AK 47 and even 30-30 lever action deer rifles and .22s. The point is- there is NO, repeat NO gun control that could pass under the 2nd that is going to make a significant difference. None. Not even betos fucking stupid door to door confiscation. (which will cost a couple billion) However, a gesture often is meaningful. So increased background checks, banning the sale of 'assault weapons" and so forth as gestures- better than “thoughts and prayers” as sure, a few lives will be saved. Not a statistically significant number, but a few anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observations-of-the-3rd-democratic-debate/840136.md?page=9)