|
I don't know why people in favor of gun control think so hard about jim-bob buying AR-15s for the Obamapocalypse. Statistically this is a very low-risk segment of the population. Instead it appears to be a way to get at those dastardly right-wingers. He would vote the same way whether he had guns or not, and the problem is more his politics than his guns. As I said, I am happy that gun control has been a settled issue for years and is a non-starter in the US nowadays. Stopping everything cold worked.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't know why people in favor of gun control think so hard about jim-bob buying AR-15s for the Obamapocalypse. Statistically this is a very low-risk segment of the population. Instead it appears to be a way to get at those dastardly right-wingers. He would vote the same way whether he had guns or not, and the problem is more his politics than his guns. Indeed to obsess over the habits of groups seems more like the tendency of those paranoid gun nuts themselves. One could almost say they have all the paranoia of gun owners, without having any of the satisfaction of Zen practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Obama will come for their guns any day now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Haha, just kidding - I actually did mean marched down to the basement and shot. Dumbass. Tell us more about which amendments you'd like to suspend for other people but not for yourself. Because so far we've only covered the first two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
We should also abolish the 3rd amendment, it's poo poo and taking up useful space. Quartering soldiers is a true patriots duty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:We should also abolish the 3rd amendment, it's poo poo and taking up useful space. Quartering soldiers is a true patriots duty. This is relevant because SWAT teams have guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Wasn't there someone whose house got used for a SWAT stakeout who was filing a 3rd amendment case, in large part because of the sheer novelty of this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Who cares? TFR is gun fetishism. Get rid of it. GiP is the same bullshit, just government-sanctioned. There's an overlap, get rid of it too. We don't need gun control, we need 'ironic leftist gun owner' control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I didn't make the claim that gun culture means more gun accidents, though. In general, putting things in quotes that people didn't say is bad form, and you shouldn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
When people say "x is problematic" what they really mean is "these people don't have the same opinions or vote the same way I do, we should gently caress with them".
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:When people say "x is problematic" what they really mean is "these people don't have the same opinions or vote the same way I do, we should gently caress with them". Hm, I'm not sure this is true, can anyone confirm?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:You're the one who made the comparison, bro, if you don't wanna get hit over the head with dumb don't bring it in I didn't make the comparison. Again, if someone says they want to bring taxation back to 1950s levels, do you think that they want other parts of the 1950s as well? quote:I think a general de-escalation on the issue would probably be a good thing, and most of the dudes freaking out about how ninjas are going to attack their suburban SFH need to chill, and we're likely headed for some of that anyway - the AWB ain't coming back, and the country's coming down from a wave of crime and Cold War paranoia that was at its peak in the 70s and 80s, but so long as the TV pukes up ambiguous terror 24/7 there's gonna be folks who act terrorized. It's not just the TV, though. It is the GOP, right-wing radio, and the NRA. I'm glad you think de-escalation would be good. quote:Beyond that, IDK if there's anything to really say about it, I don't really see the NRA's sinister hand on the tiller here, they're a profoundly (strategically) reactionary organization that's all about defending the status quo against all comers and mostly isn't very efficient about it, especially when it comes to public outreach. Dunno how folks can look at the geniuses behind 'if preacher/teacher/toddler had gun this not happen' and see ZOG, beyond the Bradys groping for explanations for their own lack of appeal that don't feature how they sound even nuttier. The constant hyperbole makes it kind of impossible to have a conversation with you. ZOG? For gently caress's sake. LGD posted:I didn't say that it was the current goal of the Democratic Party, I said that it was the goal of interest groups and constituencies that have pull with them (and consequently direct most of their gun policy). A large part of the reason the Democratic efforts haven't been more "efficacious" is precisely because of the lobbying efforts you're decrying. If they abandoned those efforts there is little reason to think that that wouldn't change fairly rapidly. I mean the end result you yourself are envisioning leads directly to de-facto bans on private gun possession! Why wouldn't the NRA or other ownership lobbying organizations be doing everything in their power to prevent that? They could certainly do better things in terms of tone and responsible advocacy, but that has very little to do with abandoning their role as a political pressure group or being "responsible" by doing their opponents' job for them. It doesn't matter if it is the end goal of those interest groups and constituencies, because it's not possibly going to get there as an overall policy of the Democratic party. Democrats have not made very many attempts at any sort of serious or far-reaching gun bans, so saying that the NRA has been staving off massive bans is kind of weird. And again: the majority of the actual power to resist municipal gun restrictions comes from a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that is one day almost certainly going to be overturned. If the NRA and gun owners continue to solder themselves to the right-wing, it will one day backfire on them hugely. Resisting attempts to regulate gun sales, resisting increasing training and further background checks just gives more credibility to the groups painting gun owners as irresponsible and unwilling to compromise. What the NRA and gun owners should be doing is bending every effort to reform gun culture and to lobby for increased training for CCW holders and the like, so that they take the furor and the heat out of the argument before Heller is reversed. In addition, even if the goal of the NRA and the GOP to simply resist laws restricting guns was pure, the methods that they're doing it by are criticizable as well. Dead Reckoning posted:I think the confusion stems from you saying that gun culture has become problematic, and that this is a recent development, which implies that you were ok with whatever gun culture was before. When I asked what the hazards posed by this new gun culture are, you cited accidents. I think I understand you now, but I was confused as well. Okay, that sort of makes sense, but not a ton. Anyway, I'm glad you understand me now. What I meant is what I've said repeatedly: our current gun culture, which includes a lot of misunderstanding of the risk of violent attack, leads to people owning guns for self-defense who have no need of them for that, and who actually have a higher risk of that gun harming them in an accident than in being victimized in a violent crime. This isn't a comparison to past gun accident rates, or anything of the sort--I haven't done any historical research on gun accident rates and don't have any idea what has influenced them over time. I am simply looking at the present moment and seeing something that could be improved. In the same way, infant mortality has dropped massively over time, but people still look at cribs and sleeping arrangements and parenting culture and try to find things that can be improved. I can't envision any argument that falsely believing you're likely to be violently victimized is casually linked to lower gun accident rates. -Troika- posted:When people say "x is problematic" what they really mean is "these people don't have the same opinions or vote the same way I do, we should gently caress with them". No, they mean 'this is a problem'. For example, the habit of the highest-educated liberal communities, like Berkeley, to have the highest rates of vaccine refusal, is problematic. This means that it's a problem. In some uses, it means' solving that is a problem'. For example, 'vaccine education is problematic' means that you run into problems trying to educate people on vaccines, because anti-vaccine people tend to take new information and simply reinforce their anti-vaccine views.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It doesn't matter if it is the end goal of those interest groups and constituencies, because it's not possibly going to get there as an overall policy of the Democratic party. Democrats have not made very many attempts at any sort of serious or far-reaching gun bans, so saying that the NRA has been staving off massive bans is kind of weird. And again: the majority of the actual power to resist municipal gun restrictions comes from a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that is one day almost certainly going to be overturned. If the NRA and gun owners continue to solder themselves to the right-wing, it will one day backfire on them hugely. Resisting attempts to regulate gun sales, resisting increasing training and further background checks just gives more credibility to the groups painting gun owners as irresponsible and unwilling to compromise. What the NRA and gun owners should be doing is bending every effort to reform gun culture and to lobby for increased training for CCW holders and the like, so that they take the furor and the heat out of the argument before Heller is reversed. The furor and heated arguments are what keep it from happening, though. I'm not in favor of weird-rear end open carry stuff, but I don't see the advantage of attacking nebulous notions of 'gon culture' for trying to avoid further regulations on firearms. The NRA's strategy has worked- most Democrats don't take on the issue any more, aside from those in safe districts. Compromise doesn't help their position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The furor and heated arguments are what keep it from happening, though. I'm not in favor of weird-rear end open carry stuff, but I don't see the advantage of attacking nebulous notions of 'gon culture' for trying to avoid further regulations on firearms. The NRA's strategy has worked- most Democrats don't take on the issue any more, aside from those in safe districts. Compromise doesn't help their position. The NRA has not tried compromise as a position, so saying it doesn't help is odd. And again, the 5-4 Heller decision is the main thing that stops gun control in cities--which are generally 'safe districts' for Democrats. I agree that the furor and the heated arguments are blameable, and I think a lot of the 'heat' from that comes from the paranoia about crime, and sadly, the paranoia about black-on-white crime, that is spread by the right-wing media and the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
Compromise means both sides get something, not "it's OK, we'll only ban some stuff this time". Something like expanded background checks in exchange for easy access to suppressors would be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:Compromise means both sides get something, not "it's OK, we'll only ban some stuff this time". This isn't actually true, just that both sides relinquish some demands. If the GOP wants taxes to stay where they are, and the Democrats want taxes to rise, a compromise might be raising taxes by a lower amount than the Democrats want. Often, compromises include something the other side wants, but it's not a necessary part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
There's no point compromising with people who want gun control because their official policy is incrementalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:There's no point compromising with people who want gun control because their official policy is incrementalism. No you see the incrementalism is their compromise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:There's no point compromising with people who want gun control because their official policy is incrementalism. Thats funny, considering incrementalism is just what the GOP pushes as well: See Church/State encroachment, Sex Ed, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Thats funny, considering incrementalism is just what the GOP pushes as well: See Church/State encroachment, Sex Ed, etc. gently caress the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
In LeJackal's defense, we are probably more in-line with a renegade third-world shithole with no social safety nets than we are with Western Europe, thanks to the GOP and corporate lobby's diarrhea bukkake on anything that benefits the 99%. But seriously, every argument against gun control is a lip-quivering, illogical defense of self-defense porn.  It should be profoundly difficult, if not impossible, to obtain and wield an object that is specifically designed to end lives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:
Why? Do you apply this logic to Spears, Swords, or clubs? ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:In LeJackal's defense, we are probably more in-line with a renegade third-world shithole with no social safety nets than we are with Western Europe, thanks to the GOP and corporate lobby's diarrhea bukkake on anything that benefits the 99%. Rediculous hyperbole? Check. Unfounded fear of the Other? Check. Fear disguised as bravado? Check. Oh, hey Tezzor
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:It should be profoundly difficult, if not impossible, to obtain and wield an object that is specifically designed to end lives. Will you be petitioning Congress to ban archery?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Why? Do you apply this logic to Spears, Swords, or clubs? Look, there needs to be a middle ground: Firearms registration, safety requirements, mental health checks, something. I'm not buying that the 2nd Amendment should be applied as is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Guns make mass murder a literal point and shoot affair. Unless you're Legolas, bows are not as deadly. Swords, clubs, or knives are not as deadly. This is not a debatable point. But sure, regulate them, I don't give a poo poo. If you guys are interested in being intellectually honest, then you need to stop pretending that they are analogous. CommieGIR posted:Look, there needs to be a middle ground: Firearms registration, safety requirements, mental health checks, something. It's almost as if other developed nations have already created a blueprint for minimizing the problem of mass shootings. But this is a broken record. It's almost as if other developed nations have already created a blueprint for providing affordable healthcare. It's almost as if other developed nations have already created a blueprint for caring for the impoverished. Maybe we should stop pretending we are a developed nation. 
LeeMajors fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
quote:Unless you're Legolas, bows are not as deadly. Swords, clubs, or knives are not as deadly. This is not a debatable point. But sure, regulate them, I don't give a poo poo. Bows are not as deadly? Why should that matter? Is the self-indulgent and entirely unnecessary "sporting" use of weapons of war that exist only for killing worth the life of even just one innocent victim who could otherwise have been saved without your inconsistent equivocating?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Guns make mass murder a literal point and shoot affair. If guns are, they're pretty ineffective given that there are 300 million of them and what, maybe 1 or 2 mass murders a year? I think you're just upset that some people are allowed to hold different opinions than you, you're just another lovely fascist disguised as a carehard
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Bows are not as deadly? Why should that matter? Is the self-indulgent and entirely unnecessary "sporting" use of weapons of war that exist only for killing worth the life of even just one innocent victim who could otherwise have been saved without your inconsistent equivocating? How fast can you personally reload a bow without having someone tackle you before getting your next arrow out of the quiver? Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How fast can you personally reload a bow without having someone tackle you before getting your next arrow out of the quiver? Thanks in advance. Hi there Rambo, while you're off being the hoo-ah criminal-stomping vigilante hero you mock gun-owners for pretending to be, why not answer my question? No-one needs to practice archery. People continue to be murdered by bows today - and even if not, they're instrumental in animal cruelty. Are you happy to hand-wave away the people who've died, and continue to die, over these weapons of war? Is a minor sport worth human life? kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Bows are not as deadly? Why should that matter? Is the self-indulgent and entirely unnecessary "sporting" use of weapons of war that exist only for killing worth the life of even just one innocent victim who could otherwise have been saved without your inconsistent equivocating? Sure, if you can kill one person with a less lethal item, you may as well have the ability to kill dozens with less effort. Efficiency.  Pauline Kael posted:If guns are, they're pretty ineffective given that there are 300 million of them and what, maybe 1 or 2 mass murders a year? I think you're just upset that some people are allowed to hold different opinions than you, you're just another lovely fascist disguised as a carehard There have been two in my metro area in the past month. This is a far bigger problem than anyone is willing to admit, just because you want to shoot some targets and feel like The Man of the House™ or whatever. You're free to your opinion, but I'm also free to tell you its wrong and lovely and harmful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Hi there Rambo, while you're off being the hoo-ah criminal-stomping vigilante hero you mock gun-owners for pretending to be, why not answer my question? No-one needs to practice archery. People continue to be murdered by bows today - and even if not, they're instrumental in animal cruelty. Are you happy to hand-wave away the people who've died, and continue to die, over these weapons of war? Is a minor sport worth human life? Let's see... One guy. Cool, and you are comparing that to, say, a guy that shot 9 people in a matter of seconds, or a guy that just killed 4 Marines and a police officer in a matter of minutes. And you don't see why I'm not really buying your little strawman?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Look, there needs to be a middle ground: Firearms registration, safety requirements, mental health checks, something. What does registration do? And how does it make things safer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
quote:feel like The Man of the House™ or whatever. "tiny dik lol"  What happens when you meet female NRA members?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Thats funny, considering incrementalism is just what the GOP pushes as well: See Church/State encroachment, Sex Ed, etc. You're endorsing incrementalism by bringing up cases where it was used push bad legislation which steadily progressed from fairly reasonable legislation to extremely hosed up legislation that tries to defy the constitution, ignores the will of the people and results in terrible outcomes that are brushed off in favor of emotional reasoning. This is a comparison makes all gun control seem insidious, and as a guy who supports a few low-level laws improving background checks (mostly to check to see if the buyer is currently suffering from a mental illness that results in high risks of suicide) I would really appreciate it if you didn't make arguments that make my own position sound absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Sure, if you can kill one person with a less lethal item, you may as well have the ability to kill dozens with less effort. Efficiency. As long as the power exists, it'll be mine. You're free not to avail yourself of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:"tiny dik lol" Wanting to feel in control of your own safety in the face of an indifferent universe is a deliciously unisex fallacy. SedanChair posted:As long as the power exists, it'll be mine. You're free not to avail yourself of it. So I have to trust that you'll wield it safely in a climate of epidemic mass murder? No thanks, I'd rather relieve you of the power to exterminate as many lives as you see fit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:"tiny dik lol" They are members of the NRA, which mean's they probably are not very good firearms owners to begin with 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Sure, if you can kill one person with a less lethal item, you may as well have the ability to kill dozens with less effort. Efficiency.  With 300 million guns in this country, we average less than 150 deaths due to mass shootings/murder. That number is easily eclipsed by several single incidents that don't use firearms, and if you look incident by incident you'll often find that guns are no guarantee that mass casualties will arise. The average 'mass shooter' may kill a few people, less than a dozen. The few that get in the double digits are the outliers. Plenty of other items/tools are just as, if not more effective at mass casuality.  25 dead in murder-suicide by arson.  192 fatalities. Arson again. I could make an entire post with nothing but arsons. I wish I was kidding. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
LeeMajors posted:So I have to trust that you'll wield it safely in a climate of epidemic mass murder? You don't have to trust, at all. You can do as you like. Except relieve me of that power, because how would you do that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:23
|
|