|
various cheeses posted:Interesting that you assume that. Clearly due to my disagreement with your policy, I'm some sort of subhuman or mental defective. You're sure to win a lot of people over with that attitude. Look, some people are trying to argue their case in good faith. Nintendo Kid is not one of them. Just ignore him, ok? Most everyone does.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
The only way American gun owners can be more mentally defective than their current average is when they use their guns to open cool, trendy speed-holes in their gross little skulls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Interesting that you assume that. Clearly due to my disagreement with your policy, I'm some sort of subhuman or mental defective. You're sure to win a lot of people over with that attitude. It is more that people have, reasonably, concluded there is no winning gun owners over. If you can't agree to support an actual universal background check bill, then you're not going to be won over regardless of how we talk about you or to you. And frankly nothing has made me more pro-gun control than reading the unhinged rants of gun owners about things like a thirty round magazine ban or other simple stuff. I used to be pretty moderate on gun control until reading the absolutely nutjob reactions of gun nuts to the post-newton proposals and it's just like, people who are this unhinged are the people who think I should have to trust their judgment about if and when they use their gun? Uh, no thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
"Don't you touch my supply of school shootings or I'm going to help lynch the gently caress out of some gays and blacks." Nothing subhuman and mentally defective about that!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:Look, some people are trying to argue their case in good faith. Nintendo Kid is not one of them. Just ignore him, ok? Most everyone does. I am arguing 100% in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Check back tomorrow after the debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:Look, some people are trying to argue their case in good faith. Nintendo Kid is not one of them. Just ignore him, ok? Most everyone does. Fishmech is 100% more reasonable and 'in good faith' than the entirety of TFR posters though! IT IS A MAGAZINE...NOT A CLIP!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I feel like no one in this thread has ever met a democrat or independent from a rural area or swing state
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
JESS JOHNSON, Your crime is attempting to pursue vocational education in America. The sentence? DEATH.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You are a self admitted potential single issue gun voter. That is proof of being stupid. Are these people actually single issue voters, though? Or are they just using it as a fig leaf to pretend they aren't completely lovely? I have a hard time believing there's a significant chunk of people who would vote switch and vote D even if they came out with "ten free guns for every born child" as a party platform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I feel like no one in this thread has ever met a democrat or independent from a rural area or swing state Most of them in fact, aren't litmus test guns rights voters in fact! Or at least that's what polling tells us. Lemming posted:Are these people actually single issue voters, though? Or are they just using it as a fig leaf to pretend they aren't completely lovely? One was saying earlier that if all Democrats were run out of office for 10+ years, then maybe, just maybe they'd be able to "trust" Democrats again. So yeah, they're full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
I think I've finally seen the light through all this gunchat. I am now in favor of background checks. So... when we have another mass shooting after background checks, what'll be the next step?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I think I've finally seen the light through all this gunchat. I am now in favor of background checks. Ban all white people from owning guns
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I think I've finally seen the light through all this gunchat. I am now in favor of background checks. Someone just go ahead and post the Bors
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I think I've finally seen the light through all this gunchat. I am now in favor of background checks. We'll have to insanely, brutally murder everyone who owns a gun, luckily, that's exactly the kind of twisted thing I love.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
This is my weapon. This is my gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
I mean that yeah, I could probably be more polite and should. But it's not like that gets to an agreement: people who are really into guns have a pretty defined worldview and we've conducted a national experiment on if there's overlap between the pro-gun position and pro-gun control position where we can reach reasonable compromises. There is not. Things with 90% approval still can't be agreed on. At that point there's really nothing to do but to admit it's going to be a raw political fight. And honestly, gun nuts have an advantage as they're much more passionate about their hobby than people are about properly regulating it. But there's not really any downside to fighting it because the current state of the law is basically a complete loss for any reasonable regulations on guns - about the only serious one that exists is "no machine guns" and gun voters are essentially lost to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has a majority without them, but structural flaws in the system (gerrymandering) do create problems there. It's possible these mythic reasonable gun owners who would vote Democratic with certain proposals but not with others are a tipping vote somewhere - but I doubt it. It is a much better solution to simply write them off and work on the structural issues that make them a tipping point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is more that people have, reasonably, concluded there is no winning gun owners over. If you can't agree to support an actual universal background check bill, then you're not going to be won over regardless of how we talk about you or to you. When "moderate on gun control" seems to mean ban 99% of the guns instead of 100% of the guns, I'm sure there wasn't much lost there. Out of curiosity, if the NRA suddenly turned 180° and gave background checks the thumbs up, then what? Is gun control over? What's the next move?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Are these people actually single issue voters, though? Or are they just using it as a fig leaf to pretend they aren't completely lovely? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are stupid instead of evil. Jarmak posted:I feel like no one in this thread has ever met a democrat or independent from a rural area or swing state I was around plenty of them out in the Appalachians in Virginia. Weirdly they weren't obsessed with carrying a bunch of guns at all times, and many of them said laws like Australia's would be fine with them, because they could still hunt, because they didn't need tactilol high round poo poo like suburban gun nerds demand various cheeses posted:When "moderate on gun control" seems to mean ban 99% of the guns instead of 100% of the guns, I'm sure there wasn't much lost there. It isn't though, very few people are after banning long shotguns and rifles with low amounts of shots that can be fired before reloading - which is the majority of "necessary" guns for things like farm defense/hunting. Again: not even Australia bans those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Its a good thing that today is a holiday so that repetitive gunchat can continue uninterrupted. Now we only need a way to turn smugposting into money and we could get some budgetary breathing room,
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I think I've finally seen the light through all this gunchat. I am now in favor of background checks. Here we go: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:When "moderate on gun control" seems to mean ban 99% of the guns instead of 100% of the guns, I'm sure there wasn't much lost there. Hey duder you keep not answering, what's YOUR solution?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I feel like no one in this thread has ever met a democrat or independent from a rural area or swing state they're called dixiecrats, and there aren't too many of them left these days in case you haven't noticed
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I think I've finally seen the light through all this gunchat. I am now in favor of background checks. I've yet to see someone claim that background checks will stop all shootings, mass or otherwise. If a few years of universal background checks reduce firearm deaths by a measureable amount, perhaps the next step is to have a restrained party celebrating that fact?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:they're called dixiecrats, and there aren't too many of them left these days in case you haven't noticed Even dixiecrats weren't single issue gun voters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Here we go: That's cool but unrelated to my question. My question being, if we pass background checks and we have another mass shooting, what will be the next "OMG this is so SENSIBLE why the gently caress won't you just do what I want?!" point of contention from liberals? Because at some point you have to just take people's guns, and that won't happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:When "moderate on gun control" seems to mean ban 99% of the guns instead of 100% of the guns, I'm sure there wasn't much lost there. BLM finally got arned eh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Are these people actually single issue voters, though? Or are they just using it as a fig leaf to pretend they aren't completely lovely? I'm not talking about people who will switch to voting D, I'm taking about democrats and independents who will switch to R if the democrats start squawking too loud about gun control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:When "moderate on gun control" seems to mean ban 99% of the guns instead of 100% of the guns, I'm sure there wasn't much lost there. I would be relatively happy with effective background checks, the restoration of states being able to set their own gun laws, and the effective enforcement of laws against straw purchases and the effective imposition of liability on people who are diverting guns into the streams of illegal commerce that send guns from lax states to states that regulate them effectively. I do not really care if a bunch of people in Alabama have guns - but their choices impacting New York does cause issues. You would also need to restore the government agencies that enforce the laws the NRA claims to support but have been effectively hamstrung. Things like "national CCW" are the sort of thing that makes it clear that there's not really much room to compromise with "states can do what they want, let Alabama have its own laws" etc. The sensible thing to do would be to mirror the rest of the developed world's gun laws. We would lose about 9 deaths per 100k per year from firearm violence and lose essentially nothing. But concentrating those deaths in the states that choose to have them happen and then essentially letting the situation solve itself is fine with me as long as I'm not stuck in one of them. But that's sort of because I'm selfish, not because it's good policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The reasonable carrot that should be offered to gun owners is to appoint a supreme court justice who will reverse Heller, I so very much want to hear this from the lips of the eventual Dem nominee, to be replayed endlessly in attack ads in battleground states. Court appointments have been the only reason to give a poo poo who's prez since at least 2000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
I think I would like to follow US policy and quarantine gunchat to another thread. Anybody really hankering for it can open one. Quite a few people are getting tired of this single-issue posting; this is supposed to be a thread where people can keep up to date about US politics, is it not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not talking about people who will switch to voting D, I'm taking about democrats and independents who will switch to R if the democrats start squawking too loud about gun control. All of those people already switched to R. Seriously, it's been well documented that the old conservative democrats and independents have become Republican by now. Chasing after people who will vote for Blue Dogs at best is a fool's game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is more that people have, reasonably, concluded there is no winning gun owners over. If you can't agree to support an actual universal background check bill, then you're not going to be won over regardless of how we talk about you or to you. The vast majority, perhaps even over 90% of gun owners support universal background checks. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks Most gun owners are not NRA members or paranoid prepper crazies, those groups just happen to be the most vocal and passionate of gun owners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not talking about people who will switch to voting D, I'm taking about democrats and independents who will switch to R if the democrats start squawking too loud about gun control. They switched two decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Because at some point you have to just take people's guns, and that won't happen. No, you very much don't "have to just take people's guns". There's a tradeoff between freedom to own and use guns and the risk that poses to the general population. Trying to move that balance towards emphasizing populace protection doesn't necessarily end in universal gun seizure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Amergin posted:That's cool but unrelated to my question. We've been trying to pass background checks for the last 1000+ mass shootings, I'm fairly certain this isn't some deal where we get to pass a new regulation for every shooting. quote:Because at some point you have to just take people's guns, and that won't happen. See, here goes the literal craziness. Well, its also an NRA talking point. But its a complete falsehood. We will never take away everyone's guns. That's never going to happen, so stop pretending like we're going to secretly do it by passing background checks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The vast majority, perhaps even over 90% of gun owners support universal background checks. They support them in theory. Then you write a bill, and they find some excuse why that one doesn't qualify and has some disabling flaw like, I poo poo you not, what if someone arrests me for letting my kid shoot my rifle when we are innocently shooting at a target on my property when I haven't conducted a background check on him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Can you explain why? When the UK instituted their bans they had to do a good bit of 'confiscation' (nice word choice, it was turn ins with the understanding that after x period of time those guns will carry serious punishments to own) but it seemed to work pretty well. I genuinely agree with you that most gun owners are perfectly normal law abiding folks, who I believe would follow the law. It's a nice word choice because that's what it is. Suddenly the poo poo I have is illegal and I need to turn it in without recompense or I get hauled off to jail for having the audacity to own a gun I never committed any crimes with. What a great compromise. As for my plan? Yeah better background checks are a great start, as well as better mental health and less stigmatization of mental health issues. Catching and punishing straw buyers would help as well, since that's how most criminals get their guns. Better education on gun safety and preventing kids from doing dumb poo poo unsupervised with them would also be a great idea. Sorry if I can't answer immediately, I'm shitposting from work and also have to wade through the sea of strawmen the rest of these posters are propping up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The sensible thing to do would be to mirror the rest of the developed world's gun laws. The real sensible thing to do would be to mirror their social policies and dismantle our horrible dystopian systems of corporate welfare, corprotised healthcare, and corporate incarceration. Ending the drug war, making education and healthcare available to all, those sort of things would address the overall rate of violence in this country. Some of us don't think its cool for anyone to get murdered. Oh - and it looks like Lowtax did something sensible and de-modded you! Thats nice, now you can't just probate or ban posters that disagree with you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I think I would like to follow US policy and quarantine gunchat to another thread. Anybody really hankering for it can open one. It is yes, and for right now the up to date politics on gun control is "Nothing is going to change". We have a democratic debate tomorrow night, a speakership that might not be settled for a long time, Russia being Russia, and who knows what else right now. Oh and serious disaster issues in multiple states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:57
|
|