|
Trabisnikof posted:So you're saying the majority of gun owners can't come up with a way to justify their ownership for hunting, collection, etc? Or are otherwise unable to legally own a gun now but are slipping through the cracks? If you disagree then you are the exact sort of person who needs to learn to gently caress off and mind your own business. ed: sorry AA, just noticed your post. Shutting up now. Parts Kit fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Oct 12, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
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.  This poo poo is tedious and boring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
How about some more interesting gun-chat: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/politics/syria-rebel-groups-ammunition-50-tons/ http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/12/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-idUKKCN0S506M20151012 quote:U.S. military cargo planes gave 50 tons of ammunition to rebel groups overnight in northern Syria, using an air drop of 112 pallets as the first step in the Obama Administration's urgent effort to find new ways to support those groups. Say hi to our new strategy in Syria: "gently caress the Train and Equip program aka trying to build an army from scratch, we're just going to back the anti-ISIL group that already exists". This continues the recent US direction of "gently caress Turkey/Erdogan, back the YPG instead". fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
edit: whoops, missed AA's post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I think I've finally seen the light through all this gunchat. I am now in favor of background checks. this is a hella specious argument. The point is making mass shootings less likely, not making them never happen. It's not that you point to specific shootings in the past and say "that could have been prevented with this policy". It's more like we're erecting barriers that generally make the probability of mass shootings lower and lower, under the idea that shootings are a public health concern. but you try even thinking of gun violence as a public health issue as a politician and you get iced by the NRA-backed candidate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Parts Kit posted:They shouldn't have to come up with some kind of justification. If someone is not harming another in acquiring or using something, or forming a contract, then the rest of the world can gently caress off and mind their own drat business. Doesn't matter if it's guns, pot, gay marriage, giant RC flying dildos, or whatever else. It simply is no one else's business, even in spite the surprising amount of people in the USA that want the government to get involved the second someone else does or has something they don't like. On top of that if someone is straight up against some thing then no justification will ever be valid in their eyes -- see anti-abortion people who aren't even willing to have exceptions for women who were raped for a good example. So insisting that an individual get the ok from a bunch of nosy shitheads who will never not say no is absurd on its face. Ah yes the classic, "I should be allowed to do anything I want so long as I say I'm not hurting anyone". A Republican platform plank I believe. You remind me of some gold miners I know of who refuse to do groundwater monitoring because they stopped mining, so thus the EPA's rules no longer apply to them. They're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
various cheeses posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Wait, I'm going to skip a couple of pages because this thread is moving hella fast now and nobody seems to learn anything and it's the same old poo poo albeit on a level I haven't seen before, but something surprised me. It shouldn't, but there it is. A doctor or psychiatrist or therapist is seriously prohibited from asking if their patient has a gun in the house? As in, they're legally not allowed to and could face serious consequences if they did? Like, if I were treating someone who is seriously depressed I can't ask them and suggest that hey, maybe it's a good idea to keep that somewhere you don't have easy access to it in case you have an episode? What if that person isn't yet but might very well become a danger to himself or others, could I suggest them to be safe rather than sorry while they're still in a relatively good state of mind? Is this prohibition specifically about guns or would I also be prohibited from advising them to not drive and maybe give their keys to someone they trust when they feel they're slipping? Like, this isn't even about the right to bear arms, this is about limiting the damage someone could do to themselves and others, and prohibiting the doctor/psych/therapist seems incredibly over the top and insane to me. What would even be the rationale?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
America's mass psychosis infatuation with guns is bizarre and creepy to the rest of the world, and watching you guys argue about it is kind of surreal, like some Invasion Of The Body Snatchers took a bunch of otherwise-regular people and inserted the idea that they need the right to own handguns and automatic rifles. In particular, America's exceptional level of gun violence somehow not counting as counter-evidence (assuming they're arguing in good faith and not just privately accepting that as the price society pays) just sounds like reality-denial. That repeated article in the Onion about "How could this happen, wonders people in only developed nation where this happens" was dead on. Not that you can't find gun-nuts everywhere in the world, many of whom bask in the reflected glow of American media and politics, but the sheer power and scope of America's gun lobby in the popular discourse is shocking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I am going to make one post about guns and this is it: If the founding fathers knew what we were using guns for today, they wouldn't have written the second amendment as they did. Using it to kill each other over mistaken beliefs, petty arguments, and home/personal defense fantasies was not their intention. It needs to change or be completely removed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I think universal background checks are a good thing and tentatively support instituting a strict liability scheme for anything that happens with a gun owner's weapon. Edit: missed AA's post, I'm slow posting on my phone
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Taeke posted:Wait, I'm going to skip a couple of pages because this thread is moving hella fast now and nobody seems to learn anything and it's the same old poo poo albeit on a level I haven't seen before, but something surprised me. It shouldn't, but there it is. According to this NRA page, it's "a political agenda to ban guns." https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150729/florida-alert-appeals-court-upholds-nra-supported-docs-vs-glocks-gun-law
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:But spacemosins and HSLD mall ninja tacticool SKSs are funny as hell though, unlike rolling coal. The hell is a spacemosin? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ah yes the classic, "I should be allowed to do anything I want so long as I say I'm not hurting anyone". A Republican platform plank I believe. That's a pretty  attempt at a counter example with the gold miners considering contaminating the environment does hurt other people. You should report them.In all seriousness I don't think this is limited to guns, too much of the US public, across party lines, doesn't know when to gently caress off. If people could quit loving with each other and focus on what they can do to improve their own lives for five god damned seconds we'd all be better off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted: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. But the "they" here is groups like the NRA which mostly consist of the craziest and most hardline gun owners. The fact that these people are single issues voters and view this issue as critically important gives them an outsized voice in the debate. Pro-gun control gun owners are probably more likely to have other political priorities, I don't think I've ever voted for a candidate with guns being on my mind as the reason why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Most gun violence is committed by men. Ban all men from owning firearms. As a compromise, stun-gun fencing will be legalized and men will still be able to settle disputes of honor by them by way of impromptu duels initiated by the slap of a gloved hand. Best out of 3. Stun gun jousting will be acceptable as well. But must only use fencing stun guns taped to long sticks while riding tricycles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:The hell is a spacemosin?  
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
meristem posted:Are you an anti-vaxxer, too? Because *how dare* the society demand that individuals do something to curb an epidemic! gently caress no, anti-vaxxers are stupid as poo poo. You're not going to catch "the gun" from walking next to some dork open carrying. Someone fire up the gun thread so we can ship this poo poo out of here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
If, 3 years ago, you told me that the Tea Party would not only not be thrilled to install Paul Ryan as Speaker but would actively campaign against it I would have laughed at you. No True Conservative
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
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 voted straight Democrat for the first decade of my voting history. Then a few years ago I took up recreational shooting on a whim. Gunlording is now my favorite hobby. As a white thirty-something living in the suburbs, I have come to the realization that there is no reason for me to not vote Republican. Sure, they are wrong about everything, but most of them are committed to blocking gun control motions, and that means my favorite hobby stays safe. None of their other terrible policies are going to dramatically effect a privileged white male like me. I'll still be able to watch football, listen to metal, plus I can own bad rear end guns. I'm not pretending that it isn't completely lovely, but no, it's not a fig leaf either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Parts Kit posted:Also an argument for explicitly legalizing gay marriage, which I don't remember being very Republican. The problem is that readily available guns, while beneficial to your inconsequential hobby, pose a massive public health risk, hth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:I voted straight Democrat for the first decade of my voting history. Then a few years ago I took up recreational shooting on a whim. literally edit: guillotine
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Parts Kit posted:Also an argument for explicitly legalizing gay marriage, which I don't remember being very Republican. No, this is actually a broader issue in society. The gold miners, were no longer mining, thus they believed the government should "gently caress off". Just like someone who says the government should "gently caress off" about wanting to tax their billions or regulate labor, guns, etc. I'm arguing that possession/ownership/amassing alone can in fact have societal impacts worth regulating. Then again, I bet you oppose the CPSC too...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:I voted straight Democrat for the first decade of my voting history. Then a few years ago I took up recreational shooting on a whim. like i said, gun enthusiasts should literally be barred from voting
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Re: the idea that gun control proponents just need to compromise and the NRA and "responsible gun owners" can be reasonable, here is a long article about the Senate's failure to pass background check legislation in 2013. While it details failures by both sides and both parties, the idea that the NRA and their allies on the Hill can be brought to the table via compromise is thoroughly shot down in the article. Of relevance:quote:In early March, Chris Cox and Jim Baker [NRA lobbyists] came to Manchin’s office to hear him out — the first of several face-to-face meetings they would have that month. Manchin knew that the lobbyists were never going to embrace universal background checks. His hope was simply that they would not fight him. To win their neutrality, Manchin had all sorts of ideas for an N.R.A.-friendly bill. In his version, firearms dealers would, for the first time since 1968, be allowed to sell handguns across state lines, including at out-of-state gun shows. Members of the military and their spouses could purchase guns in their native state and in the state where they were stationed. Such provisions had been championed by the gun group for years. “I told the N.R.A., ‘When will you ever have a time when liberals who hate us even having a gun actually vote for something that protects and enhances our rights — and all we ask for in return is to tighten up loopholes in legislation that’s already there?’ ” he said. “Absolutely, I said that to them. Many, many times.” Note that Manchin and Toomey had A ratings from the NRA at the time. The one time they tried to pass something, even after offering compromise and including several provisions the NRA explicitly asked for into the bill, they got stabbed in the back. This is the kind of thing that drives the pro-gun control people here nuts. There is simply no reasoning with these people, no compromise, no nothing. It's 100% gun freedom or the door for members of Congress, and there's very, very little we can do about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
various cheeses posted: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. Where do you get the idea there is no payments? Or that all your guns need to be turned in? Do you exclusively own pistols and high capacity clip submachine guns? In Australia, people got paid as much as $1000 for each gun that needed to be turned in (though the average was around $400). And the buyback was conducted over more than a year, with periodic amnesties to turn in guns not turned in during the initial mid-90s push. And despite all that, there are still about 6 million guns registered to private ownership in Australia which has a population of 23 million.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Gun owners can have all the toys the want, but are required to open carry, and must decorate their totems according to a strict "hot pink+bedazzled+Hello Kitty" scheme. You may complete a waiver to instead go with a "My Little Pony of choice" scheme, but will have to submit an essay on why that one is the best pony, and wear a color-coordinated fedora when in public.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
E: might as well move this to gunchat
Rhesus Pieces fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Thank god we here at the Something Awful comedy forums will solve the riddle of gun control once and for all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
sharknado slashfic posted:Thank god we here at the Something Awful comedy forums will solve the riddle of gun control once and for all. ugh I too hate when people debate or discuss
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:like i said, gun enthusiasts should literally be barred from voting Are you saying that people should vote against their own interests because that would make you...a republican.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
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. Gun control is US politics and tbh is probably going to be the issue at the heart of the next civil war we have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:Re: the idea that gun control proponents just need to compromise and the NRA and "responsible gun owners" can be reasonable, here is a long article about the Senate's failure to pass background check legislation in 2013. While it details failures by both sides and both parties, the idea that the NRA and their allies on the Hill can be brought to the table via compromise is thoroughly shot down in the article. Of relevance: Myself and the gun owners I know don't view these people as any more reasonable than you do. These people do not represent the typical gun owner unless most gun owners are lying in polls about their gun control opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:ugh I too hate when people debate or discuss I feel like you think I was being sarcastic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
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. Please dear god please make it stop
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Myself and the gun owners I know don't view these people as any more reasonable than you do. These people do not represent the typical gun owner unless most gun owners are lying in polls about their gun control opinions. Not All Gun Owners
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3746390 Come on over to gunthread everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
I came in here for more Speakerless House hilarity and I'm honestly just so let down by 15 pages of gunchat
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:I came in here for more Speakerless House hilarity and I'm honestly just so let down by 15 pages of gunchat I'm sure someone will post about it when something new comes up but I think we're still in a holding pattern while Boehner and crew figure out what the gently caress to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:According to this NRA page, it's "a political agenda to ban guns." You're all loving insane. Or maybe it's just your political system, or culture or whatever. This is all so obviously hosed up and the fact that it's somehow impossible to even debate this poo poo like adults, let alone fix this loving obvious problem is indicative of something being fundamentally wrong with how you do... politics? Law? Society? Life in general? I'm stepping out until you move past this perverse sadomasochistic gun control circlejerk so I can enjoy politicians being stupid again. I guess I've accepted that dozens of literal schoolchildren can be killed without anything being done to prevent that in the future, and just be glad I live in a somewhat saner part of the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:25
|
|