|
natetimm posted:What is a notable federal law that could have prevented that shooting or one like it, in your opinion?
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
JT Jag posted:Doesn't matter. The point is that laws were proposed and they were shot down. Nothing will change the current pro-gun status quo, no matter how much you guys worry about it. Which one of those proposed laws would prevent further mass shootings? This is kind of the point. There's a lot of "Somebody has to do something" going on, but not a lot of good suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Doesn't matter. The point is that laws were proposed and they were shot down. Nothing will change the current pro-gun status quo, no matter how much you guys worry about it. Promise?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The writing on the wall is a 5-4 supreme court decision. Come back when you've got 30 states ready to repeal the 2nd. Not necessary. There are other means to break the back of the gun lobby without repealing the 2nd, although that would be optimal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The writing on the wall is a 5-4 supreme court decision. Come back when you've got 30 states ready to repeal the 2nd. Nobody who is seriously vested into gun control is going to take away your guns dude. There will never be a repeat of the Brady Bill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
natetimm posted:What is a notable federal law that could have prevented that shooting or one like it, in your opinion? Better mental health reporting from individual states to NICS for a start, so that people like Dylan Roof can't just go out and buy a gun without getting flagged. The gun industry actually has a campaign to solve this: http://www.fixnics.org/factinfo.cfm
There need to be clear reporting policies for people who are a danger to themselves and others. This is tough because on one hand you don't want to prevent people getting help. On the other hand, Holmes told his therapist about wanting to kill people before Aurora and she sent his journal by snail mail instead of getting the cops out there. Aurora was the result. Lanza was supposedly getting committed. Alexis Aaron had several episodes including hallucinations prior to shooting up the Navy Yard. As did Hauser in the Lafayette Theater shooting. Cho, the Virginia Tech Shooter had court ordered psych evals too. The guy from Umpqua was apparently a sperglord and on several meds as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Not necessary. There are other means to break the back of the gun lobby without repealing the 2nd, although that would be optimal. Can it be done before 3-d printing gets cheap and easy? Because at that point, the strategy of going against the lobby and merchants goes out the window.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Can it be done before 3-d printing gets cheap and easy? Because at that point, the strategy of going against the lobby and merchants goes out the window. Has there ever been a 3D printed bolt and receiver that hasn't broken after like 2-3 shots? I thought everyone who has been around hated plastic POS like the XM-4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:didnt read lol Let's keep this front and center to ensure people don't get comfortable with the idea that bigotry is something that exists solely on the pro-gun side of things. Tezzor posted:... I would hope you are a white dude who is lying because the alternative is that I am face to face with our country's shameful failure to educate minorities... Tezzor posted:... If he's ignorant and white, I don't care. If he's ignorant and not white, that's a sad failing of our educational system I care about. ... natetimm posted:I went from hating him to enjoying him. He's such a saucy little guy. Too bad about the racism, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Nobody who is seriously vested into gun control is going to take away your guns dude. There will never be a repeat of the Brady Bill. You say this, but then the president says things along the lines of "Australia had some good ideas" and things get a bit hazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Hey guys I need guns for self defense. That's why I own ten of them and practice shooting them at ranges no civilian has ever needed to shoot in self-defense. Not because it is a hobby!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Promise? Think how much time, effort and money you guys have spent worrying about the Democrats grabbing your guns ever since Obama came into office. And yet federal gun laws are indisputably looser now than they were in 2008. I don't see that trend changing. Democratic presidents can want that to be different, can call for tighter regulation, but it's not going to happen. Obama's realizing it himself. Listen to how frustrated he is in his last few post-mass shooting press conferences. That's the voice of a broken man, the voice of someone who wants to do something to keep more people from dying, but knows he can't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Has there ever been a 3D printed bolt and receiver that hasn't broken after like 2-3 shots? You could theoretically manage something with the powder sintering technology. They've made muzzle brakes that way, even though they don't look that great for anything other than the very high-end machines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Paraphrased/copied from a good post: What you're talking about here I'm generally in favor of, but it's not really a "gun law". What you're talking about is lowering the bar for mental health commitments and restrictions of patients rights. It won't be the gun lobby that fights against this type of legislation, it will be patient advocates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Hey guys I need guns for self defense. That's why I own ten of them and practice shooting them at ranges no civilian has ever needed to shoot in self-defense. Not because it is a hobby!! It's a hobby that conveniently can be used to also defend yourself as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Yes, unfortunately. I see no reason why things will change. Note: Gun laws vary from state to state, that statement only applied to federal laws. Gun laws are tighter than in 2008. Many states have passed new legislation in the wake of mass shootings and although some were repealed, many stayed on the books.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Gun laws are tighter than in 2008. Many states have passed new legislation in the wake of mass shootings and although some were repealed, many stayed on the books.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:You say this, but then the president says things along the lines of "Australia had some good ideas" and things get a bit hazy. There are a lot more guns here than there were in Australia. The only scenario in which guns would go away in the US is if the population willingly gave it up like Norway. I mean, even by your own framework, this is paranoid poo poo. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Can it be done before 3-d printing gets cheap and easy? Because at that point, the strategy of going against the lobby and merchants goes out the window. 3-D printing is severely overhyped by gun fanboys as a way to get around gun control. The ability to make homemade guns has existed literally for centuries. It exists in all countries with gun bans. Yet without the open market or mass production they exist at vastly lower levels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Fang posted:Let's keep this front and center to ensure people don't get comfortable with the idea that bigotry is something that exists solely on the pro-gun side of things. That makes perfect sense, and is not at all racist. Your attempt to frame it as though it is is silly, the opinion of anyone who might be convinced by it is meaningless to me, and you are a pile of poo poo that walks as a man. Please keep these germane facts in mind for the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:That makes perfect sense, and is not at all racist. Your attempt to frame it as though it is is silly, the opinion of anyone who might be convinced by it is meaningless to me, and you are a pile of poo poo that walks as a man. Please keep these germane facts in mind for the future. See, how can you not find this amusing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
I'm going to sleep now because work starts early tomorrow but I would just like to post one of my final impressions. When I started reading peer-reviewed papers last week on guns and gun violence is had expected there to be a lot of scientific controversy on the effect of gun regulation on public safety. I cant with all honestly say that I was completely objective when starting out, because I'm mostly exposed to the horrors of guns and never to the fun bits, but I did expect to come to the conclusion that there was maybe some weak propensity of evidence for gun control but that overall the science wasn't in yet. The reason for this expectation being that I know a lot of smart, sensible people that argue against gun laws and I assumed that this was a reflection on the current state of science regarding this topic. This is not at all what I found. The papers that are published are quite good, well designed with regards to the limitations and repeatedly find similar results. The few papers that find dissimilar results are often of a lesser quality, carry and inherent design flaw come from non scientific sources: e.g. the "Crime Prevention Research Center" I think the best summary of the outcome would be: quote:The Harvard Injury Control Research Center, recently polled 150 scientists who publish on firearms on their opinions about guns and safety.... Basically, these numbers correspond to me with how strong I feel about the evidence for gun regulation on the various field. Most evidence for suicide, the risk for women and children. Almost no evidence to support the notion that guns make homes safer. I also think that Dead Reckoning and some other have the right idea in that they base their defence of gun-freedom not so much on the purported benefit to public health, but on the intrinsic value of gun rights. If you feel that free access to guns does indeed negatively impact public health but that the importance of this right outweighs this impact then you are alright in my book. I'll disagree with you, but you make perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:That makes perfect sense, and is not at all racist. Your attempt to frame it as though it is is silly, the opinion of anyone who might be convinced by it is meaningless to me, and you are a pile of poo poo that walks as a man. Please keep these germane facts in mind for the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:It's a hobby that conveniently can be used to also defend yourself as well. The behavior is more congruent with hobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:It's marginally anti-white racist, but that's pretty much morally correct No such thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:No such thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Hey permit holders who carry at all times, it's time to admit something: Jeff Cooper was a paranoid eccentric who lived in the desert and sat in the corner of the room so the ghosts of dead Japanese wouldn't sneak up on him He was a racist old shitbird who loved to sneak up on huge animals and take their lives. And like Charlie Askins, he couldn't get enough of it because he would have rather been killing men
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Can it be done before 3-d printing gets cheap and easy? Because at that point, the strategy of going against the lobby and merchants goes out the window. You've been able to throw together a perfectly serviceable 9mm SMG with $50 worth of parts and tools for about 70 years. Instructions a monkey could follow have been on available online since the BBS days. People just generally aren't interested in home-baking firearms except for a very niche set of hobbyists. Kind of surprised nobody in the US has taken a lesson from the Troubles and cooked up a PIRA spec Barrack Buster. Thankfully our domestic terrorists are mostly super fuckin' dumb. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Fang posted:Too bad about the racism, though. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
You know what is the coolest thing about guns? The right of the people to keep and bear them shall not be infringed 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Tezzor is okay and has been very consistent w/r/t to his opinion on gun ownership: 1. Just because something is in the Bill of Rights does not mean it should be exempt from future scrutiny 2. Private gun ownership is a relic of a different era, not necessary, and indeed outright harmful to collective peace and progress in the contemporary first world 3. Case studies from other first world countries reinforce point number 2, and studies that do not are of questionable origin 4. Incremental policies at the Federal level to make firearms harder to get will work towards the eventual end goal of outright ban on private ownership 5. Over time, gun culture will be eroded in America to a point where an outright ban will be palatable, and the rate of gun violence in the United States will reduce to levels consistent with our peers He's not going to find common ground with any gun owners. He would delight in a world that sees us divested of all our toys, just as we would delight in a world that would where guns are so ubiquitous that little baby bitches like him are paralyzed with anxiety at the thought of leaving the house (if we're not already there). Let's just all be comfortable with mutual contempt.  Here's one of my bench rest AR-15 and some very cerebral reading: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
I'm glad between your healthcare system and gun control laws, americans are just as horrible to themselves as they are to the rest of the world. So yes indeed your second admendent allows you to keep bazookas in your home. Why wouldn't it
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Luckily, gun ownership in the USA is naturally decreasing, so it really is just a matter of time. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Street Horrrsing posted:I'm glad between your healthcare system and gun control laws, americans are just as horrible to themselves as they are to the rest of the world. So yes indeed your second admendent allows you to keep bazookas in your home. Why wouldn't it 
Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Is that a police officer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
looks more like an armed guard of some manner, thats not an NYPD uniform thats also a level 2 security holster, you need to grab the gun, operate a thumb break and then pull it from the holster upwards. pulling from the back in the scenario this person describes will not free the gun; it will actually jam against the retention strap. You can't fire it until you get it out, because access to the trigger is blocked by the guard. basically its an idiot idly having a power fantasy e: or its this one, hard to tell exactly from the picture- http://www.safariland.com/retention/model-6360-als-sls-mid-ride-level-iii-retention-duty-holster-23319B.html Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
natetimm posted:What you're talking about here I'm generally in favor of, but it's not really a "gun law". What you're talking about is lowering the bar for mental health commitments and restrictions of patients rights. It won't be the gun lobby that fights against this type of legislation, it will be patient advocates. The gun lobby is not pushing very hard in favor of it though. They actually appear to be perfectly happy that the criminally insane have ready access to guns. You would think they'd be more pro-active in stopping all these bad apples from tainting their hobby but it's evidently not a priority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
My ccw has prevented muggings on 3 separate occasions since I got it. Checkmate, gun grabbers 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
(Crossposted from this terrible thread that I killed.. This is an admittedly snarky attempt to try to unify the two sides on the issue - control opponents and advocates alike must understand that the 2nd Amendment is quite clear on the restrictions that are allowed on gun ownership.) Welp, I did a little research, and as it turns out, some of these dumbasses have a point. Here's the issue in a nutshell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution posted:In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[15] (see also: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?src=me&_r=0) From what I'm reading, there are still a lot of moving parts and unfinished cases. But the majority of the Supreme Court is leaning toward the interpretation that the operative clause, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is absolute, while the justification clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State", does not limit or influence the operative clause at all. The phrase "...shall not be infringed" is very broad and powerful. Infringe means any sort of limitation, such as waiting periods, background checks, or age limits. Come to think of it, you might even be entitled to a free gun from the government under this phrasing. Not all federal laws have been updated yet; in fact, the NRA lists several current restrictions to firearm ownership and usage, such as the following excerpt: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20040324/citizen-s-guide-to-federal-firearms-law posted:Ineligible Persons It's unclear to me which of these classes of people the NRA would wish to allow to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, although I could make a few guesses. But taken literally, the operative clause would only prevent those who are not citizens of the US from obtaining guns. Indeed, according to this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, a 14 year old drug addict who has been convicted of murder, stalking, and domestic violence, and who has been ruled mentally incompetent and escaped prison, would still be eligible for firearm ownership (edit: as well as being allowed to carry at all times) as they are considered "the People". With such a law as this, why wouldn't you want to own a gun?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 11:57
|
|
