|
Reynold posted:What the gently caress is a "national discussion"? How is that different from people voting for politicians that support their side of the issue and/or contributing to groups lobbying on their behalf? Because that's something that's already being done. Mama and papa government don't need to sit us all down in the national living room and give us a stern lecture, goddamn. No no, you see... you just haven't thought about the issue enough. Once you put on your big boy thinking cap and really give the issue a thorough going over you'll see how gun control advocates were right all along and you... well. You just weren't thinking, were you? 
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Reynold posted:What the gently caress is a "national discussion"? How is that different from people voting for politicians that support their side of the issue and/or contributing to groups lobbying on their behalf? Because that's something that's already being done. Mama and papa government don't need to sit us all down in the national living room and give us a stern lecture, goddamn. That might be the weirdest and most insecure thing I've ever seen written by the pro gun crowd. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Reynold posted:What the gently caress is a "national discussion"? How is that different from people voting for politicians that support their side of the issue and/or contributing to groups lobbying on their behalf? Because that's something that's already being done. Mama and papa government don't need to sit us all down in the national living room and give us a stern lecture, goddamn. Police officers can take twice as many bullets than civilians? drat.  Happy Advocate's Day, everybody!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Maybe having a "national discussion" could include allowing the CDC to research gun violence, so we could have better data on the subject and accordingly have better informed discourse and public policy?  Is that something you could get behind? 
Edible Hat fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Maybe having a "national discussion" could include allowing the CDC to research gun violence, so we could have better data on the subject and according have better informed discourse and public policy? Is there something stopping groups other than the CDC from conducting research? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Police officers can take twice as many bullets than civilians? drat. I also like the implication that police officers and innocent civilians are mutually exclusive. The police are a civil force so it only leaves one interpretation. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Besides resources, no. However, private funding of research has not been filling the hole left by the 20 year ban on research at the CDC. Also, it does not seem valid to compare a (highly concealable) tool whose sole ability is to (effectively) maim or kill another living being -- I'll also grant that there are recreational uses as well -- with a pressure cooker. I'd like to hear why you think they are comparable? Is there a problem with pressure cooker violence that I'm not aware of? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLo7z50Tt2g Edible Hat fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Jesus Christ just loving ban them 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:
It's not a coincidence that some of the laws passed in blue states after Sandy Hook got pushed through in "emergency" late-night sessions when no one was watching: it's because they targeted dumb stuff like cosmetic features, pistols over a certain weight, and things that sound scary but are rarely used and never make real difference in crime. Likewise, "universal background checks" failed on the federal level partly because the actual law proposed wasn't really universal and better characterized as a private sale ban handing lots of cash over to gun stores. It's always "something needs to be done" because the people saying it have proposals that are old wishlists marketed to the situation of the moment whether or not they actually fit, but that were always based on an action movie or video game understanding of guns. In short, the "Specifics or actual ideas" aren't brought up because to the strong supporters they're not important unless it sounds punishing enough, and the actual proposals are crafted with little knowledge about guns or gun crime and won't stand up to much scrutiny even if you want strong gun control. It sounds like Trump level handwaving stupidity because it's a similar inmates-running-the-asylum situation: guns are where the Democratic party has let their handwaving stupidity loose. If it helps, it does a lot less direct harm, even if indirectly it's been one of the big drivers of Republican voting in the last few decades, since for many voters it's the only wedge issue that will visibly and personally hurt them. That's not really new, it goes back to the 1930s when gangster panic caused gun laws to be passed using risk assessments based more on gangster movies. It worked for a long time, since gun laws were proposed by a weird coalition of Democrats who thought the war on crime was a great idea but wanted to put their own branding on it, old conservatives suspicious of any weapon that would look out of place in a cowboy movie, and gun manufacturers who saw signing onto a law that would hurt their competitors more than them as worth the bad press in the short term. As time went on those conservatives died out and the gun manufacturers stopped biting when they noticed the customers they screwed over had longer memories about this stuff than the gun control proponents who weren't buying their products anyway, so the coalition fell apart. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
The African-American target pistol enthusiast looks okay, but  for the rest of them, especially the guys on the left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:It's not a coincidence that some of the laws passed in blue states after Sandy Hook got pushed through in "emergency" late-night sessions when no one was watching: it's because they targeted dumb stuff like cosmetic features, pistols over a certain weight, and things that sound scary but are rarely used and never make real difference in crime. Likewise, "universal background checks" failed on the federal level partly because the actual law proposed wasn't really universal and better characterized as a private sale ban handing lots of cash over to gun stores. It's always "something needs to be done" because the people saying it have proposals that are old wishlists marketed to the situation of the moment whether or not they actually fit, but that were always based on an action movie or video game understanding of guns. In short, the "Specifics or actual ideas" aren't brought up because to the strong supporters they're not important unless it sounds punishing enough, and the actual proposals are crafted with little knowledge about guns or gun crime and won't stand up to much scrutiny even if you want strong gun control. It sounds like Trump level handwaving stupidity because it's a similar inmates-running-the-asylum situation: guns are where the Democratic party has let their handwaving stupidity loose. If it helps, it does a lot less direct harm, even if indirectly it's been one of the big drivers of Republican voting in the last few decades, since for many voters it's the only wedge issue that will visibly and personally hurt them. Gun owners are the biggest bunch of handwaving, false-equivalency spouting, misremembered history vomiting idiots. Yeah, people who want to ban guns are all movie watching idiots. Scratch Monkey posted:Is there something stopping groups other than the CDC from conducting research? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AtGZBWRmLA ryonguy fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:Jesus Christ just loving ban them Ok. I'll support the revising of the 2nd ammendment if you let me revise freedom of speech/press too. Nothing crazy, just some common sense restrictions on what you're allowed to say/write/think (much more helpful than banning guns if you ask me). 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
 If he didn't have any spoons he might not be so loving fat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:
The bigger problem is how so often crazies are crashing into public places and force feed people until they die of diabetes. Won't people please think of the responsible spoon owners?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:37
|
|
4
|
spacetoaster posted:Ok. I'll support the revising of the 2nd ammendment if you let me revise freedom of speech/press too. Nothing crazy, just some common sense restrictions on what you're allowed to say/write/think (much more helpful than banning guns if you ask me). Fine. We're all idiots. It's your hobby and you know best. What restrictions would actually work that you could also stomach? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Fine. We're all idiots. It's your hobby and you know best. What restrictions would actually work that you could also stomach? None. Any restrictions between me and putting holes in cans and blowing away varmints is Tyranny. Do you want us all to end up in Fema death camps? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Ok. I'll support the revising of the 2nd ammendment if you let me revise freedom of speech/press too. Nothing crazy, just some common sense restrictions on what you're allowed to say/write/think (much more helpful than banning guns if you ask me). Do both, win win! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Fine. We're all idiots. It's your hobby and you know best. What restrictions would actually work that you could also stomach? Add pistols to the NFA. To make it appealing and actually passable, offer a compromise: remove suppressors from the NFA (They're required in many european countries, they aren't used in crimes, and it'd be nice not to noise-pollute the crap out of everywhere), or remove the racist CLEO Signoff requirement, or hell remove the hughes amendment. none of these compromises would increase crime/misuse in any way, but would/should satiate a lot of the more extreme right-wing types. Particularly if you paint adding pistols to the NFA as a way of keeping them from poor people.  Related: homemade submachine gun recovered in australia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/672465524475981824?p=v Trump to Republican Jewish Coalition: "I'm a negotiator like you folks." AGAIN! Trump to RJC: "Is there anyone in this room who doesn't negotiate deals? Probably more than any room I've ever spoken." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Fine. We're all idiots. It's your hobby and you know best. What restrictions would actually work that you could also stomach?  
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Fine. We're all idiots. That's absolutely true if you think we can just remove/re-word the 2nd ammendment to the U.S. constitution without opening the doors for all kinds of revisions to other things. There are people out there just as "concerned" about our other rights too. Zeroisanumber posted:What restrictions would actually work that you could also stomach? I could go with a more serious background checks. I can even get behind government funded training for firearms owners. The trade off is I would want all material restrictions removed. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Hahaha. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Shut up about guns, just ban them
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I could go with a more serious background checks. I can even get behind government funded training for firearms owners. The trade off is I would want all material restrictions removed. In this climate? You could maybe get silencers. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
In other news: Obama has got the British to join us in bombing stuff in the middle east. Zeroisanumber posted:In this climate? You could maybe get silencers. Already have those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
quote:I could go with a more serious background checks. I can even get behind government funded training for firearms owners. The trade off is I would want all material restrictions removed. Hahaha.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:32
|
|
Tater Love 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:In other news: Obama has got the British to join us in bombing stuff in the middle east. Well, you might want to start getting flexible. I'm a squishy biased democrat posting in a bubble of squishy biased democrats, but putting that aside the GOP primary is a shitshow which could end with Donald Trump getting the nomination (or Ted Cruz). If that happens, then it's President Hillary. And if that happens then SCOTUS is going to swing 6-3 to the left with a very young liberal bloc. Coming to an agreement about gun control before any of that takes place would get you a better deal. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Look, I know pro-gun advocates are used to shooting at straw men, but someone should really tell them it's not a good argument strategy
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Coming to an agreement about gun control before any of that takes place would get you a better deal. lol  I'm really not worried about it. An entire kindergarten class was brutally murdered with crying parents and little bodies all over the t.v. and our Democrat President, and our Democrat Senate didn't do poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:lol Politics twists and changes. And the landslide effects of Hillary vs. Trump (or Cruz) would give her a lot of leeway to push whatever she'd like to in the first year or two. You'd be doing me too much credit to compare me to Christoph Waltz. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
NYT on a roll.quote:In 2015, record numbers of background checks have been reported month after month. In October, over 1.9 million background checks were processed. That month, stocks for two major gun manufacturers soared after President Barack Obama called for tougher gun laws in the wake of a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Orgeon, The Guardian reported. Here's a corroborating visualization of sales data for ammunition over one website for 10 years. The year after Sandy Hook was a doozy.  https://public.tableau.com/profile/matt.chambers#!/vizhome/Gun-DealsSalesData/SalesAnalysis Unrelated: from a few years ago. It's difficult to get solid data on accidental firearms deaths for lots of reasons. Uneven reporting in states makes this difficult. All signs point to scores more accidental firearm deaths among children than are reported. quote:"A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:41
|
|
