|
Kilroy posted:I do like guns, but considering that I happen to live in a country where they are really illegal, obviously they aren't terribly important to me. Wait. Wait wait wait. You're not even an American, you live in a country where guns are illegal and American mass shootings don't happen, and you're telling Americans we need to keep guns legal and rollback the NFA? Why, why do you even care if it won't benefit you in the slightest. Are you planning to...move to America and build an arsenal of sweet sweet guns? Is your archenemy American and you're hoping he's watching a movie in the next Aurora theater shooting? Kilroy posted:I don't think it would have stopped Robert Dear from attacking a Planned Parenthood and killing some people, for example, although it may have stopped him from using a gun to do it. Right what are the typical body-counts for mass stabbings or mass um uh crossbowings versus mass shootings again?
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
I'm an American citizen. I vote in American elections. I will move back to America "eventually".VitalSigns posted:Right what are the typical body-counts for mass stabbings or mass um uh crossbowings versus mass shootings again? Kilroy fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
They weren't used in crimes prior to the registry closing, either. Prior to 1986 if you could afford an AR you could afford an M-16. Hence there still being 250,000 legal machineguns left in circulation. But yes, apparently the low bar of requiring people to file a form with the ATF and pay a small fee for a tax stamp has been enough to make them nonexistent in crime. Probably because it was easier, cheaper, and more practical to get $150 hi-points, $20 knives, etc. and the only ones willing to make the effort were people who actually had an interest in guns. The problem with using such legislation in the US currently is that it was misused in this case to create a de-facto gun ban. The machinegun registry was closed during the 1980's gun control hysteria despite them being entirely non-existent in crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
It's always funny to me to hear the explanation that automatics aren't used in crimes because they're not useful in crimes, and not because of silly regulations. The breaches in logic and basic sense compound on themselves. First, I can think of many situations where having fully automatic fire might be useful, such as major robberies, mass shootings, terrorist attacks, gang killings, etc. Yet they're not generally used in this country. Second, most automatics have a select-fire option, meaning they can be used as standard semi-automatic guns. Third, I am told that it is vital that gun owners need to have multiple kinds of firearms so they can have self-defense options; handguns for personal street defense, rifles in case their family are being attacked by wolves 200 yards away, shotguns in case they need to hole up in their house behind a mattress on suspicion of boogeyman or boogeymen. Yet apparently violent criminals in the process of committing a crime, at approximately one million times the chance of being shot or needing to use their gun during this period than people sitting in their homes for the same amount of time, do not want or need options. Fourth, that nearly all violent criminals, these paragons of reason and virtue, apparently universally recognize this. You'd think there'd be at least one or two every year who don't know about guns beyond what they learned in action movies. Or perhaps they do exist but in their ignorance of guns they bought an automatic by mistake and began fading out like in Back to the Future the moment they try to commit a crime with it, I don't know. What I think we can all agree on is that gun regulations do nothing no matter if I have to contort myself to the extent that I look like the pipes screensaver from Windows 95
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Boogaley Moo posted:It's easy to generalize hunters, however there are rural areas in the US where people either hunt or srarve. Nevvy Z posted:This is a huge red herring that gets brought up all the time. No realistic gun control plan involves going and trying to get them all back, and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:But yes, apparently the low bar of requiring people to file a form with the ATF and pay a small fee for a tax stamp has been enough to make them nonexistent in crime. Plus spending $10,000+ because of that de facto ban you're weeping about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:They weren't used in crimes prior to the registry closing, either. Warbadger posted:The problem with using such legislation in the US currently is that it was misused in this case to create a de-facto gun ban. The machinegun registry was closed during the 1980's gun control hysteria despite them being entirely non-existent in crime. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Boogaley Moo posted:It's easy to generalize hunters, however there are rural areas in the US where people either hunt or srarve. Yeah, rural America is seriously underweight and on the cusp of starvation if it was prevented from primate hunter-gathering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yeah, rural America is seriously underweight and on the cusp of starvation if it was prevented from primate hunter-gathering. Please stop being mean to Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Please stop being mean to Alaska. TBF it might not be applicable to compare US northwestern territory Alaska with a population density of 1 to the rest of mainland US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Please stop being mean to... North Dakota?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
If you shoot a gun in North Dakota whats to stop the bullet from traveling right out of the state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Can you show this? The whole "machineguns used in two crimes" thing is in reference to NFA registered machineguns dating back to the NFA's creation in 1934. The registry was closed for machineguns in 1986, so we're talking 1 case in 52 years during which machineguns were accessible for a $200 fee and a few weeks wait - with hundreds of thousands of them purchased. The prices shot through the roof after the 1986 registry closure due to the sudden limit to availability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I'm an American citizen. I vote in American elections. I will move back to America "eventually". Oh okay that makes sense Kilroy posted:Here's one: Akihabara massacre. He had more success than Robert Dear. Right okay so your big example one guy killed four people ie, the bare minimum of deaths a shooting has to reach for some people (like the pro-gun side in this thread) to even let it qualify as a mass shooting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right okay so your big example one guy killed four people ie, the bare minimum of deaths a shooting has to reach for some people (like the pro-gun side in this thread) to even let it qualify as a mass shooting. In the Kunming stabbing 8 stabbers killed 29 people (not including the 4 stabbers who died) for a kill count of 3.6 per stabber. That's really pretty pathetic especially when Virginia Tech dude could get 32 all by himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Please stop being mean to... North Dakota? According to this, 9.7 Even Wyoming that leads ahead of Alaska has 5.8 per sq mile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The whole "machineguns used in two crimes" thing is in reference to NFA registered machineguns dating back to the NFA's creation in 1934. The registry was closed for machineguns in 1986, so we're talking 1 case in 52 years during which machineguns were accessible for a $200 fee and a few weeks wait - with hundreds of thousands of them purchased. Registration and a huge fine if the guns were transferred without paying the tax, which in 1934 was greater than the cost of the gun itself, worked. Yes, prohibitive taxes and gun registration keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And no government thugs went door to door confiscating the registered guns either!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:And no government thugs went door to door confiscating the registered guns either! Taqqiyah. They're just biding their time until all guns are registered, then bam Jade Helm but for real
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
I hate to quote myself but the 'deadly zip gun' debate might have drowned out something I would legit like to discuss:archangelwar posted:For something actually germane: Comedy option: If it passed, potential terrorists could use periodic firearm purchases to determine the point at which they have landed on the government's radar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yeah, rural America is seriously underweight and on the cusp of starvation if it was prevented from primate hunter-gathering. According to thinkprogress, childhood hunger is concentrated in rural America. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/06/10/2132331/report-child-hunger-is-concentrated-in-rural-america/
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Boogaley Moo posted:According to thinkprogress, childhood hunger is concentrated in rural America. Something something "We won't accept no gubamint handouts"
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The whole "machineguns used in two crimes" thing is in reference to NFA registered machineguns dating back to the NFA's creation in 1934. The registry was closed for machineguns in 1986, so we're talking 1 case in 52 years during which machineguns were accessible for a $200 fee and a few weeks wait - with hundreds of thousands of them purchased. One of those cases was a police officer who was exempt from NFA law, too. :V (used a mac-10 to kill an informant)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
If only gun owners openly claiming to be arming up for armed insurrection were exempt from the NFA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It's always funny to me to hear the explanation that automatics aren't used in crimes because they're not useful in crimes, and not because of silly regulations. Because someone bent on robbing a 7-11 isn't going to spend money on a thousand dollar+ gun (even before the registry closing drove the price up and without the tax stamp) when a two hundred dollar one does the job just fine. When gangster paradise was a thing in the 20's and 30's, machine guns weren't even popular then and a fairly new tech with civilians. They weren't an issue till gangsters started using them and with the repeal of prohibition and the law cracking down and catching the robbers and gangsters the whole machine gun thing dried up. Basically a law came along to regulate something unpopular that was used during a period when crime was rampant. Sawed off shotguns and SBRs were regulated with the law too, yet their use in crime persisted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Meanwhile, in reality, gun deaths are neck-and-neck with traffic fatalities this year. And your point is? Gun deaths are also just over 50% of what they were in 1993 and trending downward like all violent crime rates have been for a decade. gently caress off with the scare quotes, they won't convince anyone who can read the CDC and FBI numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Hey guys did you ever notice that the most regulated and therefore most expensive and rarest type of firearm is used in very few crimes? What a weird coincidence. Welp the law works time to repeal it Nobody has seriously argued to repeal the NFA, last I checked. I personally would argue that we should reopen the registry, as clearly these weapons are not a threat to anyone, but that will never fly given that the gun control proponents' idea of compromise has met with the Tea Party at 'You give me everything I want and suck my dick while you're down there.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Nobody has seriously argued to repeal the NFA, last I checked. I personally would argue that we should reopen the registry, as clearly these weapons are not a threat to anyone, but that will never fly given that the gun control proponents' idea of compromise has met with the Tea Party at 'You give me everything I want and suck my dick while you're down there.' lol, as opposed to gun advocates who have been ever so accommodating with their stance of "no gun control of any form for any reason". 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:And your point is? Gun deaths are also just over 50% of what they were in 1993 and trending downward like all violent crime rates have been for a decade. gently caress off with the scare quotes, they won't convince anyone who can read the CDC and FBI numbers. Gun deaths are going down! (Still 3 to 45 times that of the civilized world.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:And your point is? Gun deaths are also just over 50% of what they were in 1993 and trending downward like all violent crime rates have been for a decade. gently caress off with the scare quotes, they won't convince anyone who can read the CDC and FBI numbers. It's a large number, large enough that common rhetoric like "you're more likely to die in a car crash" no longer has the teeth that it once did. I don't understand the appeal to past deaths. Would you suggest that for example that traffic safety policy is not worth discussion because, in the past, traffic safety was worse than it is now? Of course not. Try again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Nobody has seriously argued to repeal the NFA, last I checked. I personally would argue that we should reopen the registry, as clearly these weapons are not a threat to anyone, but that will never fly given that the gun control proponents' idea of compromise has met with the Tea Party at 'You give me everything I want and suck my dick while you're down there.' Automatic weapons are clearly not a threat to anyone. We can see this from the fact that while they are rare, highly expensive and heavily regulated they are not currently killing people. We should remove this state of affairs because I do not want to accept restrictions on my selection of toys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's a large number, large enough that common rhetoric like "you're more likely to die in a car crash" no longer has the teeth that it once did. I don't understand the appeal to past deaths. Would you suggest that for example that traffic safety policy is not worth discussion because, in the past, traffic safety was worse than it is now? Of course not. Try again? I would make an argument that some of the newer safety requirements in automobiles are causing more problems than they fix, weight of vehicles (even small ones) keeps going up as they keep jamming more airbags in, Visibility keeps going down because they have to make the A pillars larger for more structural rigidity, People are literally removing headrests because the new angles required make it uncomfortable for many to actually drive for more than 5 minutes at a time, It's not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be, IMHO. The problem with guns is the same problem we have in general with american politics: the extremes from both sides hijack the conversation so nothing gets done. One side wants to ban all self-loading firearms (a huge majority of arms sold), the other side says "Nope, no more laws we're done now". I still love the idea of adding handguns to the NFA with the compromise of repealing hughes or a number of other things that could be done, but the catch there is the word "Compromise" - nobody's going to. So nothing's going to change for the forseeable future. Tezzor posted:Automatic weapons are clearly not a threat to anyone. We can see this from the fact that while they are rare, highly expensive and heavily regulated they are not currently killing people. We should remove this state of affairs because I do not want to accept restrictions on my selection of toys. Not that you're going to argue this in good faith anyways, but nobody's suggesting dropping machineguns out of the NFA, only removing the 1986 registry cut-off. Just having them in the NFA alone has proven to be exceedingly effective, and removing the cut-off is a good quid-pro-quo you can toss that won't increase crime in any way but would allow you to do other things such as add pistols in to the NFA. You still have a full FBI background check (not the instant brady one), tax stamp, and registration of the firearms. Doccers fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
But seriously it would be worth another mass shooting where the perpetrators had full auto weapons if I could full auto some 7,62x39 into a cardboard box and some cans. That would be toight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
dammit edit not quote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Hey question how come after we heavily regulated automatic weapons criminals didn't still have them all the time since criminals don't follow the law and it is so trivial to make a gun automatic
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Hey question how come after we heavily regulated automatic weapons criminals didn't still have them all the time since criminals don't follow the law and it is so trivial to make a gun automatic We still did have full auto weapons being used in crimes, they just weren't legal/registered ones. China got caught shipping an entire cargo container full of them to California, the Hollywood bank heist ones were illegal built AK's, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Hey question how come after we heavily regulated automatic weapons criminals didn't still have them all the time since criminals don't follow the law and it is so trivial to make a gun automatic Because full auto actually isn't all that useful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Not that you're going to argue this in good faith anyways, but nobody's suggesting dropping machineguns out of the NFA, only removing the 1986 registry cut-off. Just having them in the NFA alone has proven to be exceedingly effective, and removing the cut-off is a good quid-pro-quo you can toss that won't increase crime in any way but would allow you to do other things such as add pistols in to the NFA. You still have a full FBI background check (not the instant brady one), tax stamp, and registration of the firearms. This would have the effect of decreasing the cost and increasing the number and availability of automatic weapons, which as far as I can tell is balanced on the moral scale only by "I do not want to be restricted in my selection of toys," so I'm not really seeing the benefit. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Did other countries experience a similar decrease in crime over the last 20 years or was the U.S. in the 1970's and 80's so incredibly bad that even now with half as much crime we're still considered wild west cowboys? Or did no one notice how bad it was back then because there wasn't a 24 hour news cycle and out-of-sight out-of-mind? Maybe 24 hour news is to blame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:This would have the effect of creasing the cost and increasing the number and availability of automatic weapons, which as far as I can tell is balanced on the moral scale only by "I do not want to be restricted in my selection of toys," so I'm not really seeing the benefit. The political reality of getting pistols added into the NFA would be the benefit. But you don't want that. You want everything banned, so there's zero point for you to compromise at all. So. Nothing will change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
now a doublepost? man I'm sucking today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 19:00
|
|