LemonDrizzle posted:I'm probably going to regret this, but are these the changes you're so upset about? Where any of the weapons used in recent terrorist attacks bought legally? If yes, carry on and ban them. Otherwise this is the kind of political move that gets people fired up, because they feel like public outcry over terrorism is getting abused to further an unrelated agenda and I have to say I would agree. The EC should at least be honest when they try to change the law and discuss the real merits of a law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I'm probably going to regret this, but are these the changes you're so upset about? The original scope of the directive which I outlined earlier in the thread is perfect. It did everything to curb current illegal firearms. My main disagreement with its current form is the ban of all semi automatics and the way this directive would criminalize collectors, who already have To have a license to be a collector, then have separate licenses to the guns themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Collect stamps instead of collecting murder machines like a sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Where any of the weapons used in recent terrorist attacks bought legally? If yes, carry on and ban them. Sorry phoneposting so double. They were legally bought shoddily deactivated guns, which were illegally modified to be functioning again. The directive in its original form wouldve already dealt with this by making deactivation requirements the same throughout EU and brought which parts of guns require licenses in line between member states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Collect stamps instead of collecting murder machines like a sociopath. Finland has large amount of hunters and the reserve training does require guns but this argument is probably wasted on you since you clearly don't care about actual facts when you can just go for shrieking hyperboles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:Finland has large amount of hunters and the reserve training does require guns but this argument is probably wasted on you since you clearly don't care about actual facts when you can just go for shrieking hyperboles. Clearly to be a hunter you need to have a museum-level collection of machine guns Also I lust for Finn blood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
punakone posted:The original scope of the directive which I outlined earlier in the thread is perfect. It did everything to curb current illegal firearms. My main disagreement with its current form is the ban of all semi automatics and the way this directive would criminalize collectors, who already have To have a license to be a collector, then have separate licenses to the guns themselves. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-6111_en.htm quote:What changes to the Firearms Directive is the Commission proposing today? The British shooting associations believe it only applies to weapons that "resemble" automatics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
punakone posted:Sorry phoneposting so double. They were legally bought shoddily deactivated guns, which were illegally modified to be functioning again. Isn't deactivation supposed to be permanent and irreversible? Was it performed incorrectly? Is the seller legally responsible for what happens with the weapons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:There's no proposal to ban all semi-automatics: Ah, I do believe Finnish translations have misled me, apologies. However, that would apply to most semi automatics still, which, as said before, affects unduly on the Finnish reserve training, sports shooting, among others. It also feels really stupid that you would ban guns based on how they look, instead of actual technical basis. Besides this, this does nothing to actually address the weapons used in the recent attacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:20
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:There's no proposal to ban all semi-automatics: How does banning weapons that look like automatic weapon prevent terrorist attacks from happening? I don't have the impression that terrorists would prefer a weapon just because it looks like a M16 but rather that their main criteria is "does this weapon allow me to kill as many humans as possible" As for "deactivated weapons", those should really be monitored much closer and it should be impossible to reactivate, or simply ban the trade with "deactivated" weapons. GaussianCopula fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Isn't deactivation supposed to be permanent and irreversible? Was it performed incorrectly? Is the seller legally responsible for what happens with the weapons? It was a Slovakian company called Kol arms that deactivated them. They had only welded the barrels shut to allow the firing of blanks. They can be made functional by changing the barrel. It was made correctly according to Slovakian laws, but for example in Finland they would have been considered functional. Thus I dont know if the company would actually be responsible for what the end user does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
punakone posted:It was a Slovakian company called Kol arms that deactivated them. They had only welded the barrels shut to allow the firing of blanks. They can be made functional by changing the barrel. It was made correctly according to Slovakian laws, but for example in Finland they would have been considered functional. Thus I dont know if the company would actually be responsible for what the end user does. Holy poo poo, what is wrong with Slovakia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Holy poo poo, what is wrong with Slovakia? I guess there really wasnt a point having stricter laws back when, but it is a problem that directive would solve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Collect stamps instead of collecting murder machines like a sociopath. You should not legislatively impose your own morality on others, even if you hate their guts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:47
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
GaussianCopula posted:How does banning weapons that look like automatic weapon prevent terrorist attacks from happening? I don't have the impression that terrorists would prefer a weapon just because it looks like a M16 but rather that their main criteria is "does this weapon allow me to kill as many humans as possible"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Wait, 140 years?! That's fricking insane. Does that mean that you pay almost nothing to equity and payments are mostly interest (which you can deduce from your taxes)? Private interest expenses lower the tax base in Sweden? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:14
|
|
Randler posted:Private interest expenses lower the tax base in Sweden? Yes, there are a few countries where you can deduce interest rate payments for your first home from your taxes, e.g. Sweden, the US, the Netherlands.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Randler posted:Private interest expenses lower the tax base in Sweden? It's quite possibly one of the worst tax deduction ideas of all time a nation can get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Yes, there are a few countries where you can deduce interest rate payments for your first home from your taxes, e.g. Sweden, the US, the Netherlands. I really hope somebody in Brussels tries to get that poo poo abolished as a state aid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
The deduction used to be a lot larger too, right up until the last bubble popped. Lessons learned: 0. But they insist its different this time, and we really got a crippling housing shortage this time (probably from all the people borrowing millions to own multiple apartments to rent out second hand).
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:The deduction used to be a lot larger too, right up until the last bubble popped. Owning apartments and renting them out doesn't contribute towards a housing shortage, but really dumb rent control laws do (anyone interested in reading about how not to manage a housing market should google Stockholm apartments waiting list)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:It's quite possibly one of the worst tax deduction ideas of all time a nation can get. It promotes development of new homes because it subsidizes new home purchases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It promotes development of new homes because it subsidizes new home purchases. Tell that to our simultaneous housing shortage and housing bubble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 08:07
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Tell that to our simultaneous housing shortage and housing bubble. The current housing bubble's in certain European markets are all supply driven and the only reason one has now be cautious when demanding "built, baby, built" is that you need to deflate the bubble softly or else it might burst.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
We have a Nobel price waiting for you if you can successfully "softly" deflate a housing bubble. It has literally never been done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 10:01
|
|
Xoidanor posted:We have a Nobel price waiting for you if you can successfully "softly" deflate a housing bubble. It has literally never been done. I don't think the academic work behind softly deflating a bubble is enough to win a Noble, given that most/all of it already exists. The main problem is to actually implement such a policy because it means that you are effectively cutting the profits of a whole lot of people, who will not be pleased by that idea and who are often better organized than the people who would benefit from the results of your work. I guess an instrument to combat this phenomenon would be to allow the people already owning real estate to directly share in the profits of newly zoned land, but the social implication of letting supposedly rich homeowners profit from further development will probably lead to massive protest, even though such an instrument would increase the value for everyone. You could call it reverse public domain to have a catchy name for it. Social housing on the other hand does nothing to slow the bubble down but might even accelerate it by reducing the availability of regular housing without a corresponding reduction in demand.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I don't think the academic work behind softly deflating a bubble is enough to win a Noble, given that most/all of it already exists. The main problem is to actually implement such a policy because it means that you are effectively cutting the profits of a whole lot of people, who will not be pleased by that idea and who are often better organized than the people who would benefit from the results of your work. I guess an instrument to combat this phenomenon would be to allow the people already owning real estate to directly share in the profits of newly zoned land, but the social implication of letting supposedly rich homeowners profit from further development will probably lead to massive protest, even though such an instrument would increase the value for everyone. You could call it reverse public domain to have a catchy name for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 11:07
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Why do you believe that building social housing would not reduce demand? Each new unit of social housing removes one renting household from the private market, making it less attractive for would-be landlords to invest. For this to be true the people (who want to) live in social housing would have to have the means to live in regular housing, with roughly the same size flats, as long as they have no access to social housing, which is probably not the case, as that would mean they can afford to live in regular housing and there would be no need for them to be allowed to get subsidized social housing. Therefore, if you increase the available social housing, the effect on the regular demand is not especially large, while the effect on the supply side is substantial, as you reduce the potentially available building space for regular housing.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:For this to be true the people (who want to) live in social housing would have to have the means to live in regular housing, with roughly the same size flats, as long as they have no access to social housing, which is probably not the case, as that would mean they can afford to live in regular housing and there would be no need for them to be allowed to get subsidized social housing. Therefore, if you increase the available social housing, the effect on the regular demand is not especially large, while the effect on the supply side is substantial, as you reduce the potentially available building space for regular housing. Well, this is assuming there would be no change in rules for approving public housing applications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Brussels attacks: Nuclear alert after security officer found dead with his pass missing
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 11:56
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, this is assuming there would be no change in rules for approving public housing applications. If you make it easier to apply for public housing the demand would skyrocket. I guess if you want to nationalize the housing market that would be an approach, but I'm very skeptical on it's success chances, as the resistance from vested interests against new housing would quickly mount regardless of whether it's public or private housing. Not to mention the myriad of problems public work projects of any scale regularly face (e.g. BER airport in Germany) YF-23 posted:Brussels attacks: Nuclear alert after security officer found dead with his pass missing That's like straight out of 24, I just hope we have enough Jack Bauers to combat the threat.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Noble How uneducated of you 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/713696451625422852 So, uhm, can we now all agree that refugees entering the EU without controls are a security concern?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/713696451625422852 Just as soon as we acknowledge the monumental failures of the belgian and french security services in keeping tabs on these guys everybody in the business knew were dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Just as soon as we acknowledge the monumental failures of the belgian and french security services in keeping tabs on these guys everybody in the business knew were dangerous. And as soon as we recognize that fueling civil wars and bombing random people for their oil provokes mass exodus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:So, uhm, can we now all agree that refugees entering the EU without controls are a security concern? If agreeing to them being a security concern means that the response would be tantamount to collective punishment against the refugees, no, we cannot. Terrorism against the west will end when the west stops pushing people into terrorism by military interventions, but even if you accept the current situation as-is punishing a lot of innocent people for the actions of a guilty few is wrong and would set an ugly precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
The same account now describes them as having RE-entered as refugees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:The same account now describes them as having RE-entered as refugees. So once again trying to demonise refugees by pretending to be them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Hahaaahah! I see what you did there! I wouldn't call German roads trash (that'd be Belgian roads) but they have some real issues. For example, if it rains, German roads keep crazy amounts of water on them leading to serious aquaplaning. Dutch roads are much superior in this regard  .Xoidanor posted:It's quite possibly one of the worst tax deduction ideas of all time a nation can get. Well to be fair it wasn't quite so terrible when it was implemented. However, it turns out some things have changed since 1893. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:So once again trying to demonise refugees by pretending to be them? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:10
|
|