|
Bueno Papi posted:I wouldn't let people like Dead Reckoning completely sour your view of all gun owners. Sadly, the political space around gun control has been all but taken up by the rabid anti-regulation types. Ironically, that fervor is what will eventually kill firearms as a civilian hobby. I try to impress this idea on to the gun hobbyists I know but most are of the "any regulation is tyranny" ilk. lol no, it's the out of control mass shootings and suicides that have soured me on guns as a concept.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
tbf gun ownership leads to gun owner suicides so it can be hard to be completely against the concept
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:lol no, it's the out of control mass shootings and suicides that have soured me on guns as a concept. Mass shootings are a thing in europe so it's unlikely severe gun control will really do much there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Vice's Mass Shooting tracker is kind of neat. Here's Europe, Here's America. Their criteria is a little more narrow, but basically any shootings were there's more than but no guys gun control doesnt work A Festivus Miracle fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Mass shootings are a thing in europe so it's unlikely severe gun control will really do much there. I think America has more mass shootings by a mile. I wonder how many mass shootings Australia has? It's a real mystery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:I think America has more mass shootings by a mile. I wonder how many mass shootings Australia has? It's a real mystery. Is the goal reduction or elimination though? If the goal is reduction, you'll reduce a lot more deaths overall by focusing on non-mass shootings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Is the goal reduction or elimination though? If the goal is reduction, you'll reduce a lot more deaths overall by focusing on non-mass shootings. Can't believe that we are still explaining this in The Year Of Our Lord 2016, but yes, gun deaths break down differently than what the public perceives. The vast majority of gun deaths in America are not mass murder/rampage killings, and the vast majority are also committed with handguns and not rifles or shotguns. 1) The only thing a handgun enables you to do that a small capacity rifle or shotgun don't is conveniently carry around the ability to kill lots of people. Hunting, sport shooting, home defense, etc can all be accomplished with weapons that are much less likely to be used in crimes. Handguns should be outlawed in this country (via a minimum weapon/barrel length law, the way sawed off shotguns were outlawed in CA). 2) Semi-automatic rifles should be outlawed as well and serve only as tools of Law Enforcement and the military. 3) Mandatory gun registration and strict licensing should be implemented nationwide. It's harder to get a motorcycle license in CA than a handgun permit  4) Possession of unlicensed handguns should have strict penalties and a burden of ownership should be placed on gun owners. Fines and/or criminal penalties for failing to notify law enforcement of lost or stolen guns. It is not some big mystery what we need to do to solve our gun violence problem. Eliminating handguns would solve the vast majority of it. CA Senator Chat: I don't love Harris or Sanchez but I think Harris is the much better choice in that she is actually a liberal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
once we get rid of the second amendment we can start making cops get rid of their guns too
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/quote:The US has a very specific brand of violence. Perhaps our criminals are just more motivated than the rest of the world, or perhaps having a firearm for every man, woman or child in America ups the ante in confrontations. Either way, the involvement of guns in violent crime (and the defense against violent crime) is a decidedly American phenomena amongst developed nations. Trade offs. As a non gun owner I dont care about them much more than big knives or axes, and those arent going away. ... EXCEPT FOR the fact that guns can more easily damage people unintentionally at a greater range (this includes violent idiot cops firing hundreds of rounds while jacking each other off). (I have no idea if that site is motivated for something, if it is Im sure someone will recognize it and say so.) Pure LOL if you think that the giant cop gangs will ever give up their guns in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
The UK and US definitions of "violent crime" are different and fully account for the seemingly odd difference between the rates in the two countries. Apparently the FBI definition for "violent crime" is only the following: forcible rape, murder, manslaughter, robbery and aggravated assault. In the UK, they also count simple assault and ALL sexual assaults (instead of just forcible rape). Moving beyond cherry picked statistics to real numbers, the UK has a murder rate 4 times that of the United States. In fact, this graph shows that our murder rate is actually several times higher than all of the most advanced European countries. Its hard not to look at that and think that the wide gulf between gun ownership in the US and the rest of those countries has nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
cheese posted:We can reduce both mass shootings and regular old gun deaths with equal effectiveness. Just because we probably can't ever get around the "terrorists drove into our country with illegal AK47's and shot a lot of people in an attack" does not mean we cannot reduce both the number of mass murder episodes and their body count.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
cheese posted:Moving beyond cherry picked statistics to real numbers, the UK has a murder rate 4 times that of the United States. In fact, this graph shows that our murder rate is actually several times higher than all of the most advanced European countries. Its hard not to look at that and think that the wide gulf between gun ownership in the US and the rest of those countries has nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
cheese posted:The UK and US definitions of "violent crime" are different and fully account for the seemingly odd difference between the rates in the two countries. Apparently the FBI definition for "violent crime" is only the following: forcible rape, murder, manslaughter, robbery and aggravated assault. In the UK, they also count simple assault and ALL sexual assaults (instead of just forcible rape). oh wow look at that decline in australia beginning around 1996 i wonder what happened there to cause that
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:In-n-out fries aren't chemical company creations. As such, they won't keep. Not even for as long as it takes to eat your burger. Eat them first and they're delicious. Take them to-go and they wilt into nothingness. Because I hate gun chat, I will point out that the reason they don't keep is that they just make them wrong. The french fry technique used by any place with decent fries involves an initial fry to cook the potatoes, removal from the oil, and then a second hot fry to crisp the outside and make the inside creamy. Most fast food chains do the first fry centrally and then ship the par-cooked fries to the individual shops. In-n-Out just sticks a potato on a frycutter above the oil and dumps it straight in and then serves it. It's actually precisely wrong, and it's the reason their fries are overly starchy and get mushy right away. It's not a difference in style, it's just the wrong way to make a french fry, and it's the reason people have to order them burnt to get them even halfway edible. I've got lots of thoughts about french fries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
drat, I almost got fully suckered into yet another cyclical gun control debate. Close one!Kenning posted:Because I hate gun chat, I will point out that the reason they don't keep is that they just make them wrong. The french fry technique used by any place with decent fries involves an initial fry to cook the potatoes, removal from the oil, and then a second hot fry to crisp the outside and make the inside creamy. Most fast food chains do the first fry centrally and then ship the par-cooked fries to the individual shops. In-n-Out just sticks a potato on a frycutter above the oil and dumps it straight in and then serves it. It's actually precisely wrong, and it's the reason their fries are overly starchy and get mushy right away. It's not a difference in style, it's just the wrong way to make a french fry, and it's the reason people have to order them burnt to get them even halfway edible. I've got lots of thoughts about french fries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Kenning posted:Because I hate gun chat, I will point out that the reason they don't keep is that they just make them wrong. The french fry technique used by any place with decent fries involves an initial fry to cook the potatoes, removal from the oil, and then a second hot fry to crisp the outside and make the inside creamy. Most fast food chains do the first fry centrally and then ship the par-cooked fries to the individual shops. In-n-Out just sticks a potato on a frycutter above the oil and dumps it straight in and then serves it. It's actually precisely wrong, and it's the reason their fries are overly starchy and get mushy right away. It's not a difference in style, it's just the wrong way to make a french fry, and it's the reason people have to order them burnt to get them even halfway edible. I've got lots of thoughts about french fries. bingo they don't do the double fry i'm from the south and it drives me nuts how many places around here get that basic concept wrong not that this is entirely a terrible thing - since moving here my fried food consumption has been noticeably reduced and i'm certainly not buying a little deep fat fryer myself to have around the kitchen
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:bingo they don't do the double fry I thought the same thing, but making good fried food can be messy and time consuming. I don't use it as much as I feared.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
cheese posted:drat, I almost got fully suckered into yet another cyclical gun control debate. Close one! H.P. Hovercraft posted:oh wow look at that decline in australia beginning around 1996 i wonder what happened there to cause that 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Kenning posted:Because I hate gun chat, I will point out that the reason they don't keep is that they just make them wrong. The french fry technique used by any place with decent fries involves an initial fry to cook the potatoes, removal from the oil, and then a second hot fry to crisp the outside and make the inside creamy. Most fast food chains do the first fry centrally and then ship the par-cooked fries to the individual shops. In-n-Out just sticks a potato on a frycutter above the oil and dumps it straight in and then serves it. It's actually precisely wrong, and it's the reason their fries are overly starchy and get mushy right away. It's not a difference in style, it's just the wrong way to make a french fry, and it's the reason people have to order them burnt to get them even halfway edible. I've got lots of thoughts about french fries. That's a good point. Consider also that McDonald's fries are sold in huge numbers and their rigorously controlled to make a uniform product. A greater portion of the flavor you're tasting is likely due to these controls, starch content of the potatoes, sugar water wash to make sure you have the right amount in the surface to get the right amount of browning, and last but not least, the flavorings added to make them taste like they did when they were fried in beef tallow. Same reason why McDonald's fries are distinct from Burger King or Wendy's. In-n-out is just raw potato, cut rinse and fry. You're just tasting the potato, usually less brown, and not the flavor industry concoction. Whether that's better or not is subjective. In love me some McDonald's fries personally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
heres my idea for a ballot measure, keep an eye out for it in the next few years - put a Gun Fondling Area next to every Smoking Area, so that i can blow cancer clouds at gun owners
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:heres my idea for a ballot measure, keep an eye out for it in the next few years - put a Gun Fondling Area next to every Smoking Area, so that i can blow cancer clouds at gun owners Perhaps adjacent to to the kid Fondler's Area?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
The gun control debate seems to focus on proposals for new gun control laws, and whether or not they are good. It seems to me that it ignores the elephant in the room, which is the 300 million guns already in the hands of Americans. You could 100% end all gun sales across the country today, and there's still enough guns for every man, woman, and child to have one. Gun control legislation isn't entirely meaningless: a law that restricts sales to people with mental health problems, for example, could probably have some small effect. But the entire gun control debate seems to veer around or avoid the fundamental topic: if you think we should have a country that isn't awash in guns, you're going to have to somehow take away a lot of the guns people already (mostly legally) have. I feel like it sort of parallels the immigration debates we've had over the last decades, in that your border fences etc. don't address the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country. Even Trump can't seem to agree with himself on what to do about them - sometimes he insists he'd deport all 12M of them, but sometimes it's 4, or 3, or 2, or just "the bad ones." Because it raises the spectre of door-to-door "papers please" style fascism, and given the sheer numbers, total export of all illegal immigrants probably amounts to ethnic cleansing. Similarly, a second-amendment-repealed total reversal of the American gun ownership phenomenon will require armed police squads going door-to-door confiscating guns across the country, and I don't think most people are ready to fully contemplate the kind of violence and upheval that would look like. So instead we get heated debates over whether or not to vote on the latest mostly-symbolic gun control measure, and I kind of really hate how futile those debates are. There are exceptions - I really do think if (say) you've been subscribed antidepressants for chronic depression, you probably shouldn't be able to go buy a handgun - but that's not what most gun control law proposals are about. So whatever. The laws are just symbolic victories or defeats in the ongoing war of words between the two entrenched sides, and when they pass or fail, that merely signals the ebb and flow of the war of words and ideas that is no closer to resolution than ever. California is often the leader in terms of progressive legislation - whether it's controlling smog, protecting endangered species, restricting oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, improving access to health care for the children of poor families, or, yes, gun control laws. So I get why it's important for some folks to push for more restrictive gun control laws... of any kind, irrespective of the details or effectiveness. They want to move the entire country another notch towards the world they want to live in, which is one where people don't shoot each other. Folks who own or want to own guns, legally, find that attitude objectionable, because a lot of existing and proposed gun control laws would inconvenience them in some way, but probably do little or nothing to actually reduce how many people are shot by guns. My point here is, go ahead and vote for the prop if you feel like it's helping. It's probably not, and if it passes it might instead be hardening the resistance of folks who own guns and want to stave off the day when someone will come to confiscate them, but nobody can really know for sure. And if you vote against the prop on the basis that it doesn't actually accomplish anything meaningful towards lowering gun violence, but does inconvenience sport and target shooters, that's also a pretty reasonable position to take. Fortunately, the ineffectiveness of the law means that you can probably still do the things you want to do with your guns (which are probably just sport and target shooting, plus perhaps holding on to that vague feeling that you're safer from the criminals who are going to bust into your home and menace your family any day now). Not to demand to claim the last word, but I don't think there's a lot more to be said about it than that. The prop creates restrictions that are fairly trivial to get around for anyone who is planning to do some shooting (of any kind), so it's immediate practical impact is minimal. The larger gun debate is not closer to being solved by passage or not of this bill, and I'm not aware of any attempt in any part of the US, state or federal level, that could possibly begin to actually reduce how many guns Americans own, so this isn't changing in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:So instead we get heated debates over whether or not to vote on the latest mostly-symbolic gun control measure, and I kind of really hate how futile those debates are. There are exceptions - I really do think if (say) you've been subscribed antidepressants for chronic depression, you probably shouldn't be able to go buy a handgun - but that's not what most gun control law proposals are about. What I really want this moment is proposition control. Raise the number of signatures dramatically. Repeal the whole concept. Anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Or you do it like smoking and shift our culture away from gun fetishists. If every new generation owns fewer guns than the one before it, eventually the problem will go away or at least be reduced to a reasonable level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Perhaps adjacent to to the kid Fondler's Area? sure why not, i got plenty of carbon monoxide to go around
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:(tangent) That's a big ol' chunk of the population. One study says 11% of Americans are taking anti-depressants. Yeah, the proposition process represents a failure of the citizenry to influence their own representatives to write and pass legislation that they want written and voted on; probably a better solution than making it easy for citizens to write and pass legislation independently of the legislature, would be to fix whatever is broken with the legislature's irresponsiveness to the citizenry instead. I have no proposal for how to do that, though, so in the meantime, I can like you be annoyed with how many garbage propositions there are every year, while not really wanting to entirely eliminate the ability of a big chunk of the state's people to tell its government "gently caress you we're doing this" if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Also a lot of those guns are concentrated in the hands of a few owners
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
and gun bans that've been implement elsewhere typically include a buyback program when australia implemented theirs the buyback had measurable success
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Or you do it like smoking and shift our culture away from gun fetishists. If every new generation owns fewer guns than the one before it, eventually the problem will go away or at least be reduced to a reasonable level. That's an interesting take. I'm not sure if the parallel works, though: did kids used to mostly take up smoking because their parents did it? Whereas gun culture seems to be to be pretty hereditary, like religion: you live in a gunny sort of place, your family and other families you're familiar with do gun stuff, so you of course have a gun or five. But, I see americans' individual attitudes towards guns as similar to nations' attitudes towards their militaries; A well-adjusted, mentally healthy individual properly trained in gun safety can responsibly own and use guns without intentionally or unintentionally shooting people or letting people get shot. And there's surely lots of people like that, but also lots of people with guns who don't meet those criteria. A well-adjusted, mentally healthy country that has a full understanding of the dangers of the military and the industry that supplies it, can responsibly fund and manage their own military without intentionally or unintentionally getting themselves into unnecessary wars, or running around murdering people, etc. There are probably a few countries like that, but goddamn America sure isn't one of them, like holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A well-adjusted, mentally healthy individual properly trained in gun safety can responsibly own and use guns without intentionally or unintentionally shooting people or letting people get shot. And there's surely lots of people like that, but also lots of people with guns who don't meet those criteria. If propositions actually represented the will of the people, I'd sigh and go along with it, although I still think the number of signatures should have risen with the population. However, many propositions are actually written by astroturfing corporations. Remember the year we had three competing insurance propositions, all written with the most complex language possible? Or the marijuana proposition that reserved commercial marijuana growth to a specified set of preexisting plots? I'm hazy on the details of the latter; it may never have made the ballot, or it may have failed. Anybody remember details? Propositions should not be avenues for corporations to rewrite laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Or you do it like smoking and shift our culture away from gun fetishists. If every new generation owns fewer guns than the one before it, eventually the problem will go away or at least be reduced to a reasonable level. That was the plan with tobacco, but apparently it didn't work out that way. I recently read a goon who works in public health discussing this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:"well-adjusted" is a circular definition, though. Anybody who previously behaved normally and then shoots themselves/spouses/children is referred to as "they just snapped" rather than "well-adjusted person shoots people". the first election i ever voted in was a special election that had nothing but a bunch of ballot measures that governor schwarzenegger had put forward pretty much just to gut public employee unions
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Or the marijuana proposition that reserved commercial marijuana growth to a specified set of preexisting plots? I'm hazy on the details of the latter; it may never have made the ballot, or it may have failed. Anybody remember details?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Austrailian homicides were already on a downward trend prior to 1996 so Where's the evidence of this? I couldn't find anything other than some massive massacre that caused the ban in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Shut the gently caress up about guns you loving idiots. I'm ordering animal style fries, gently caress all of you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Alec Eiffel posted:Shut the gently caress up about guns you loving idiots. I'm ordering animal style fries, gently caress all of you. Better order them well done and with green chilis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
loving people are petitioning to get a veggie burger option on the In-N-Out menu. It's called the loving grilled cheese, people. It's everything but the meat. I've been ordering the grilled cheese for 13 years, ever since I became a vegetarian–eat it too, motherfuckers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Alec Eiffel posted:loving people are petitioning to get a veggie burger option on the In-N-Out menu. It's called the loving grilled cheese, people. It's everything but the meat. I've been ordering the grilled cheese for 13 years, ever since I became a vegetarian–eat it too, motherfuckers. Yeah they should add a veggie burger so vegetarians can get some protein
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Alec Eiffel posted:loving people are petitioning to get a veggie burger option on the In-N-Out menu. It's called the loving grilled cheese, people. It's everything but the meat. I've been ordering the grilled cheese for 13 years, ever since I became a vegetarian–eat it too, motherfuckers. I hope the patty is just a big slice of potato.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah, the proposition process represents a failure of the citizenry to influence their own representatives to write and pass legislation that they want written and voted on; probably a better solution than making it easy for citizens to write and pass legislation independently of the legislature, would be to fix whatever is broken with the legislature's irresponsiveness to the citizenry instead. Take the current gun bill we're arguing over. I'll give you all a good reason to vote against it that has nothing to do with gun control. The state legislature already considered a raft of similar gun control measures this year. Some passed, some failed, and some (but not most) were vetoed by the governor for being pointless or impractical. Yet we have this ballot measure. Why? Because Gavin Newsom wants his name attached to it in order to burnish his political credentials. And people are going to vote for it despite having no conception in a practical sense of how these laws would actually work, because most Californians are superficially in favor of gun control. Witness that most supporters of the bill ITT don't actually know what the current state of the law is, can't explain by what mechanism the proposed changes would actually reduce crime, or freely admit that they don't care and are just voting out of spite or to send a message. Are we not yet convinced of the lovely consequences of low information voters and protest votes? Is this really the sort of government we want, where we enact sweeping legislative change without really understanding it because it sounds good and it doesn't effect us? Has this ever worked out well in the past?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:15
|
|