|
Leperflesh posted:Yup, you're right, I was just reading through the proposal again: Okay, but are you seriously arguing the law is bad because it just makes it a whole deal more onerous to get out of state bullets and not a nationwide thing? I don't know it still just seems like you're arguing that because it isn't perfect it shouldn't be passed.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
I think maybe we disagree about how onerous it might be. Remember, those bad guys using those bullets are already in possession of a gun, despite basically identical (actually more stringent) laws restricting gun access. The fact they have a gun to shoot people with is strong evidence that, for that specific person, the background check system didn't work. They can get their bullets in the same way they got their gun (or probably much more easily). There's actually provisions in this law that I like. It requires people to report stolen guns to the police (I imagine people mostly already do that, but whatever, maybe it will improve reporting slightly). But the bullet thing is going to prejudice gun advocates against the law, and if it does pass, people who voted for it may feel they've now done their duty as far as gun control and not participate or push for other, better laws in the future. I'm annoyed by bad laws in general, and by bad laws that probably take the place of where a good law should be instead, in particular.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:it's fairly trivial to swap magazines during a mass shooting, and it's also not difficult to make a large-capacity magazine, since magazines are very simple devices (basically just a spring-loaded hopper full of bullets). are you speaking from experience here or
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
I have not made a large capacity magazine. But, I have handled and fired guns and looked at magazines. They're typically a box containing a spring that pushes up a follower. The edges of the box have to be the right dimensions. It's not very important because it's also similarly straighforward to make your own gun, and people have been doing that forever too. They used to be called zipguns, dunno what they're called now, but they're mostly pretty crap. Whatever. Absolutely nobody outside of a warzone needs a large capacity magazine, and the law bans possession as well as sale, so I don't care. I would have to do some research but I suspect they're not used in very many mass shootings, either. It takes five or ten seconds to swap a magazine for most guns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Why do we have laws about breaking and entering? I can open most older doors with a credit card. For that matter, why do we even have locks? It's relatively easy to make a lockpicking set at home, plenty of people do it. Sure, lockpicks are illegal but when has something being illegal ever stopped a criminal?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Because that way we can punish people after the fact. Also laws supposedly act as deterrents. Violent crimes are usually different. A law requiring you pass a background check to buy ammo (for the gun you already passed a check to get, or for the gun you got illegally but somehow couldn't get ammo for by the same means) is going to deter someone from shooting up a theater, or murdering their spouse? Because the misdemeanor penalty for breaking that law is scary, but the murder rap they'll face isn't?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Why do we have laws about breaking and entering? I can open most older doors with a credit card. For that matter, why do we even have locks? It's relatively easy to make a lockpicking set at home, plenty of people do it. Sure, lockpicks are illegal but when has something being illegal ever stopped a criminal? I agree with your broader point, but the lockpick part is kind of a bad argument because lockpicks are legal in most of the US (and most relevantly they are legal in CA).
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Because that way we can punish people after the fact. Also laws supposedly act as deterrents. Is that really how the deterrent works? Again, think about smoking. People can get their nicotine in other ways. They can dip, snort, chew -- all kinds of different ways. But if you heavily message "smoking is bad and yucky" and then pass a bunch of legislation, some pigovian taxes the rate of smoking goes way down. We won't be able to engage in total prohibition because of unfortunate Constitutional issues, but making owning and operating guns as expensive and annoying as possible is a good thing. Believe it or not, things like murder and suicide tend to be irrational spur-of-the-moment things. Making it frustrating and adding a delay is enough to stop a lot of suicides and murders. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Because that way we can punish people after the fact. Also laws supposedly act as deterrents. The idea behind background checks on ammo is to catch people who slip through the cracks of background checks on guns. If someone is declared unfit or commits a crime that prevents them from owning weapon, they can be caught or restricted from buying ammo. If someone uses a straw purchaser for their gun they'd have to use straw purchasers for ammo too. If you have a warrrant out, you problably won't go buy ammo either. The harder it is to get illegal weapons and ammo the more valuable those resources become which reduces needless use. If street criminals had to hand load their own ammo, that'll be a win for the community.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Chambers is a hero and should be given a medal. Edit: I'm undecided on the guy who attacked the Sacramento Mayor. Is the Sacramento Mayor a good guy or a bad guy? Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Because that way we can punish people after the fact. Also laws supposedly act as deterrents. No, but maybe, long before they get to the point of killing someone, they'll get a DV charge and their vehicle gets searched and a bunch of illegally purchased ammo is found in their trunk, which makes it easier to get a strong plea/conviction and a restraining order that results in the confiscation of all of their kill toys. This prop isn't perfect but it's a step in the right direction (the direction of banning all guns forever amen).
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
OK. I disagree that any "inconvenience" affect w/r/t buying ammo will trickle down to the "street criminals" and other kinds of people who engage in gun violence, but since it hasn't been actually tried, it's obviously impossible to present statistics to prove it. I think most gun violence, and in particular most of the mass-shootings people seem to be primarily concerned about, involve legally-owned guns which we can presume would not in any way have been inconvenienced by the need to obtain ammunition for those guns protected by similar (but weaker) rules. I think most gun ownership advocates, second-amendment supporters, etc. also believe this, and believe that the law as proposed would do nothing to reduce crime while probably inconveniencing them. These advocates see the proposed law as evidence that gun control advocates don't understand the real problems with guns in America and really just want to take away all guns. Which some of them do, as evidenced in this thread. I want to see gun control laws proposed that actually reduce access to guns by the most dangerous kinds of people: those with mental illness or impairment, and those previously convicted of violent crime (who make up the majority of those convicted of gun violence). The background check system already in place does an inadequate job of both, so I want to see laws that make it work better. And ultimately I want to see illegally-owned guns rounded up and confiscated, and we are never going to get to that place until legal responsible gun owners feel like they can trust politicians and the government to do that fairly and not go any further than that. I think laws like the one proposed impede that process of gaining trust and push further into the future the day when responsible safe legal gun owners would agree to and vote for laws and processes to take away and destroy all the illegal guns from all the dangerous and mentally incompetent (and depressed) Americans who have them. I appreciate that at least a few of you have been arguing in good faith and asking good questions, and engaging in this debate has helped me to think through my own convictions in the process of being forced to articulate and defend them, so thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Well yes, if you just wave your hand and assume all criminals will be able to get around all laws in their way of guns and ammo, then sure that will make laws not work. But not every street criminal is some hyper connected person. An ammo background check will make it more challenging for small time criminals and will likely reduce violence in communities. Needing to hire a straw purchaser once versus every single time you buy ammo will make it more expensive and harder to own and use an illegal weapon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
But the people who buy ammo a lot, are the ones who go to ranges and shoot a lot. The people who keep one gun at home "for protection" or who buy one gun to shoot up a neighborhood, only need to buy ammunition once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But the people who buy ammo a lot, are the ones who go to ranges and shoot a lot. The people who keep one gun at home "for protection" or who buy one gun to shoot up a neighborhood, only need to buy ammunition once. Yeah I don't buy your argument that people in street gangs or use guns in violent crimes only buy ammo once. Like last time I saw someone shooting in the street I presume they didn't buy the gun for the occasion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well yes, if you just wave your hand and assume all criminals will be able to get around all laws in their way of guns and ammo, then sure that will make laws not work. The entire concept is incredibly stupid, because the only people who buy ammo more frequently than they buy guns are recreational shooters. Criminals, for the most part, do not. If your goal is to grind recreational shooting out of existence, I'm not going to change your mind, but don't loving pretend that ammo checks have any sort of crime reduction value. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
You're aware that a box of 9mm ammo typically contains 50 rounds, and that most people would buy several boxes as one purchase? If you go to the range, you might shoot through a box or two in one visit. Otherwise, where are you using all this ammo? Just practicing in your back yard? Are we concerned about urban gang members? Who exactly is buying all this ammo, for criminal purposes, repeatedly? I'm not an expert on the ammunition buying habits of repeat offenders and illegal gun owners, of course, but I put it to you that you aren't either, and nobody has presented any evidence or even a newspaper article suggesting or showing that the people this law is intended to target, are frequent or repeat ammunition buyers for whom the passing of a background check would be some kind of impediment to their gun violence. e. This is all in reply to Trab
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Because that way we can punish people after the fact. Also laws supposedly act as deterrents. Trab already covered the background checks for ammo catching some people who slipped through the cracks on the background check when buying guns, but I wanted to address the other half of your post, about people murdering their spouse (or committing suicide). These things are often impulse decisions, and if we make it less convenient to go buy some extra ammo, it can give people the time they need to cool off and work through their problem in a less violent manner. Now, sure, some people will already have the ammo they need at home and won't need to go buy more before they kill their wives/their neighbors/themselves, but not everyone will. This legislation will save lives, and I don't really think it's so onerous to most gun owners as to not be worth that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
I don't think almost anyone who owns a gun, doesn't also own some ammo for it. Especially since most people who buy one gun and keep it at home, do it "for protection." People who routinely use up their ammo are target shooters and hunters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Are killing sprees planned way in advance or are they an "im angry now" kind of thing? Because if the latter wouldn't driving 3 hours to state lines calm that down? Or is this an ignorant thought? Shbobdb posted:Believe it or not, things like murder and suicide tend to be irrational spur-of-the-moment things. Making it frustrating and adding a delay is enough to stop a lot of suicides and murders. VikingofRock posted:I wanted to address the other half of your post, about people murdering their spouse (or committing suicide). These things are often impulse decisions, and if we make it less convenient to go buy some extra ammo, it can give people the time they need to cool off and work through their problem in a less violent manner. Now, sure, some people will already have the ammo they need at home and won't need to go buy more before they kill their wives/their neighbors/themselves, but not everyone will. This legislation will save lives, and I don't really think it's so onerous to most gun owners as to not be worth that. Leperflesh posted:We're on our way to banning unjacketed lead ammo in the state, because - believe it or not - the super-endangered California Condor. They eat kills, and when those kills are from hunters shooting with lead, they eat the lead and then get sick and die. I think hunters are mostly on board with the need to stop using unjacketed lead for hunting anyway, because hey guess what, it also contaminates your venison or whatever you were hunting for meat! It is the cheapest kind of bullet to buy (and easiest to make), though, so there's some resistance. I think it's likely the condor faction will beat the intransigent cheap-bullet hunter faction, at least in this state. At which point those intransigent hunters will, yes, drive to Nevada to buy ammo or just make their own reloads using lead bullets. Shbobdb posted:Why do we have laws about breaking and entering? I can open most older doors with a credit card. For that matter, why do we even have locks? It's relatively easy to make a lockpicking set at home, plenty of people do it. Sure, lockpicks are illegal but when has something being illegal ever stopped a criminal? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Inconvenience is a powerful force. Also the law will really shut down industry because sellers are incredibly risk averse when it comes to liability. Just take a look at two different areas: magic mushroom spores in California and abortion restriction laws in Texas. Neither sets of laws stop motivated individuals (and both create situations where those motivated individuals get thrown into the harms of black market purchases) but the aggregate result is a reduction in participation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:Inconvenience is a powerful force. Also the law will really shut down industry because sellers are incredibly risk averse when it comes to liability. Also, what liability?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're wrong about nearly all of this. Welp. I guess the park ranger at the Grand Canyon we talked to last week was full of poo poo. She was talking about condors because they have some there. Thanks for the corrections, though. That said, I thought full-jacketed didn't fragment the way partially or unjacketed lead did, which would reduce meat contamination? Clearly I have more to learn about this. El Mero Mero posted:Inconvenience is a powerful force. Also the law will really shut down industry because sellers are incredibly risk averse when it comes to liability. It's impossible for this proposed law to be any more effective than the same laws applied to gun sales, because ammo is useless without a gun. Everyone who legally owns a gun can legally buy ammo and then commit crimes (and per that article I linked, most of the recent mass shootings involved guns purchased with background checks); and everyone who illegally owns a gun can get ammo the same way. And the people who own guns for protection or for premeditated nefarious purposes do not need to repeatedly buy ammo, while the people who do repeatedly buy ammo are sports shooters who will simply be inconvenienced, mildly, by this law. Face it. It doesn't accomplish what its proponents want it to. If it passes, nobody will be severely harmed, but passing lovely laws is counterproductive to passing good laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
The fact people keep willfully ignoring the basic fact that someone can acquire a gun at one point in the past and then at a later point, purchase ammo while not legally being allowed to own a firearm is a *shocking* twist in an argument that is totally in the interest of honest discussion. On the topic of some of the other props: I am in favor of repealing the death penalty. I want more Cig taxes and taxes on shdbob. I also want to take away your plastic bags.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Gun ownership does, in fact, endanger both the owner and other people.   Gun culture is toxic and should be eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact people keep willfully ignoring the basic fact that someone can acquire a gun at one point in the past and then at a later point, purchase ammo while not legally being allowed to own a firearm is a *shocking* twist in an argument that is totally in the interest of honest discussion. Leperflesh posted:Welp. I guess the park ranger at the Grand Canyon we talked to last week was full of poo poo. She was talking about condors because they have some there. Thanks for the corrections, though. Whether a bullet fragments or deforms as a single piece depends on design, but most bullets will exhibit some degree of fragmentation if they are traveling fast enough. Most hunting bullets are designed to stay in one piece, because hunters don't like picking pieces of jacket out of the wound track or having the pelt shredded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Unsubscribe
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
We should just sit down together and settle this gun debate once and for all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
i hope president hillary takes away all your guns and melts them down in front of you
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Oxnard
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Welp. I guess the park ranger at the Grand Canyon we talked to last week was full of poo poo. She was talking about condors because they have some there. Thanks for the corrections, though. The evidence is wildly in favor of lead ammo being the source of lead poisoning in condors. Lead poisoning in condors is seasonal and it coincides with deer hunting season. The 8 hunting seasons where lead ammo use was banned in condor range in CA is inconclusive on condors, but shows statistically significant decline of lead poisoning in turkey vultures. It's possible that lack of evidence for effectiveness is due to noise from a species of 268 individuals spread over multiple states (with 167 more in captivity) whereas a more abundant species that fulfills a similar niche like the turkey vulture is actually showing the legislation to ban lead ammo being highly effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Gun ownership does, in fact, endanger both the owner and other people. All of those charts equally track gun deaths vs. wealthiness of the state. It's also the case that in America, gun ownership is higher in states with poorer populations, largely because rural populations are both poorer, and have higher rates of gun ownership. In other words, there is a strong correlation but the causation is complex and not as simple as you want it to appear. Poverty, conservatism, poor mental health treatment, rural communities, drug use, rates of depression, etc. are all plottable by state on lines similar to those you posted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Alec Eiffel posted:Oxnard gently caress you ese.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
Alec Eiffel posted:Oxnard poo poo, are we in the news again? Was it cops killing someone by accident, a hate crime, or the current city council catching flack because they haven't finished fixing decades of fiscal mismanagement yet and will also have to raise fees and fire people because of no money and poor credit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Was it cops killing someone by accident
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:And of course we still haven't closed the gun show loopholes that allow people to buy guns without the weeklong background check they're subjected to when they buy a gun legally at a gun store. Background checks also won't prevent people with mental health problems from buying guns or ammo until/unless we actually start including some kind of national mental health registry into the background check process. Gunshow loophole? Have you been to a gun show in the past few years? They suck for gun owners too. Gun show stereotype: Guy snapping a tazer, a bunch of oddball old coots selling random WW2/WW1/Civil War paraphernalia, beef jerky and nut vendors and a few table top gun dealers...that require a ATF 4473 just like a gun store. So sales require a background check. But wait! What about private party transactions? California requires everything to go through a dealer.. so you have a DOJ DROS and 4473 and the 10 day holding period. Some states allow private sales without a background check, but there is severe limitations on private party sales. As a private individual, you cannot sell too many guns before you run afoul of ATF rules, and the tabletop dealers will rat you out to police/ATF and the gunshow organizers if you are trying to sell more than 1 or 2 private party firearm at a show. Most gun shows won't let you open a booth/table unless you are a dealer. I don't see gun shows contributing poo poo to anything since they are getting killed off by the internet anyways. A bigger problem is straw purchases, that and stolen firearms is the top 2 ways guns fall into the wrong hands. BTW, I'm fine with background checks for private purchases if people want to close that loophole, I believe its overstated since most of the sources pointed to a survey conducted with 50 whole participants, yet that old "gun show" boogieman gets dragged out time and time again. The mental health registry sounds like a good idea, but the biggest barrier to that isn't the gun lobby or pro gun people.. its HIPPA privacy laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Remember back when they only killed people on purpose? Ah the good old days! I hate not knowing if this is an explicit reference to something or not. I know there was a cop driving over someone doing a beach patrol in an SUV over a decade ago, cops pursuing a suspect and accidentally shooting a jogger a few years back, and that up until several years ago the county as a whole had a problem of killing suicidal people because they were a potential danger to themselves or others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:I pretty much agree with this. No reloading is exempt. So you can assemble/build all the ammo you want. Completely exempt from the new laws. Ammo purchased at a range is also exempt. Which... has an interesting interpretation if you go to the range to shoot, buy ammo, then totally forgot you had a doctors appointment and have to leave immediately. Another simple way to bypass the new laws, is to become a dealer. I suspect you'll see a lot of California gun owners become Class 03 FFL's. [ Historic collector]. It requires sign off by the CA DOJ but it isn't a huge deal, you'll have to keep a logbook of your collection for federal audit and pay a yearly fee [$30 a year last time I checked].
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:All of those charts equally track gun deaths vs. wealthiness of the state. It's also the case that in America, gun ownership is higher in states with poorer populations, largely because rural populations are both poorer, and have higher rates of gun ownership. Poverty and guns are dirty things. We should work on eliminating both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
RandomPauI posted:that up until several years ago the county as a whole had a problem of killing suicidal people because they were a potential danger to themselves or others. This kid: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/09/local/me-43899 quote:The recent shooting death of Robert Lee Jones, a distraught 23-year-old man, by Oxnard police while he was hiding in his bedroom closet prompted an uproar. The National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People has called for a federal inquiry, and the state attorney general's office has started an investigation. A sixth Oxnard crime suspect was shot by police, but survived. quote:As far back as 2001, the Los Angeles Times detailed how police in Oxnard, a city with just 170,000 people, had killed more people that year than cities 22 times its size. During that year, a concerned mother called 911 because she was afraid her depressed son, Robert Jones, would harm himself. Jones was cowering in a closet when police shot and killed him, and the city later paid the family $1.5 million for the "mistake." Also: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...y-shoot-someone https://todopoderalpueblo.org/2014/10/09/oxnard-police-being-investigated-for-tattoos-earned-by-officers-involved-in-shootings/ quote:Now, a former Oxnard police officer is blowing the whistle on a sick practice of officers in the department proudly "earning" tattoos every time they shoot and kill people while on duty: quote:The former Oxnard officer told American Justice that if smoke is added to the tattoo, coming out of the barrel, then the shooting was fatal. He said the tattoos are “earned” by officers involved in shootings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 11:26
|
|