|
FCKGW posted:I've already said I'll vote for any bullshit gun law until the 2nd is repealed. You meatheads still try and tell me that won't solve any problems. i have to admit that seeing gun owners act like entitled children over every little thing has pushed me from "yeah there should be some reasonable restrictions on firearms" to "i hope president hillary repeals the 2nd amendment and melts everybodys guns down in front of them."
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
FCKGW posted:I've already said I'll vote for any bullshit gun law until the 2nd is repealed. You meatheads still try and tell me that won't solve any problems. Tell us where the post about guns touched you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:I've already said I'll vote for any bullshit gun law until the 2nd is repealed. You meatheads still try and tell me that won't solve any problems. Basically this. I'm in favor of anything that makes owning a gun more annoying and socially unacceptable. That's the best tool we have right now to fight the toxic gun culture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you're admitting the law would successfully stop prohibited prossessors now? Glad we've found agreement on that. i just want all the guns registered so that we'll all know where they are that seems p uncontroversial  i mean y'know while we still have the 2nd amendment and all
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:I'm for 2nd repeal and full confiscation of all guns actually. I'm pretty sure Americans already achieved high score on that already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
I'll have to check again but I'm pretty sure the proposed law makes buying/selling ammo without undergoing the background check a misdemeanor? Maybe that's just the failing to report stolen guns. Someone not posting from a Kindle check, please. Also it's obvious guns are better than knives at killing, that's why guns supplanted swords. Guns are also not going away in any of our lifetimes, no matter how much you squeeze your eyes shut and wish they would. So, maybe advocating for and passing actually effective laws while admitting when garbage laws are proposed, that they're stupid wastes of time and resources and political capital, could be a better way forward towards a safer world. It's depressing that that opinion is even controversial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
So what would effective gun control legislation look like? If there's already an effortpost or an article on this somewhere feel free to just quote that post or point me to the article or whatever. I've often heard the argument from gun people that there could be better legislation if politicians knew more about guns, but I've never actually heard what that better legislation would be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So what would effective gun control legislation look like? If there's already an effortpost or an article on this somewhere feel free to just quote that post or point me to the article or whatever. I've often heard the argument from gun people that there could be better legislation if politicians knew more about guns, but I've never actually heard what that better legislation would be. Up until recently the common refrain was "enforcing the existing laws would be enough" so even acknowledging that there's a legislative fix is progress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
This is not the general-purpose gun control thread, this is the California thread. If you want to talk about gun control, please make a thread about gun control. Since this is the California thread, here is some California news:
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:I'm for 2nd repeal and full confiscation of all guns actually. Well neither of us is ever going to get what we want so  EDIT: ComradeCosmobot posted:Since this is the California thread, here is some California news: gently caress it. Let's run this state into the ground some more. Vote Yes on Everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
I visited my friend in Sacramento this weekend and I actually think it is good and not bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
How the gently caress are anti-BDS laws even constitutional?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Bastard Tetris posted:How the gently caress are anti-BDS laws even constitutional? According to the article, this particular one just prevents the state from dealing with companies boycotting Israel (or any other sovereign state) rather than banning it outright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
raminasi posted:According to the article, this particular one just prevents the state from dealing with companies boycotting Israel (or any other sovereign state) rather than banning it outright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
This seems like a good idea. The banning of the practice, I mean. Dehumanizing prisoners is always a bad idea so this is pretty much a no brainer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
KQED's Forum is talking about Mountain View's Measure V (rent control) this morning, and the apartment association spokesman is insufferably political. "Wah wah! You're changing the rules on property owners and that's UNFAIR!" "People who earn $150k and above will benefit from this more than poors! Won't somebody think of the poors?" (which conveniently forgets that this is exactly the reason Social Security still exists today) "What you should be doing is building more housing, not attacking existing housing owners! *proceeds to vote against new housing since it would hurt their income*"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:So if Company A says it wont deal with Company B the State punishes them? Oh, I think anti-boycott laws are revolting. I was just explaining why I don't think this one is blatantly unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
drat, that sucks. The USA has been boycotting sovereign nations since before its founding, and boycotts were a major force against the South African apartheid. Now Israel has its own apartheid, and California says boycotting that is a step too far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:drat, that sucks. The USA has been boycotting sovereign nations since before its founding, and boycotts were a major force against the South African apartheid. Now Israel has its own apartheid, and California says boycotting that is a step too far. Or rather, the State of California says that it won't do business with people who won't do business with Israel. A boycott of the boycotters, if you will. Kenning posted:I visited my friend in Sacramento this weekend and I actually think it is good and not bad. I walked into a Chevron in Yuba City to get some sweet sugary snacks on the road between Grass Valley and Humboldt County. The gas station manager was sitting in his office, bottle of Seagram's Vodka clenched in one hand, drinking himself silly at 11 in the morning. When I commented on this to the cashier, she didn't even bat an eye. "Oh, He's going through a hard time right now". I guess the hard time was the fact that he lived in Yuba City.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
What is this thread's opinion on proposition 61? I'm tempted to reflexively vote for it because gently caress pharmaceutical companies all day every day, but everything I hear about it makes it feel like it falls under "good intentions, but really lovely execution." Has anyone here looked into it closely?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:What is this thread's opinion on proposition 61? I'm tempted to reflexively vote for it because gently caress pharmaceutical companies all day every day, but everything I hear about it makes it feel like it falls under "good intentions, but really lovely execution." Has anyone here looked into it closely? I'm not sure exactly what it covers, especially since it excludes stuff covered under Medicaid. If California ever adopts Single Payer it'll be interesting to say the least though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:What is this thread's opinion on proposition 61? I'm tempted to reflexively vote for it because gently caress pharmaceutical companies all day every day, but everything I hear about it makes it feel like it falls under "good intentions, but really lovely execution." Has anyone here looked into it closely? Here's the California Legislative Analyst's take. The tl;dr is that the bill doesn't actually require pharmaceutical companies to sell at the VA price to state agencies, it just caps what those agencies are allowed to pay to what the VA is paying. So it's entirely possible pharma will just refuse to lower their prices and the state will be hosed and without the drugs they need unless they violate the price ceiling. Alternatively, it may just result in companies jacking up the VA rate to match what the state would otherwise be paying. quote:Scenario #1: Drug Manufacturers Offer Lowest VA Prices to the State. If manufacturers choose to offer the lowest VA prescription drug prices to the state, this measure may achieve state savings to the extent that the lowest price paid by the VA is lower than that paid by state entities. However, these savings could be at least partially offset if manufacturers respond by raising the prices of other drugs paid for by the state but not purchased by the VA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Bastard Tetris posted:How the gently caress are anti-BDS laws even constitutional? They're not. quote:According to the article, this particular one just prevents the state from dealing with companies boycotting Israel (or any other sovereign state) rather than banning it outright. The first amendment also protects against government retaliation for protected speech; if the government said for instance "anyone who publicly expresses opinion A is ineligible for a driver's license" or "any company which donates to gay rights groups is ineligible to apply for government contracts", that would violate the first amendment because it singles people and organizations out on the basis of their speech/writing/1st amendment-protected-activity. That's precisely what these laws do: if you express opinion A, you will be ineligible to apply for government programs/contracts for which you would be eligible if you did not express opinion A. quote:Or rather, the State of California says that it won't do business with people who won't do business with Israel. A boycott of the boycotters, if you will. The difference is that BDS asks governments to boycott Israel because of Israel's actions in violation of international law whereas the government of California is boycotting individuals and organizations because they expressed the opinion that "What Israel is doing is wrong and I choose not to support that." Boycotting is covered by the first amendment; bombing Gaza or torturing Palestinian civilians is not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So what would effective gun control legislation look like? If there's already an effortpost or an article on this somewhere feel free to just quote that post or point me to the article or whatever. I've often heard the argument from gun people that there could be better legislation if politicians knew more about guns, but I've never actually heard what that better legislation would be. The problem is enforcement. In 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation referred more than 71,000 such cases to ATF, but U.S. attorneys ultimately prosecuted only 77 of them." The president is directly able to influence the ATF and the number of people they prosecute. Why hasn't Obama done more on this front? Violent criminals get let out of prison after 6 months or a year because the prisons are full. Notably in California they let violent rapists caught in the act out of jail after only 3 months. Why are they full? Because the only mandatory minimums we have are for drug crimes and our prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders. Eliminate the war on drugs and mandatory minimums for drug crimes and enact mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Pretty sure when violent rapist get 3 months in prison it is because they're well connected not because the prisons are full.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:I've already said I'll vote for any bullshit gun law until the 2nd is repealed. You meatheads still try and tell me that won't solve any problems. Shbobdb posted:Basically this. I'm in favor of anything that makes owning a gun more annoying and socially unacceptable. That's the best tool we have right now to fight the toxic gun culture. "toxic gun culture" doesn't really make any sense as a phrase or concept and even if such a thing did exist i fail to see how it would relate to violent crime, but i applaud you two for being honest about your intentions VikingofRock posted:So what would effective gun control legislation look like? If there's already an effortpost or an article on this somewhere feel free to just quote that post or point me to the article or whatever. I've often heard the argument from gun people that there could be better legislation if politicians knew more about guns, but I've never actually heard what that better legislation would be. most (or at least a significant amount) of the legislation on the books targets enthusiast items ("""assault rifles""", imported ex-military stuff, silencers/short barrel rifles/grenade launchers, machineguns etc) even though something like 90% of firearm homicides are committed with handguns. this is because most gun control advocates feel the same as the two posters above but know they have to stay "in the closet" to be taken seriously, and know that it's easier to get the public to support banning MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPONRY ON OUR STREETS than it is to get them to back a ban on uncle jimbo's sixshooter. this is where you get the sentiment in your post from, virtually nobody gets murdered with multi-thousand dollar collector items but they're always the target of new laws. i honestly believe you could get rid of every restriction, i'm talking rocket launchers shipped direct to your front door, without seeing any real change in homicide/murder rates. australia's confiscation program went far, far beyond anything that would ever be possible here and it didn't do a thing to their murder rate, and yet here in this very thread we have people claiming that this latest law will finally be the ticket, 1003rd time's the charm and when it doesn't work well of course it's because we didn't have X other law, let's pass that too. i think realistically the most effective gun control law would be a ban on poor people owning guns. most of the extant laws already drift this way (adding more and more hoops, for example the laws in california make buying a gun a multi-hour process that more or less requires you to own a car or be on a lease/rental agreement) and it's a fact that they commit the most murder. might as well go whole hog.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So what would effective gun control legislation look like? If there's already an effortpost or an article on this somewhere feel free to just quote that post or point me to the article or whatever. I've often heard the argument from gun people that there could be better legislation if politicians knew more about guns, but I've never actually heard what that better legislation would be. ComradeCosmobot correctly pointed out that a general discussion of gun control doesn't belong in this thread, so I'm hesitant to go into great detail since the connection to the California proposition becomes increasingly tenuous the further we go down that particular tangent. Suffice it to say that I think gun control laws (and actually all laws addressing or containing prohibitions) should be scientifically rigorous. That is, we should pass, uphold, and remove laws based on evidence of the outcomes, as opposed to opinions about the outcomes which are all too often wildly at odds with any actual evidence. I am not opposed to passing temporary laws without conclusive evidence, with the goal of measuring the effectiveness of the law and then making it permanent, modifying it, or taking it off the books based on the measured outcomes. Of course, this messy world doesn't always permit us to easily analyze evidence. Violent crime rates are a perfect example: there are clearly many different factors at play that affect violent crime rates, and it might be wildly immoral as well as impractical to attempt to make a control in order to separate out one factor and test a solution for it. That is, it would not be acceptable to temporarily stop providing food assistance to people living in poverty, in order to determine whether availability of food assistance affects crime rates. So instead we are left with the responsibility to attempt to measure outcomes despite multiple factors which are all continuously in flux. Some might claim this is completely intractable. But I disagree. At times it may not be possible to conclusively prove that a law has been successful, but it is often possible to conclusively prove that a law has failed. The most severe impediment to measuring the efficacy of a law is the fact that laws are presently unevenly enforced (when they're enforced at all). It's very difficult to tell if a law is effective when it's only or mostly enforced against poor black people, for example. This leads me to the conclusion that while we should not wholly abandon any attempt to improve legislation that aims to reduce violent crime rates, suicide rates, and accidental death rates, all of which might be affected by gun control laws; a more immediately effective way to both begin accurately measuring the theoretical efficacy of our existing laws, and simultaneously make much-needed improvements in the level of justice in American society, would be to work really hard on being a lot less loving incredibly goddamn racist about how we apply the resources of our police and criminal justice systems. e. I still managed to be obscure I'm afraid. To clarify: I'm in favor of good gun control. I think some of the laws we already have are good, some are ok, and some are really dumb. I think there are laws we don't have that would be good. One example is that right now you don't count as ineligible to buy a gun based on mental illness unless you've been admitted to a hospital for psych reasons, which excludes millions of people with clinical depression who were never admitted during some crisis or another. That's really dumb. People taking antidepressants for clinical depression probably shouldn't be allowed to buy or own a gun. Even more so, people taking antipsychotics. Moreover people prescribed any medication that can have serious mental impairment as a side effect probably shouldn't be allowed to buy or own guns. The laws we have right now are obviously inadequate. But illustrating the points I was just discussing, it's tough for me to think such laws would have the effect we really want them to have, while we're still being super stupid about how we provide (or mostly don't provide) adequate mental health care for people with no or bad or cheap health insurance, and since poor people are disproportionately more likely to commit violent crimes, making it harder for people getting treatment for mental health issues to get guns might not have the measurable evidence to conclusively prove or disprove the efficacy of such laws, regardless of whether those laws "ought" to be effective as-written. A really bad possible outcome might be mentally ill people who want to keep or buy a gun deliberately avoiding getting medical treatment for their mental illness in order to avoid being disqualified for gun ownership. How could we measure that properly, while we're still basically loving over poor people w/r/t access to medical care and especially mental health care? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Or rather, the State of California says that it won't do business with people who won't do business with Israel. A boycott of the boycotters, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:KQED's Forum is talking about Mountain View's Measure V (rent control) this morning, and the apartment association spokesman is insufferably political. "Wah wah! You're changing the rules on property owners and that's UNFAIR!" "People who earn $150k and above will benefit from this more than poors! Won't somebody think of the poors?" (which conveniently forgets that this is exactly the reason Social Security still exists today) "What you should be doing is building more housing, not attacking existing housing owners! *proceeds to vote against new housing since it would hurt their income*" I didn't tune in for this episode, but KQED Forum owns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:So if Company A says it wont deal with Company B the State punishes them? FreshlyShaven posted:They're not.  what are you on? First, as noted above, "being selected as a vendor to provide goods and services to the government" is generally not held to be a constitutional right. The government has pretty wide latitude in how it awards contracts, which is why they are allowed to favor minority/disabled/etc businesses.Second, commercial activity is generally not considered to be protected speech. Finally, the government has a compelling interest in prohibiting U.S. companies from participating in foreign-organized boycotts, which is how the federal anti-boycott law works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:I didn't tune in for this episode, but KQED Forum owns. Forum is basically the only thing worth listening to NPR anymore. God drat the rest of their programming has really gotten lovely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
You mean the show where the host asks the most idiotic questions of knowledgeable guests, then cuts them off to go to a somehow vastly worse question from a callin? That KQED forum?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You mean the show where the host asks the most idiotic questions of knowledgeable guests, then cuts them off to go to a somehow vastly worse question from a callin? That KQED forum? Exactly that, yes. Pathetically, it's the best show of it's format I'm aware of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Exactly that, yes. Pathetically, it's the best show of it's format I'm aware of. Yeah I can't handle call in shows (other than car talk) and I recognize that. But I'm just going to stick this here: https://soundcloud.com/kevintownsend/michael-krasnys-isis-joke-on-kqeds-forum (If that joke was made on El Chapo I might have laughed.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Forum is total dogshit and I die inside every time I have to drive to Sacramento because I'm usually driving after morning rush hour which means news is ending (is there something bad about California Report) and Forum is beginning. I would rather listen to right wing AM radio in some weird reverberating southeast Asian language that sounds like a numbers station merged with a cult broadcast than have to listen to total loving dimwits obliterate what little faith I have in the electorate. Driving home usually entails hearing the outro theme to Newshour and then being punished with the money show whatever it's called. Then because I'm crossing multiple mountain barriers/regions I lose all track of whatever animal-named station is playing classic rock (which now seems on the cusp of including Kid Rock and Korn as old enough to be classic) and I turn off the radio and drive in mute silence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
You guys need to import LA based KCRW. Every few years its like they get another repeater station further up north.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:You guys need to import LA based KCRW. Every few years its like they get another repeater station further up north.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Forum is good, some of the callers are bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Forum is good, some of the callers are bad. Also some of the guests are bad but you can usually tell. Anyway I don't understand why Forum is so bad when you could always be listening to Democracy Now Democracy Now Dot Org The War And Peace Report, which airs at the same time. I think the choice is clear. (We won't even talk about Rush Limbaugh, which must be airing somewhere at the same time. I dunno. I stay off the AM dial.) RandomPauI posted:You guys need to import LA based KCRW. Every few years its like they get another repeater station further up north. Left, Right & Center is complete and utter garbage. I'm glad it's only a rebroadcast on one station here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Zachack posted:Forum is total dogshit and I die inside every time I have to drive to Sacramento because I'm usually driving after morning rush hour which means news is ending (is there something bad about California Report) and Forum is beginning. I would rather listen to right wing AM radio in some weird reverberating southeast Asian language that sounds like a numbers station merged with a cult broadcast than have to listen to total loving dimwits obliterate what little faith I have in the electorate. You sound real mad and you must be talking about 96.9 THE EAGLE The host of forum asks good questions and the show addresses most important Bay Area issues. The idiot callers are a feature. "We'll let that comment stand and move to the next caller"
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 04:01
|
|