|
Dead Reckoning posted:Busting up a Chick-fil-A isn't defending yourself against fascists. Actually it is.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:20 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:54 |
|
Especially if you're non hetro.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:26 |
|
Nanomashoes posted:Actually it is. Dude that is *exactly* the same thing as threatening to murder black people. Apparently.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:32 |
|
Jaxyon posted:Dude that is *exactly* the same thing as threatening to murder black people. Apparently. stockholder lives(???) matter
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:52 |
|
tentative8e8op posted:Avoiding such a discussion, in the national sense, makes me so frustrated. I really hope passing real and effective gun control legislation becomes another priority after healthcare. Agreed, these patchwork laws from new york to texas need to be federally standardized. Pembroke Fuse posted:Basically the only way to reduce gun violence in America is to increase education, mental health care and reduce poverty. I find those much more feasible than any kind of meaningful gun legislation at this point. Maybe in a 100 years we will stop fellating our guns long enough to enact something worthwhile. But if we have all those things, why do we need to ban guns? ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Sep 14, 2017 |
# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:55 |
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Hey you know what would be cool? If we had an organization like the loving CDC investigate ways of at least improving gun safety. The CDC is forbidden from doing so, so we really have no idea if any legislation that we enact will work or not. Pembroke Fuse posted:Also, given the high correlation between say spousal abuse and gun homicide, I would say that revoking the rights of spousal abusers from owning guns might be a good start. Interesting how people who think we need more gun control tend to be poorly informed about our actual gun laws. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Sep 14, 2017 |
# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:02 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The CDC isn't banned from doing gun related research, it's banned from doing advocacy. The relevant language from the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill is: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The CDC still collects data on deaths & injuries via firearm; you can go in WISQARS and look at it yourself. Do not engage with this idiot. His moron interpretation of reality has been debunked multiple times to his face, and yet he still posts the same nonsense. DR has never posted in good faith in his life and you'd legit be better off trying to argue with a Trump supporter.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:07 |
|
Surely you can quickly google & cite the relevant law banning the CDC from engaging in any sort of firearms related research then. Boy would that be embarrassing for me.Jizz Festival posted:Are you the same person who was really concerned about military spending being decreased a few pages ago?
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:13 |
|
Lemming posted:Do not engage with this idiot. His moron interpretation of reality has been debunked multiple times to his face, and yet he still posts the same nonsense. DR has never posted in good faith in his life and you'd legit be better off trying to argue with a Trump supporter. I've changed my mind about a lot of things in the past few months, I was curious if he had. It seems quaint in a way, I don't mean to belittle the things people are passionate about but guns seem just so, I don't know, unimportant compared to Nazis.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:13 |
|
DR is playing the same boring game. Congress pulled funding for all gun safety research at the exact same time as the the Dickey amendment:quote:The dearth of research funding goes back to 1997, when an amendment was added to an operations bill that passed in Congress with the language that the CDC will be barred from any research that will “advocate or promote gun control,” CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard told ABC News. So while congress prevents the research willful idiots can pretend it isn't happening
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:21 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Surely you can quickly google & cite the relevant law banning the CDC from engaging in any sort of firearms related research then. Boy would that be embarrassing for me. I'll link the person who responded to you two years ago when you made that exact same post you loving cretin Zeitgeist posted:A 1997 ammendment to that 1996 bill added "in whole or in part" which was enough to kill basically any CDC research into the area for about 2 decades. But yes, you'd be technically true in saying it didn't explicitly forbid the research, and also laughably naive on how government works. You didn't engage in good faith then and you aren't engaging in good faith now. You can go gently caress yourself.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:23 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unsurprisingly, I, along with most normal people, distinguish between prescribed violence committed by accountable and identified agents of the state and randos deciding to take the law into their own hands. "accountable"
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:24 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unsurprisingly, I, along with most normal people, distinguish between prescribed violence committed by accountable and identified agents of the state and randos deciding to take the law into their own hands. Lol, amazing how your views on violence become so nuanced once the topic is changed.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:25 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:What would that even look like to you? Because nothing being put forward by Democratic leadership is going to reduce the homicide rate. For example, the enactment and subsequent sunset of the 1994 assault weapons ban had no measurable impact on the national homicide rate. I feel like we should have a large nationwide phase towards a New York City style registration, purchase permit and licensing system, along with a generous gun buyback program. I feel this is a position just as important as many of the other "litmus test" issues that are backed. P much this: ate poo poo on live tv posted:Agreed, these patchwork laws from new york to texas need to be federally standardized. Getting a License in New York City posted:Along with the license application itself, you will need the following: Buying and Registering a Gun in New York City posted:You can purchase a firearm from any FFL. If you buy a new gun, IT MUST BE NY COMPLIANT. New guns must be shipped with spent casings fired from the manufacturer, contained in a sealed envelope. Used guns should be marked by the shipper as such. Make sure you fill out the BATFE form, get a receipt and have the FFL fill out the Purchase Authorization form. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Sep 14, 2017 |
# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:15 |
|
pretty elaborate gimmick to be pro-police violence
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:18 |
|
lol uspol managed to swerve away from the primary salt cliff directly off the gun control cliff
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:18 |
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lol uspol managed to swerve away from the primary salt cliff directly off the gun control cliff why not combine both? quote:Clinton has attacked Sanders for voting five times against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which established a background check system and wait periods for people buying handguns from licensed dealers. Sanders often responds to this attack by highlighting his long-time support for “instant background checks.” That’s true, but there’s more to the story. When the Brady bill was being debated, the “instant” background checks that Sanders supported actually would’ve killed the Brady bill.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:21 |
|
Well at least now I can blame shrike for making me post this: https://twitter.com/CNN/status/908143376838656000
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:46 |
|
Lemming posted:I'll link the person who responded to you two years ago when you made that exact same post you loving cretin tentative8e8op posted:I feel like we should have a large nationwide phase towards a New York City style registration, purchase permit and licensing system, along with a generous gun buyback program. I feel this is a position just as important as many of the other "litmus test" issues that are backed.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 08:35 |
|
Pushing for gun control when people are increasingly afraid of being shot by the police is a really tone-deaf, stupid thing to do.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 08:47 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unsurprisingly, I, along with most normal people, distinguish between prescribed violence committed by accountable and identified agents of the state and randos deciding to take the law into their own hands. Yet somehow unable to distinguish between racist threats of murder and garbage can vandalism.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 08:47 |
|
Jizz Festival posted:Pushing for gun control when people are increasingly afraid of being shot by the police is a really tone-deaf, stupid thing to do. That's why they want to focus the conversation away from Gun Culture to Gun Rights. If we start talking about Gun Culture it opens up questions about police armament, what trust means in society and broader questions about gun safety from community, process and design perspectives. Maybe an armed society isn't a polite society? Empirical evidence shows arming the police certainly hasn't made them polite. By limiting the conversation to Gun Rights, all those topics are excluded and instead the feelings and desires of would-be gun owners become the center of focus. It also "helpfully" excludes the rights and desires of non-gun owners. Edit: a small example of this has been the gun lobby's push to ban police gun buyback programs if the police destroy the guns. Sure they have some idiotic talking point, but this is about making it harder for communities to remove guns if they voluntarily chose to do so while giving any gun the status of historical artifact, unable to be destroyed but instead must be maintained for the good of society. That's not about gun rights, but its about gun culture. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Sep 14, 2017 |
# ? Sep 14, 2017 08:54 |
|
Office Pig posted:Well at least now I can blame shrike for making me post this: Are you loving kidding me?
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 09:01 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:at acting like my position is the dishonest one. See, you and Trabisnikof already shifted the goalposts from "the CDC is banned from researching gun violence" to "OK, well they're not banned, but Congress hasn't approved any funding for them to study my pet issue." Yeah, the CDC got their hand slapped in the 90's after they funded a study which was structured to reach the foregone conclusion that guns are bad and dangerous, but it's not as though democrats couldn't have restored that funding in 2008 if it was super important. The whole thing is a ridiculous kabuki: "Oh, we would love to do all this very important and unbiased research on the public health effects of firearm ownership, if only someone could give us a bunch of money and repeal the ban on using that money for advocating banning guns." Lmfao I love how you keep trying to do this kind of bullshit, where you inject just enough credibility to your posts (like sourcing numbers) that you hope it tries to distract people from insane, idiot flaws in your logic (you're comparing cities to massive rural areas idiot, making direct comparisons of homicide rate and gun laws useless when you're using both as your data). And on and on and on and on forever.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 09:05 |
|
Office Pig posted:Well at least now I can blame shrike for making me post this: Can I get a countdown to when Hillary/the Hillfolk start claiming anything Sanders does is because they pressured him to do it?
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 11:27 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:at acting like my position is the dishonest one. See, you and Trabisnikof already shifted the goalposts from "the CDC is banned from researching gun violence" to "OK, well they're not banned, but Congress hasn't approved any funding for them to study my pet issue." (...)
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 12:01 |
MizPiz posted:Can I get a countdown to when Hillary/the Hillfolk start claiming anything Sanders does is because they pressured him to do it? Haha this is the first thing I thought of. She's become the parody people on the left were making fun of her with.
|
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 12:32 |
|
Guys Hillary is self immolation herself to drive the Dem party leftward and make Bernie look really good.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 13:52 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The CDC isn't banned from doing gun related research, it's banned from doing advocacy. Hi, guy who works with a CDC funding apparatus here: get hosed, firearm research is absolutely stopped at every level of the grants application and research lifecycles in the US. It pisses me the gently caress off when some son of a bitch makes an argument on letter of law that has been entirely subverted in execution. It's like a Republican pointing to the 13th Amendment and saying, "See, racism is dead. "
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:04 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why? Seriously, why do you think this is important? Despite their ludicrous licensing scheme, NYC still has a higher homicide rate (3.9/100k in 2014 per FBI UCR) than nearby Vermont (1.6/100k) where you can buy a handgun and concealed carry it the same day without any sort of permit. Strict local regulations haven't stopped San Francisco (5.3/100k) and Chicago (15.2/100k) from having higher homicide rates than the national average (4.5/100k). Meanwhile, in most of the northern Great Plains states and rural New England, gun laws are lax and homicides are low. There isn't any correlation between restricting legal access to guns and low homicide rates, either geographically or over time, so why do you think they are important? It's an important issue to me because there are strong correlations, both with legal access per state and firearm ownership over time. This really is something we should be pushing for just as much as other 'litmus test' issues such as marijuana legalization and prison reform. The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010 posted:We examined the relationship between levels of household firearm ownership, as measured directly and by a proxy—the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm—and age-adjusted firearm homicide rates at the state level. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Sep 14, 2017 |
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:06 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Great news: 18 U.S. Code § 922 prohibits anyone who is the subject of a domestic violence restraining order or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, so the future is now I guess.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:08 |
|
Too many people get shot in America. Let's do something about that. Getting shot infringes on someone's pursuit of happiness so I think that trumps the modern day interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:09 |
|
Potato Salad posted:It pisses me the gently caress off when some son of a bitch makes an argument on letter of law that has been entirely subverted in execution. It's like a Republican pointing to the 13th Amendment and saying, "See, racism is dead. " yeah, that's the common reaction to basically everything dead reckoning posts ever.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:10 |
|
MizPiz posted:Can I get a countdown to when Hillary/the Hillfolk start claiming anything Sanders does is because they pressured him to do it? Eh, anything that she advocated that was even quasi to the left was attributed to Bernie, so why not?
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:10 |
|
Fraction Jackson posted:I mean, prior to the Russian Revolution, you still had, for example, violent strikebreakers being OK, but unions not, and heaven forbid a union man try to defend himself. Leftist organizing is always seen as scarier than the opposite, despite the nation being founded by revolution against colonialism and monarchy. Something in the culture is inherently distrustful of left-wing influence even when right-wing groups do far more damage to both lives and property, and while the Red Scare probably made this worse I don't think it started with that. It makes sense to me that people would naturally fear violence committed to change the status quo more than violence to maintain it. I don't know if that's fixable.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:42 |
Dead Reckoning posted:
Well, unless you're a cop, in which case there's an exception. Personally though I've basically given up on the gun issue. Sandy Hook demonstrated It's not fixable directly, and it just loses Democrats votes that are needed to fix more urgent issues (health care, etc), and fixing those other issues (mental health care access, etc.) would in turn ameliorate a lot of the drivers of gun crime and gun deaths.
|
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:48 |
|
tentative8e8op posted:I feel like we should have a large nationwide phase towards a New York City style registration, purchase permit and licensing system, along with a generous gun buyback program. I feel this is a position just as important as many of the other "litmus test" issues that are backed. Yea I know how NYC gun control works (I had a license until I changed addresses and couldn't get it reissued even after paying the exborant fees, automatically making me a Felon*). Only thing i'd add is making it shall issue, and not requiring the same registration process every time you change addresses. Also full reciprocity everywhere. Right now it is effectively a ban for everyone except the rich and politically connected. *To be clear I am not a felon but I could have been arrested and convicted as one as soon as I changed addresses. Also get rid of the dog whistle "good moral character" bullshit. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Sep 14, 2017 |
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:53 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Personally though I've basically given up on the gun issue. Sandy Hook demonstrated It's not fixable directly, and it just loses Democrats votes that are needed to fix more urgent issues (health care, etc), and fixing those other issues (mental health care access, etc.) would in turn ameliorate a lot of the drivers of gun crime and gun deaths. This essentially sums up my views on it as well. We can't put the gun toothpaste back in the tube at this point, let's just focus on poo poo like making sure we don't destroy the earth and that people have a right to healthcare and poo poo like that.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:53 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Personally though I've basically given up on the gun issue. Sandy Hook demonstrated It's not fixable directly, and it just loses Democrats votes that are needed to fix more urgent issues (health care, etc), and fixing those other issues (mental health care access, etc.) would in turn ameliorate a lot of the drivers of gun crime and gun deaths. Gun control is one thing that rural people seem to care about more than anything else.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:54 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:54 |
|
Taerkar posted:Eh, anything that she advocated that was even quasi to the left was attributed to Bernie, so why not? If only she hadn't recently described her beliefs as "between center left and center right."
|
# ? Sep 14, 2017 15:08 |