USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »

Reik: Mar 8, 2004

Arrgytehpirate posted:

What's the gun control crowds endgame? Like, say we go the path of Australia and the only legal firearms for civilians are hunting rifles.

What happens to all the guns currently in existence? Do I get reimbursed for my guns? Are they sized? Grandfathered in?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 08:09

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Arrgytehpirate posted:

What's the gun control crowds endgame? Like, say we go the path of Australia and the only legal firearms for civilians are hunting rifles.

What happens to all the guns currently in existence? Do I get reimbursed for my guns? Are they sized? Grandfathered in?

My understanding is that Australia ran a successful buy back program. Our program would need to be bigger and more expensive, but it's clearly doable.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:44

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Arrgytehpirate posted:

What's the gun control crowds endgame? Like, say we go the path of Australia and the only legal firearms for civilians are hunting rifles.

What happens to all the guns currently in existence? Do I get reimbursed for my guns? Are they sized? Grandfathered in?

We mail them to North Korea and sit back.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:44

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

Arrgytehpirate posted:

What's the gun control crowds endgame? Like, say we go the path of Australia and the only legal firearms for civilians are hunting rifles.

What happens to all the guns currently in existence? Do I get reimbursed for my guns? Are they sized? Grandfathered in?

The gun control endgame is confiscation of all weapons except by agents of the state, and a total legal and practical monopoly of force without consequence.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:44

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Arrgytehpirate posted:

What's the gun control crowds endgame? Like, say we go the path of Australia and the only legal firearms for civilians are hunting rifles.

What happens to all the guns currently in existence? Do I get reimbursed for my guns? Are they sized? Grandfathered in?

Buyback's the standard answer to this question

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:44

The Muppets On PCP: Nov 13, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

Arrgytehpirate posted:

What's the gun control crowds endgame? Like, say we go the path of Australia and the only legal firearms for civilians are hunting rifles.

What happens to all the guns currently in existence? Do I get reimbursed for my guns? Are they sized? Grandfathered in?

institute the cohen act

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:44

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

LeJackal posted:

The gun control endgame is confiscation of all weapons except by agents of the state, and a total legal and practical monopoly of force without consequence.

as opposed to the current state of affairs, where

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:44

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Arrgytehpirate posted:

What's the gun control crowds endgame? Like, say we go the path of Australia and the only legal firearms for civilians are hunting rifles.

What happens to all the guns currently in existence? Do I get reimbursed for my guns? Are they sized? Grandfathered in?

mandatory gun buyback. which would almost certainly be constitutionally required even if it wasn't the obvious solution. basically, the government eminent domains every gun that will be banned, and has to pay at least fair market value.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:45

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

Ze Pollack posted:

Buyback's the standard answer to this question

Reimbursed confiscation is a more accurate term.
Buyback implies a commercial transaction with implied consent, of which there is none.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:45

Mulva: Sep 13, 2011; It's about time for my once per decade ban for being a consistently terrible poster.

twodot posted:

My understanding is that Australia ran a successful buy back program. Our program would need to be bigger and more expensive, but it's clearly doable.

We can't get a few billion to make sure children don't die, I doubt the government would put forth the tens to hundreds of billions needed to reimburse people for their guns. Beyond the obvious "Literally nothing is going to happen to challenge the Second Amendment" part of it all.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:45

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

LeJackal posted:

The gun control endgame is confiscation of all weapons except by agents of the state, and a total legal and practical monopoly of force without consequence.

which one of the dildonians were you

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:45

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

LeJackal posted:

Reimbursed confiscation is a more accurate term.
Buyback implies a commercial transaction with implied consent, of which there is none.

sorry about your massacre fantasies, friend
have you considered taking up comic books as a hobby instead? kills a lot fewer people and the power fantasies are even better.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:47

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

evilweasel posted:

i'm pretty sure i recall various "reasonable" gun nuts suggesting that they would possibly consider accepting universal background checks if ownership of fully automatic weapons was legalized, with the argument they've never been used in a crime because they're so expensive (because they're basically illegal)

Even before the registry was closed in '86, NFA registered machine guns being used in crimes was basically unheard-of. Yes, legally possessed MGs don't appear at crime scenes these days for the same reason that Holland & Holland Royals and Beretta Imperiale Montecarlos don't, but even before price inflation it wasn't a problem.

Much like how CCW holders commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population, it turns out the sort of people who are willing to full out a bunch of paperwork and go get fingerprinted and enroll in a government registry and wait for weeks or months are pretty law abiding and usually not the ones you need to be worried about.

Nevvy Z posted:

Well, if we could just take away their guns it'd be even more sporting.

That's at least an honest argument. I don't agree with banning guns, but I understand it and I understand why people are in favor of it. I don't get people who look at a mass shooting and think, "well, the most important thing we can do here is to make sure that the guns have to be loud so that people have fair warning, and try to make it so that the shooter gives them a decent interval in which to attempt escape."

Solkanar512 posted:

And yet I don't see you loving advocating for anything that would save lives, no do I see you stridently pointing out that our major public health institutions do not have full a de facto nor a de jure ability to study the issue of gun deaths.

I'm in favor of national UHC (not necessarily single payer, but universal coverage) and increased access to mental health services. Those two things would do far more to keep people alive than banning guns.

twodot posted:

Are there people who are opposed to gun control who also think gun control will save lives? I thought the whole debate was in the "if it results in lives getting saved" part.

I think it might save some lives, just a lot fewer than it's proponents suggest, and that there are other policies which would be far more effective in that regard.

Also, "whichever government policy results in more alive people is the morally correct one" is hilariously stupid argument that people only trot out when convenient (aka it doesn't effect them) and steadfastly ignore the rest of the time, so I don't humor it. Installing mandatory ignition interlocks and speed governors on all cars, or banning recreational car trips, would undoubtedly save lives and be good for the environment, but no one lines up to support that.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 2, 2017

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:47

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

LeJackal posted:

Reimbursed confiscation is a more accurate term.
Buyback implies a commercial transaction with implied consent, of which there is none.

I didn't give my consent for you to exist and yet here we are.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:47

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Stereotype posted:

I'm a physicist and I constantly tell everyone that if you're doing physics for any reason other than love of knowledge then you're going to hate it. The hours are long, the work can be tedious, the pay is bad, there is almost no job security, and in the end no one cares about your results.

Plus you'll constantly get idiots who watched Cosmos telling you their stupid ideas and getting mad when you try to explain why their groundbreaking epiphany is garbage.

On the plus side I know a lot about everything and feel sort of like I'm helping explore the universe and all its intricacies.

yeah I wrapped up my physics degree and said "welp that was fun, guess I'll go make programs for a living now" and I can't say I regret that

good on you for advancing the state of knowledge - someone has to

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:47

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Mulva posted:

We can't get a few billion to make sure children don't die, I doubt the government would put forth the tens to hundreds of billions needed to reimburse people for their guns. Beyond the obvious "Literally nothing is going to happen to challenge the Second Amendment" part of it all.

getting tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in funding for a major political goal is a legitimately trivial political task in comparison to actually passing a gun ban

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Mulva posted:

We can't get a few billion to make sure children don't die, I doubt the government would put forth the tens to hundreds of billions needed to reimburse people for their guns. Beyond the obvious "Literally nothing is going to happen to challenge the Second Amendment" part of it all.

I mean the scenario we're imagining already includes a version of the United States of America that has repealed the Second Amendment and banned most/all guns, from there I don't think it's a huge stretch to "spend 10% of the military budget to put all the banned guns somewhere out of reach".

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:50

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Dead Reckoning posted:

Even before the registry was closed in '86, NFA registered machine guns being used in crimes was basically unheard-of. Yes, legally possessed MGs don't appear at crime scenes these days for the same reason that Holland & Holland Royals and Beretta Imperiale Montecarlos don't, but even before price inflation it wasn't a problem.

Much like how CCW holders commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population, it turns out the sort of people who are willing to full out a bunch of paperwork and go get fingerprinted and enroll in a government registry and wait for weeks or months are pretty law abiding and usually not the ones you need to be worried about.

my concern with ccw holders, along with virtually everyone who despises the idea of ccw holders carrying guns around me is not that they may commit crimes with their guns, but that they may try to stop them with their guns

i recognize that in rural areas that may be different which is why local ccw regulation is fine, i don't care about if someone in alabama is carrying a gun or not. i do, suddenly, care deeply once the nra is trying to make new york city accept mudville, alabama ccw licences

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:52

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

RuanGacho posted:

I didn't give my consent for you to exist and yet here we are.

It's because your facist fantasies aren't even interesting and nobody cares.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm in favor of national UHC (not necessarily single payer, but universal coverage) and increased access to mental health services. Those two things would do far more to keep people alive than banning guns.

Don't forget ending the War on Drugs. That would save a lot more lives and improve quality of life for millions.

Might even make money off taxes in the end.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:52

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

I wonder if there's a statistical correlation between shootings and LeJackal bans.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:52

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

Wistful of Dollars posted:

I wonder if there's a statistical correlation between shootings and LeJackal bans.

I'm pretty sure there is.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:53

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

LeJackal posted:

It's because your facist fantasies aren't even interesting and nobody cares.

Don't forget ending the War on Drugs. That would save a lot more lives and improve quality of life for millions.

Might even make money off taxes in the end.

Look everyone a libertarian who conflates consumer goods ownership with consent.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:54

Mulva: Sep 13, 2011; It's about time for my once per decade ban for being a consistently terrible poster.

Sadly, or hilariously depending on how dark you are feeling, I actually think spending hundreds of billions on something that doesn't get anyone a single vote is almost as impossible as repealing the Second Amendment.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:54

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

LeJackal smells fresh blood spilled in the streets. He looks up in the sky, the gun signal is lit up amongst the clouds!

"Heh, bet those fools in D&D are saying we need gun control right now! Time to go loving school them on how guns are actually the only thing worthwhile in life and literally protect my freedom every day!"

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

I think it might save some lives, just a lot fewer than it's proponents suggest, and that there are other policies which would be far more effective in that regard.

Also, "whichever government policy results in more alive people is the morally correct one" is hilariously stupid argument that people only trot out when convenient (aka it doesn't effect them) and steadfastly ignore the rest of the time, so I don't humor it. Installing mandatory ignition interlocks and speed governors on all cars, or banning recreational car trips, would undoubtedly save lives and be good for the environment, but no one lines up to support that.

I don't think this argument is as easy as you suggest. Clearly, just optimizing human lives doesn't make any sense. Your examples don't work though. Mandatory ignition interlocks and speed governors are things that costs both money and lives. If I can't speed to avoid an accident or rush to a hospital that represents lives lost, or if I can't start my car because my ignition interlock has failed (any additional technology adds failure points) to respond to some emergency, that represents lives lost. Banning recreational car trips might drive up suicide rates for all I know. Someone arguing against these can argue that they wouldn't actually net save lives, or that evidence that they net save lives is poor. If you've already conceded that certain gun control schemes net save lives, you are in a much trickier position than someone in favor of keeping recreational car trips legal.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:59

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

one day we will all realize how lejackal's portly rear end and his ability to manage to hit a paper target 50 yards away almost once every clip is what's protecting our freedoms

how foolish we will all feel, stuck in obama's facism mines, wishing that we hadn't taken away lejackal's guns

# ? Oct 2, 2017 19:59

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

The end goal of any gun control policy in my opinion should be reduced firearm prevalence. Faster reductions and greater reductions in handgun prevalence particularly is better, but any policy that accomplishes this is good. Just grandfathering in all guns presently in the market while preventing new weapons from entering the community would contribute to this goal. Actively retiring guns from circulation would lead to faster reductions, but is not necessarily to reduce overall prevalence provided the dissemination of newly produced guns could be constrained.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:00

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

LeJackal posted:

It's because your facist fantasies aren't even interesting and nobody cares.

Gun control is fascism now?

:thunk:

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:00

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

it is nice to see LeJackal arguing we need guns so he can shoot Dead Reckoning, though

and Dead Reckoning doing his best to defend that argument

bedfellows get weird on the murder-enthusiast fringe

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:01

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Squalid posted:

The end goal of any gun control policy in my opinion should be reduced firearm prevalence.

I think this is likely just poorly stated, but this is a very bad end goal.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:02

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Ze Pollack posted:

as opposed to the current state of affairs, where

Gonna resist that tyranny any day now.

Which is why you see all these gun owners doing poo poo about the police brutality problem and not cheering on the cops.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:03

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Jaxyon posted:

Gonna resist that tyranny any day now.

Which is why you see all these gun owners doing poo poo about the police brutality problem and not cheering on the cops.

hey, they care very deeply about the worst case of police brutality that has ever existed, when an armed white domestic terrorist who was trying to draw a gun on police got shot

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:05

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

evilweasel posted:

i'm pretty sure i recall various "reasonable" gun nuts suggesting that they would possibly consider accepting universal background checks if ownership of fully automatic weapons was legalized, with the argument they've never been used in a crime because they're so expensive (because they're basically illegal)

lol

I guess I'm a gun nut but I'd need background checks and registration of all weapons (auto or otherwise) along with regular inspections for gun owners before I start supporting opening up the NFA registry (which I do support).

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:06

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

evilweasel posted:

one day we will all realize how lejackal's portly rear end

Take away your ability to probate people that disagree with you and playground taunts is all that's left?

Squalid posted:

The end goal of any gun control policy in my opinion should be reduced firearm prevalence.

"Murder rates are higher then ever recorded across all categories!"
Squallid: "Firearm prevalence is much lower though! What a successful and efficient use of resources!"

If you want to see the result of public policy that ignores social equality and justice while doubling down on gun control, turn your eye to Brazil.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:06

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

LeJackal posted:

Take away your ability to probate people that disagree with you and playground taunts is all that's left?

oh dear your feelings are hurt

will you still protect my freedom :ohdear:

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:09

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

wow i only probated you three times? maybe I was a bad mod.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:11

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

Genuine, not loaded question here: why are there more gun deaths in america than any other gun-legal country?

I'm all for gun control and safety checks, but it seems like finding the answer to that might do more to save people than silencer bans or hypothetical gun confiscation or magazine capacity limits (that would just be skirted around using speed-loader type magazines).

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:17

LionArcher: Mar 29, 2010

[quote="�Arrgytehpirate�" post="�476984722�"]
What�s the gun control crowds endgame? Like, say we go the path of Australia and the only legal firearms for civilians are hunting rifles.

What happens to all the guns currently in existence? Do I get reimbursed for my guns? Are they sized? Grandfathered in?
[/quote]

This has been covered. Buyback program and a yearly tax. Personally I am okay with people who hunt for food to have a hunting rifle and maybe a shotgun.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:17

Mantis42: Jul 26, 2010

LeJackal posted:

The gun control endgame is confiscation of all weapons except by agents of the state, and a total legal and practical monopoly of force without consequence.

We already live in a country where the state abuses its monopoly of violence. Turns out the reactionaries with the guns not only are fine with this, but helped build the police state and are its staunchest defenders.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 08:09

Arrgytehpirate: Oct 2, 2011; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Thanks for the answers guys! I wonder how many dozens of billions paying fair market value for every gun would cost.

Thankfully we'll never find out because there is no way in hell the second amendment ever goes away.

# ? Oct 2, 2017 20:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »