|
This... this is straight up slavery. I mean, I guess it's nice that people can't point to Soviet Gulags as the "worst thing" anymore, given how quickly we're catching up...
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm pretty sure people in the old west were required to check their guns in with the sheriff upon entering town. Some Sheriffs were also Outlaws even! Or basically you rob in one territory, haul rear end to another or to Canada and you're a respected member of that community. Crabtree fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:The problem isn't that caring about externalities can't justify gun regulations, it clearly can. The problem is no one thinks caring about externalities should lead to bans in practically any other situation, in almost every other situation we do whatever we can to mitigate the externalities or push the costs of externalities on the people responsible and let people do what they want. Think about cars. We ban any type of car that doesn't meet minimum safety standards. Cars that might fail catastrophically at highway speeds you can't buy. That's both to protect car owners and other people on or near the road. The externalities of owning those cars is deemed so high that we've judged they can never be used efficiently. Then we tax car use because the cars that meet minimum safety standards still have externalities like congestion and pollution that we want to contain. Similarly, we ban any type of gun that is deemed too dangerous for anyone to own, and the ones that pass that test we tax to contain the remaining externality. The same model works for the status quo or a world where everything but hunting shotguns are banned and those are regulated, registered and taxed, like in the U.K.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Think about cars. We ban any type of car that doesn't meet minimum safety standards. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
So what? Why do regulatory regimes need to be identical for products you concede are very different? If literally zero guns have a positive expected social utility then ban em all, it's still the same framework.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
There are consequentialist reasons not to ban cars altogether, consequentialism is not "if banning X saves lives, ban X regardless of the benefits of X" Also if your argument is "it is fine to use deontological ethics to allow cars and everything else, but when it comes to guns you suddenly have to be a strict consequentialist", well that argument is very unlikely to win over any gun rights folks because the obvious counter is "No."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If literally zero guns have a positive expected social utility Who makes that call?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Who makes that call? Government regulators sitting in a musty basement who've never experienced the raw dick hardening power of a firearm probably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Government regulators sitting in a musty basement who've never experienced the raw dick hardening power of a firearm probably. Can you guys point firearm chat at the kidnapping and robbery of the elderly above? Thanks in advance. Judges that sell people into literal slavery would be another good target. I mean, seriously, WTF. This is so awful and both sides are too fixated on their dick-extensions to pay attention to some really bad poo poo going down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So what? Why do regulatory regimes need to be identical for products you concede are very different? If literally zero guns have a positive expected social utility then ban em all, it's still the same framework. VitalSigns posted:There are consequentialist reasons not to ban cars altogether, consequentialism is not "if banning X saves lives, ban X regardless of the benefits of X" quote:Also if your argument is "it is fine to use deontological ethics to allow cars and everything else, but when it comes to guns you suddenly have to be a strict consequentialist", well that argument is very unlikely to win over any gun rights folks because the obvious counter is "No." edit: Am I the person you think is making a "both sides" argument? I'm not. I'm saying very specific posters are making a very specific argument which is at best in bad faith, and at worst trivially stupid. There's plenty of good arguments in favor of gun control but "negative externalities exist, and the only way I know to deal with negative externalities is to ban the action generating them" is absurd. twodot fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
It's been two days since 59 people got massacred at a concert, friend. Don't you dare "both sides" an argument about gun control or say we're paying too much attention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's been two days since 59 people got massacred at a concert, friend. Don't you dare "both sides" an argument about gun control or say we're paying too much attention. Argue with someone not Dead Reconing or LeJackal then. They only come in to make the same arguments after every blood sacrifice to the 2nd amendment occurs. It's the same poo poo every time and nobody but them buys it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
They'll be plenty of time to talk about how black people are still forced into slave labor and how insanely biased against victims of sexual assault our schools and legal system are and the truly horrific amounts of bullshit the rich get over on everyone else just by existing. Give people five seconds to process the fact they live in a country that quite literally values guns more than human lives because it's politically inconvenient to deal with the issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The idea that we can cure gun violence with BBQ parties and free backpacks is very compelling to people who don't actually want to do anything about gun violence. Everyone just has to sit out on their front porches watching those dangerous sorts of people (wink, wink) to make sure they can't get up to any trouble. I urge you to read the article a little more critically. Is it possible a black woman creating a community organization in Chicago has internalized racism when it comes to reducing violence? I suppose. Regardless, the actual results generated would seem to bear some examination. Rebuilding american society to compensate for it's ruined religious, fraternal and governmental structures is definitely not "nothing". Passing a blanket law to ban guns is relatively straightfoward and feels good when it hurts the other team, but doesn't do anything to address the reasons americans are constantly going off on murderous rampages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Who makes that call? We, as a society, can somehow make the call that nuclear waste in drinking water is pretty much universally terrible. We, as a society, can also make calls about any number of things we think should and shouldn't be banned. Yet somehow, when it comes to guns, it's an existential crisis of whataboutism, arguments from complexity and endlessly dishonest attempts at deflection. Seriously, if you don't like utilitarian arguments (guns don't prevent crime, etc), you could make an argument for democratic determination of policy... except for the 2nd Am, which enslaves a majority of sane people to the whims of a relatively tiny minority and some extremely wealthy corporations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Harik posted:Can you guys point firearm chat at the kidnapping and robbery of the elderly above? Thanks in advance. Judges that sell people into literal slavery would be another good target. Hey this is America. Courts that order people into the custody of well-connected kidnappers, robbers, and literal slavers, rubber-stamped by professionals who enjoy kickbacks from the whole thing is as American as nutjobs with perfectly-legal insane arsenals maiming and killing hundreds and hundreds of people and also as American as the predictable increase in gun manufacturers' quarterly profits as they scare people into clearing the shelves of gun stores in the aftermath.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:We, as a society, can somehow make the call that nuclear waste in drinking water is pretty much universally terrible. Who makes that call, why do you hate freedom. It's my right as an American to drink whatever a JobCreator sees fit to adulterate my water with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:We, as a society, can somehow make the call that nuclear waste in drinking water is pretty much universally terrible. We, as a society, can also make calls about any number of things we think should and shouldn't be banned. Yet somehow, when it comes to guns, it's an existential crisis of whataboutism, arguments from complexity and endlessly dishonest attempts at deflection. Seriously, if you don't like utilitarian arguments (guns don't prevent crime, etc), you could make an argument for democratic determination of policy... except for the 2nd Am, which enslaves a majority of sane people to the whims of a relatively tiny minority and some extremely wealthy corporations. No I was being quite literal. Who do you get to make the call? The people we have right now aren't very good at it. It's not like, say, the Democrats haven't had power since the AWB. They could have, nominally, done more about guns. They did not. Even the things they proposed were quite stupid. The Republicans frankly can't go anti-gun because their base would eat them alive. So who do you get to do something about guns in a country where it doesn't seem like it's particularly electable to be for very strong gun control?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Why should workers trust a system that already works against them to then disarm them like Australia disarmed it's citizens? The workers have already been disarmed of jet fighters, bomber planes, grenade launchers, tanks, nukes and chemical weapons. We've let it happen and the state has the monopoly of violence forever whether we like it or not, the only way to fix it is within the state and hopefully by not killing reams of people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
I am skeptical that guns are the answer to a system that works against workers, because the single largest obstacle to workers' rights and well-being by far is the fact that 40% of them (and 60-70% of the white ones) vote for Republicans who legislate against them with poo poo like Right to Work while taking their health care and benefits, and appoint ridiculously anti-worker judges to rule that corporations have the right to order workers to their deaths as a condition of continued employment. If a crushing majority of workers were actually willing/informed enough to point guns at the fucks responsible for their problems instead of at black people and Muslims and loose women, the violent revolution would be unnecessary because they could just win back the New Deal at the ballot box. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
SulphagneSocialist posted:The workers have already been disarmed of jet fighters, bomber planes, grenade launchers, tanks, nukes and chemical weapons. We've let it happen and the state has the monopoly of violence forever whether we like it or not, the only way to fix it is within the state and hopefully by not killing reams of people. Remember if we just hand over our arms to the state and assume we're going to lose then we'll obviously get what we want. Oh and for those who are saying we should ban guns. Who are you going to trust to do the confiscations? The police. who are a great bunch who never abuse their authority or target non whites excessively. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
It's really important that gun violence, which is 14 times more likely to kill black men than white men, continue unabated so I can play at revolution out in the woods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's really important that gun violence, which is 14 times more likely to kill black men than white men, continue unabated so I can play at revolution out in the woods. Who are you going to trust to do the gun confiscations?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Who are you going to trust to do the gun confiscations? Obviously not the government
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Obviously not the government Be honest. Would you trust the police to do it? Would you trust a group that already victimizes and murders the poor, and targets POC for legal murder at disproportionate rates to do your confiscations?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Guys, we can't do anything to make society better because Crowsbeak can't imagine government ever doing something good, I'm really sorry, but mass murders and thousands of senseless gun deaths every year HAVE to happen because of his loving failure of a brain, I'm super, super sorry y'all
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Why would we need to do that, that's not how regulations on anything else have ever worked. When we banned trans fats, the po-po didn't go breaking down doors seizing everyone's Totinos pizza rolls, except in the fantasies of the same deranged libertarians who always predict these scenarios whenever we say "gee maybe we could improve public safety somewhat."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:Guys, we can't do anything to make society better because Crowsbeak can't imagine government ever doing something good, I'm really sorry, but mass murders and thousands of senseless gun deaths every year HAVE to happen because of his loving failure of a brain, I'm super, super sorry y'all Who are you entrusting to confiscate all the guns? I ask this because many of you here have been arguing for this. How are you going to make this work? How far would you go to ensure that civilian firearm use is eliminated? How much money do you think it will cost? Come on all give me a estimate on this and how you'll make America, in your eyes. Safe. VitalSigns posted:Why would we need to do that, that's not how regulations on anything else have ever worked. Ok, one is a additive to food. The other is a physical object that exists in greater numbers than living Americans and has a specific if misinterpreted amendment dedicated to it. There is no Amendment to the constitution saying you have the right to eat trans fats that can kill you. There is one that says you have the right to bear arms to take part in a militia. That makes it rather ingrained in the American consciousness. Also there are alot of people attached to their guns. They make their hobbies their life. Furthermore I would note most would see something funny about making a hobby out of eating one type of fat that has a strange bond. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Australia did it and they're just as racist as we are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Australia did it and they're just as racist as we are. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150 I have been doing research which is a little sparse, but according to the ABC they destroyed almost a million guns. Say even that was a quarter of the guns on hand in 96. That would be a quarter of what Australia's population is. Americans have more guns then people. With over a quarter being firearms owners. So how are you going to disarm them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150 Australia didn't go around 'disarming' people, they did a buyback program and banned new sales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ok, one is a additive to food. The other is a physical object that exists in greater numbers than living Americans and has a specific if misinterpreted amendment dedicated to it. This doesn't explain why changes to gun laws, unique among regulations, require house-to-house confiscation in your mind. We even have precedent: when we passed the NFA to severely restrict and regulate automatic weapons: did we break into everyone's houses looking for Tommyguns? No we grandfathered in whatever you had, said okay now you need to register it, and from now on anyone who wants to buy it from you must meet a set of criteria. Nobody went around confiscating anything, and as the number in circulation drops the problem begins to take care of itself. Guns that aren't as useful for crime or mass shootings like bolt-action rifles or shotguns could be left alone or if you want to go full Sweden on it, just start requiring a hunting license and training in order to buy them but grandfather in what's already out there. If you wanted to accelerate the fall in circulation, you could partner that with a buyback program so guns don't lose their market value and anyone can voluntarily sell back to the government at market price.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
As has been mentioned dozens if not hundreds of times, you start by banning new sales, doing a buyback, make ownership technically illegal but offer amnesty to those who voluntarily turn them in. Can you agree that those would be good first steps?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:As has been mentioned dozens if not hundreds of times, you start by banning new sales, doing a buyback, make ownership technically illegal but offer amnesty to those who voluntarily turn them in. No, I should have the right to defend myself. I should have the right to if hunt. I should have the right to practice a hobby. NOw whether I am restricted by how many shots I can fire before reloading. Or whether I can modify said equipment say to attempt to turn it into a machine gun. I can talk about that. I can back that, gladly However to attempt to suggest I and millions of others who shoot and whose families have shot for generations is a no go. JUst to let you know. THe wanting to ban's guns thing kind of proves idiots like the NRA right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No, I should have the right to defend myself. Sure, without a gun. quote:I should have the right to if hunt. Sure, without a gun. quote:I should have the right to practice a hobby. Sure, without a gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
America doesn't deserve guns because the 2nd amendment is dead, the existence current government is living proof that guns are wasted in the hands of the citizenry, so they might as well be confiscated and scrapped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No, I should have the right to defend myself. You or a member of your family is more likely to be injured or killed by a gun you own than to ever have to use it in self-defense. Guns do not decrease the risks to your family (gun control does though!) Crowsbeak posted:I should have the right to if hunt. Crowsbeak posted:I should have the right to practice a hobby. Ah there it is. Okay then why did you waste our time faking concern for the imaginary poor and PoC who will be hurt by murderous gungrabbing cops, when you actually don't care about them at all and will continue to insist that shooty fun-time hobbies trump the poor and PoC victims of gun violence. Btw my hobby is exploding large fertilizer bombs on my large private estate, which poses no danger to the public, do I have the unrestricted right to practice my hobby as much as I want without government oversight or regulation on my purchases of my hobby materials?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Like, I was going to crack wise about how the Democrats need to start an armed wing of the party so they're not leaving it to minorities to take the lead in everything, but Harik posted:Can you guys point firearm chat at the kidnapping and robbery of the elderly above? Thanks in advance. Judges that sell people into literal slavery would be another good target. JeffersonClay posted:...If literally zero guns have a positive expected social utility then ban em all, it's still the same framework. EDIT: Like, if that were a thing, there would be something weighty when it comes to making tradeoffs? Rockopolis fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Oh hey, look at that. Relatively progressive underdog becomes Mayor of Birmingham Alabama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTM-S3gWSGo Ah, I'll miss videos like this once Ajit Pai and the FCC gently caress over Net Neutrality for the US. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Maybe the 3% of American adults who own 50% of the guns should just be put in a special nature reserve where they can mass-shooting themselves into extinction or become a crime-free utopia, depending on whose opinion on guns is correct Whoever wins, we win
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 10:55
|
|