|
CommieGIR posted:I love that you brought up the Wiemar Republic as the danger of Gun Registries, then ignored how the Nazis loosened gun control, and how personal firearms ownership did very little to actually stop them from seizing the weapons anyways and enacting a genocide, and the only major uprising was the Warsaw Uprising, which was conducted using seized military weapons, and was readily crushed. Loosened gun control for *some* Germans. They specifically completely banned Jews from owning firearms (or having other rights accorded to Aryans). So what was the point of bans again?
|
# ? Oct 10, 2017 16:25 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 23:43 |
|
Professor Bling posted:Loosened gun control for *some* Germans. They specifically completely banned Jews from owning firearms (or having other rights accorded to Aryans). So what was the point of bans again? So how well did having personal firearms do towards stopping a seizure?
|
# ? Oct 10, 2017 16:34 |
|
Glad we agree that doing everything possible to curtail any legislative steps towards seizure while we can is a good thing.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2017 16:35 |
|
Professor Bling posted:Glad we agree that doing everything possible to curtail any legislative steps towards seizure while we can is a good thing. If it came to it, they wouldn't need a law, your point is null. You have yet to demonstrate how having access to an AR-15 and 30 round clip is going to stop the government, nor how these things are necessary for hunting/wilderness survival. You want a law, to protect you from the law, for when they violate the law. For someone all about how Firearms are going to ensure your right to freedom, you depend on the law a lot. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Oct 10, 2017 |
# ? Oct 10, 2017 16:40 |
|
CommieGIR posted:So what was the point of ownership again? It's fun. Why do you hate fun?
|
# ? Oct 10, 2017 16:47 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, its just about feeling good. No effects. That's why the NRA is so busy lobbying against CDC studies, because they don't want me to feel good. some smart guy from TFR posted:There's updated and detailed crime and suicide statistics available from both of these sources
|
# ? Oct 10, 2017 16:51 |
|
Doc Hawkins posted:It's fun. Why do you hate fun? I don't, I own. Don't tell them. Yeah, you missed the part where the NRA lobbied and got Congress to slash the CDC fund the EXACT amount that covered any research into Gun Violence, arguing that it was 'Propoganda' quote:“The original concern from the National Rifle Association back in 1996, which Dr. Rivara mentioned, made that very implication,” says Zwillich. “The NRA complained to Congress that the CDC was using the results of its research to essentially advocate for gun control. They called it propaganda. And back at that time, Congress slashed the CDC’s funding by the exact amount that was used for gun-related public health research.” And here's the kicker: The NRA basically has a veto on any study involving firearms coming out of the CDC. Doesn't matter that there isn't any LAW on the books, the NRA has most of the power in Congress needed to stifle any research into gun violence whatsoever that might be used to push changes to law. And they openly attack any and all academic research as well, threatening funding to Public Universities through donations. Your smart guy is just repeating the same poo poo the NRA said. "We don't have any law on the books about banning firearms studies.........we just have lobbying power that ensures that anyone who dares to publish a study contrary to our opinions will be quashed" quote:“There is other research that goes on at the CDC that does have to do with guns,” says Zwillich. “There is a National Violent Death Reporting System, which does record the causes of all violent deaths, including in domestic abuse, youth violence, and child abuse. If a gun is the cause, that’s recorded — it’s not like they ignore it entirely. But gun deaths and gun injuries as a public health issue, as Rivara said, are still basically anathema to CDC researchers and anyone who gets CDC funding, which is potentially millions of dollars.” Dr. Rivara, who also did research in traffic and helmet safety, published his study in the New England Journal of Medicine, and he is the Editor in Chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association's Pediatrics Journal. quote:In the 1990s, Rivara received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence. His research found that the chances of homicide or suicide increase threefold when there is a gun present in a home,[2] while the risk of suicide for teens increases as much as tenfold.[5] Rivara and his colleagues published their research in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993 in a series of articles on their findings.[5] The fact that you shared a quote trying to downplay peer-reviewed study, and then reposted it here, is pretty telling that your 'Very Smart friend from TFR' is full of poo poo. quote:Unsurprisingly, the NRA does not like research findings.[20][19] They called it "junk science" and encouraged in American Rifleman to protest against the CDC for funding such research. They have effectively lobbied against funding of aspects of the CDC since mid-1990s. For instance, in 1996, Congress has cut $2.6 million of the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had been allocated for firearm research the previous year. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gun-research-faces-roadblocks-and-dearth-data?mode=magazine&context=191817 How about you share the username of this 'Very Smart Friend from TFR'? After all, if he is able to invalidate peer reviewed studies, he's gotta be pretty damned smart. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Oct 10, 2017 |
# ? Oct 10, 2017 16:51 |
If the government wants your guns and they knock on your door and you point to the constitution and federal statute number 69 section 420 and show them your concealed carry permit and your expert marksmanship badge and call of duty kdr they are going to be like "yep this guy has us, we won't seize his firearms. Next house!"
|
|
# ? Oct 10, 2017 17:13 |
|
I love me some range time and hoofed forest rats taste delicious but guns in America are basically going to do sweet gently caress all to stop "tyranny" when people vote someone like Trump into office. If poo poo goes pear shaped and we're trying to resist "tyranny" from the top we need the rest of the government fighting along with the citizens or it's loving over and done with. No amount of pawpaw's shoot-guns is going to stop the entire law enforcement and military apparatus deciding to go along with it. The only effective resistance would be anything that makes those members question orders and change their minds, and I doubt armed resistance fighting back would do that.
|
# ? Oct 10, 2017 17:54 |
|
CommieGIR posted:I love that you brought up the Wiemar Republic as the danger of Gun Registries, then ignored how the Nazis loosened gun control, and how personal firearms ownership did very little to actually stop them from seizing the weapons anyways and enacting a genocide, and the only major uprising was the Warsaw Uprising, which was conducted using seized military weapons, and was readily crushed. The Nazis lightened the rules for some, tightened for others. bird food bathtub posted:I love me some range time and hoofed forest rats taste delicious but guns in America are basically going to do sweet gently caress all to stop "tyranny" when people vote someone like Trump into office. Ideally it doesn't have to. The very possibility, no matter how remote, of an armed uprising to deflect a nationwide LE/mil effort to disarm the citizenry should be so horrifying that it deters any real momentum for such an effort. The tipping point in that scenario is probably when things are so bad the government isn't really even in control anymore. Godholio fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Oct 10, 2017 |
# ? Oct 10, 2017 23:22 |
|
https://twitter.com/NewYork_Minutee/status/916109846742749184 wtf? The original tweet I meant to quote was "Being white is dope af"
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 00:00 |
|
bird food bathtub posted:I love me some range time and hoofed forest rats taste delicious but guns in America are basically going to do sweet gently caress all to stop "tyranny" when people vote someone like Trump into office. Also the same people who have guns to stop "tyranny" really hope trump bans the fake news media. The balance of firepower in this country is divided between the cops, the military, and the subset of civilians that worships the cops and military. The only tyranny the NRA set is ever going to even theoretically rise up against is the tyranny of a lawfully elected left of center government behaving lawfully.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 16:55 |
|
Eh, I'm a solid democrat voter and have an AR15 plus a few handguns. Granted I'm definitely in the minority of gun owners.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 17:15 |
|
I don't think all or even most of the gun-protectors in this thread are out-and-out Trump supporters.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 17:20 |
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I don't think all or even most of the gun-protectors in this thread are out-and-out Trump supporters. Blanket statements are always wrong, but https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/gun-ownership-partisan-divide.html
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 17:25 |
|
So around 30% of Democrat voters in 2016 owned guns.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 17:29 |
|
If we're actually talking electoral politics, as a registered Democrat, I want our party platform to drop gun control entirely except for cops, because as much as I'd happily take all y'all's guns, it's not happening in our lifetimes and there's even worse human tragedies at stake.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 17:40 |
|
I have to wonder if single issue gun-control voters in this political climate are completely detached from reality or just minority communities.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 17:42 |
|
There's obviously lots and lots of leftists and liberals with guns in America, but the balance of firepower is definitively on the side of the guys sending email forwards about Obama's secret Kenyan past and the sheepdog t-shirt crew. Once the shooting starts to end "tyranny" leftists will be in the FEMA camps within a week, as patrolled by a partnership of the national guard, the local police, and Bud "Bud" McBud's Freedom Warrior Patriot militia.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 17:46 |
|
I think there's a good political strategy argument to be made for kicking Feinstein's "ban them all, ban everything" strategy to the God drat curb then placating those who vote for the issue with "loving hell our mental health care in this country is terrible. Here's what we're gonna do to make things safer and less stigmatized" Kinda wish they'd go that route and maybe take some political offices back from the white supremacist party.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 17:47 |
Doc Hawkins posted:If we're actually talking electoral politics, as a registered Democrat, I want our party platform to drop gun control entirely except for cops, because as much as I'd happily take all y'all's guns, it's not happening in our lifetimes and there's even worse human tragedies at stake. 59 people dying and 200 wounded is pretty high up on the list imho, so you're going to need to define human tragedy for me.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 19:38 |
|
NUKES CURE NORKS posted:59 people dying and 200 wounded is pretty high up on the list imho, so you're going to need to define human tragedy for me. ending our forever war, ending the drug war, more stringent controls of police use of force boom. three things that will do more to save lives than banning those evil black rifles that hold a bunch of gun food
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 19:54 |
Yeah my bad. 59 people died? Well, we can't try to do anything about that because of this this and this.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:08 |
|
Its the Gun version of the Global Warming Five Stages of Denial
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:21 |
https://twitter.com/i/moments/914906488359079937 Twitter did a rundown of gun statistics. (I guess some of you aren't used to fancy modern stuff, so swipe left on mobile to flip pages) Liberal conspiracy or falsified data!? Gun owners decide below.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:22 |
|
NUKES CURE NORKS posted:Yeah my bad. That's not what I said. The options I laid out would absolutely reduce gun crime outside of statistical anomalies like the Vegas attacks, and lol if you think any ban on assault weapons would be anything other that 1) punishing law abiding owners of the nation's most popular rifle platform, 2) vague enough to be an actual infringement on the 2A rights of American citizens, or 3) so tightly written as to end up ineffective when confronted by anyone of means, like, say, the Vegas shooter. VT was committed with pistols, one of which was a .22 caliber Walther. The Northern Illinois University shooting in which four students were killed was committed with a shotgun. People that want to commit mass murder are going to find a way. Anders Breivik managed to jump through every legal hoop in Norway and still holds the world record for deadliest mass shooting. So, yeah, when you suggest something actually effective at stopping this, then we'll talk. Bans aren't effective in any guise that doesn't punish lawful owners for a tragedy they had no hand in.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:31 |
|
M_Gargantua posted:https://twitter.com/i/moments/914906488359079937 Gun Violence Archive posted:Gun Violence describes the results of all incidents of death or injury or threat with firearms without pejorative judgment within the definition. Violence is defined without intent or consequence as a consideration. To that end a shooting of a victim by a subject/suspect is considered gun violence as is a defensive use or an officer involved shooting. The act itself, no matter the reason is violent in nature. Okay so these statistics aren't of gun crime, they're of gun use both lawful and unlawful. And they define "mass shooting" as four or more injured, not the government's definition of four or more (aside from shooter) killed. Looks like some massaged statistics and scare mongering.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:37 |
Professor Bling posted:That's not what I said. The options I laid out would absolutely reduce gun crime outside of statistical anomalies like the Vegas attacks, and lol if you think any ban on assault weapons would be anything other that 1) punishing law abiding owners of the nation's most popular rifle platform, 2) vague enough to be an actual infringement on the 2A rights of American citizens, or 3) so tightly written as to end up ineffective when confronted by anyone of means, like, say, the Vegas shooter. The last ban we tried didn't work so we should never try it again. I'm also not personally advocating banning firearms, but I don't think anyone needs a high cap assault rifle. Just because something is fun and most people don't break the law doesn't mean you should be granted ownership. I wouldn't advocate everyone having tanks even if every single tank was 100% guaranteed to sit in someone's driveway and never moved.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:43 |
|
Professor Bling posted:Okay so these statistics aren't of gun crime, they're of gun use both lawful and unlawful. And they define "mass shooting" as four or more injured, not the government's definition of four or more (aside from shooter) killed. Looks like some massaged statistics and scare mongering. Yeah those people were only maimed not killed!
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:44 |
|
NUKES CURE NORKS posted:Just because something is fun and most people don't break the law doesn't mean you should be granted ownership. Just because a couple batshit dudes broke the law doesn't mean I should be denied ownership. Work on the cause, not a symptom. Otherwise the disease is still there. Edit: NUKES CURE NORKS posted:The last ban we tried didn't work so we should never try it again. Well, yeah. It obviously wasn't effective at doing anything. So why would it suddenly be effective now? "Well this poo poo didn't work any of the other times we tried it but let's try it again" isn't the intelligent position to be coming from. Professor Bling fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Oct 11, 2017 |
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:45 |
There's more than one firearm for every person in the country. I would be willing to bet the sheer volume of firearms in the US is part of the reason there's so much gun violence.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:47 |
Professor Bling posted:Just because a couple batshit dudes broke the law doesn't mean I should be denied ownership. Work on the cause, not a symptom. Otherwise the disease is still there. The amount of gun violence in the US isn't perpetuated by a "couple" of anything.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:48 |
|
NUKES CURE NORKS posted:The amount of gun violence in the US isn't perpetuated by a "couple" of anything. And the majority of that violence is committed by pistols. Keep moving the goalposts if you want but you're trying to conflate two very different things here.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:50 |
Professor Bling posted:And the majority of that violence is committed by pistols. Keep moving the goalposts if you want but you're trying to conflate two very different things here. NUKES CURE NORKS posted:The last ban we tried didn't work so we should never try it again.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:54 |
|
Professor Bling posted:And the majority of that violence is committed by pistols. Keep moving the goalposts if you want but you're trying to conflate two very different things here. So you're saying ban pistols. Sounds good to me and i say this as a pistol owner.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:54 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So you're saying ban pistols. Sounds good to me and i say this as a pistol owner. I'm better off with that than rifles, yes (still against bans in any shape, but the pistol ban at least makes logical sense), but the problem there is the sheer amount of them floating around. How do you manage to get every pistol off the streets? Edit: I've got an AR and a pistol and, honestly, probably wouldn't have bought the pistol if I'd bought the rifle first. Both stay locked up safely, but every time a dude gets shot near my house (gang-related activity, not a great neighborhood) I feel unsafe leaving the pistol home. I haven't carried it, because right now I don't have a CCL and I am mostly law abiding, but poo poo. Professor Bling fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Oct 11, 2017 |
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:56 |
|
Buy them and put extremely harsh penalties on any possession after a certain point.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 20:59 |
|
Yeah ban pistols.Though the predictable talking point would then be "these people were killed with bumpstocks why are we banning pistols"
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 23:50 |
|
Maybe address systemic racism, poverty and a lack of proper mental health care? Or why a certain segment of men in our country feel so isolated and angry at society that they're willing to lash out and murder 50+ people. Instead we're just going to jerk off to yet another pointless gun control debate. Even if you did somehow ban basically any firearm other than hunting shotguns and bolt action rifles it would be a bandaid at best.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2017 23:56 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 23:43 |
|
NO WE NEED A LIST OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH US
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 00:07 |