|
Mr. Nice! posted:The auto comparison rings true for some people, I've found. It's pretty easy to get people to agree that weapon ownership should have at least as rigorous requirements as getting a driver's license. Cars aren't enshrined in the constitution as one of the tools of or reasons for revolution. Do you need a license for speech, trial by jury, not be forced to quarter troops in your home, etc. etc. It's part of the litmus test of the republic.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
psydude posted:How is having universal background checks the same thing as giving your guns to the government. How is having a national registry of guns any more problematic than tracking vehicles by VIN. The fear is that the members of the Democratic party who loudly call for gun confiscation will take power and use the registry to that end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
I wonder what a universal NICS made available to everyone for private sales would do? Other than make Farmer Jim a felon for selling one of his 15 870s to his neighbor face to face without knowing it's a requirement? I remember trying to sell a Saiga 12 and I had a dude email me from armslist wanting to use Paypal. He sketched me out in the way he asked and I was bored so I doxx'd him and he had a domestic violence conviction on his record. I reported him to the local tip thing and never heard anything else. For those cases I think it'd be cool to be able to do a check anywhere with just a phone call and some basic information from the person standing there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Pay the $40 to have an FFL-ee mediate the transfer and do the NICB?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Pay the $40 to have an FFL-ee mediate the transfer and do the NICB? I've never done that personally. The only guns I've sold have gone to people with active concealed-carry permits (which makes it unnecessary). The one time I know of someone doing that personally is my dad, who did it for a rifle and a pistol he traded to his brother for a Jeep, but that was also an out-of-state transfer. He could have just driven down there and handed them to him and nobody would have been any wiser, but instead went to the FFL and paid to have it done properly and legally. It was a hassle for him, but in that case it's clearly defined because it's interstate. When you think about it, opting into doing that right now for sales is such a hassle that I can see why it's uncommon. That's $fee that either the seller or the buyer has to eat, meeting at a shop that'll do it during their open hours, and waiting for the check to be done. I wonder what would happen if the law said everyone needs to have a background check done for firearms sales, and you beefed up the NICS system and made it available to everyone for free over the phone? Would it cut down on sales from legal owners to prohibited persons (which is the "loophole")? I think it would remove most of the hassle of doing it the current way, but could that work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Steezo posted:Cars aren't enshrined in the constitution as one of the tools of or reasons for revolution. Do you need a license for speech, trial by jury, not be forced to quarter troops in your home, etc. etc. It's part of the litmus test of the republic. You are guaranteed the right to travel, but there has been restrictions placed on every method of doing so besides walking, and even then you cannot wantonly travel across another's property. Various other parts of the bill of rights come with explicit requirements or tests to balance them out. You don't get your attorney unless you specifically and unequivocally ask for one. Likewise you don't get your fifth amendment right to remain silent unless you explicitly invoke it. There are tons of restrictions on speech from fighting words to assault to tortious acts. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to put similar registration and licensing requirements for weapons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
If NICS were available to anybody, even for a modest fee of a couple of dollars, I'd be totally fine with that. But enforcement of a mandatory check for private sales is going to be challenging.psydude posted:How is having universal background checks the same thing as giving your guns to the government. How is having a national registry of guns any more problematic than tracking vehicles by VIN. 1-It's not, but which of those is generating headlines? 2-Because nobody in government wants to ban vehicles. Step 1 for seizure is a list. Didn't we just have a scare about ICE using the voluntary DACA list to track people down? I'm not even going into the rights vs privilege issue. Mr. Nice! posted:You are guaranteed the right to travel, but there has been restrictions placed on every method of doing so besides walking, and even then you cannot wantonly travel across another's property. Various other parts of the bill of rights come with explicit requirements or tests to balance them out. You don't get your attorney unless you specifically and unequivocally ask for one. Likewise you don't get your fifth amendment right to remain silent unless you explicitly invoke it. There are tons of restrictions on speech from fighting words to assault to tortious acts. If you had the Constitutional right to shoot, I would agree. Godholio fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If you had the Constitutional right to shoot, I would agree. What the gently caress else are you owning a gun for other than to shoot it? You don't buy a hammer unless you're gonna hit some nails. You buy a saw to cut something. You buy a gun to loving shoot it. There are reasonable restrictions (and in some cases unreasonable like the 4th, 5th, and 6th) on many of the constitutional rights both in the main text and in amendments. I'm not asking for anything unreasonable or even unconstitutional when compared to any other constitutional rights. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
This isn't true. State and local municipalities are constantly trying to regulate if not outright prohibit vehicles from operating or parking in their jurisdictions. As to your other point, the government maintains voter registration information. Voting is a right. If people are worried about gun registration lists, they should be equally worried about voter registration lists. The DACA comparison is a sloppy one because the government also maintains visa information for foreign nationals, which DACA recipients effectively are. Additionally, all US citizens and permanent residents are also listed in the social security database; the government already has lots of ways of finding you. Maintaining a database doesn't violate the second amendment. The push back against it comes from right wing paranoia largely seeded by propaganda pushed by groups like the NRA. e: Godholio posted:If you had the Constitutional right to shoot, I would agree. This is an interesting point, because in literal Gorsuch interpretation world, there's nothing to prevent the government from strictly regulating the sale and transfer of ammunition. To that end, why couldn't the government require licensing for the sale, purchase, and distribution of ammunition, including documenting who purchased it and where. They've already done the same thing with automatic weapons. psydude fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:What the gently caress else are you owning a gun for other than to shoot it? You don't buy a hammer unless you're gonna hit some nails. You buy a saw to cut something. You buy a gun to loving shoot it. I've probably put fewer than 100 rds through my Garand in 10 years of ownership. I own my CCW to keep and bear it; I shoot it so I can do so responsibly, not the other way around. If you want to pass an amendment that no firearms registration can be used to identify gun owners for anything other than an alleged crime by an individual (not to include gun ownership itself) I'm listening. But frankly I don't trust standard legislation, and I'm not alone. It boggles my mind that anyone can look at the current president and Congress and think, "Yeah, I trust their word and consistency." psydude posted:This isn't true. State and local municipalities are constantly trying to regulate if not outright prohibit vehicles from operating or parking in their jurisdictions. Fair enough on the car thing...I hadn't heard about that happening in the US. It's still not the same as a national or statewide restriction on a Constitutional right. The idea of a real political party advocating removal of voting rights is absurd. The idea of a real political party advocating the removal of firearms rights is not. And plenty of people ARE worried about voter registration lists...in any other administration the Russians hacking numerous states to gain access to the rolls would be loving groundbreaking news. In 2018 that was Tuesday. Sure, the government can find me. Doesn't mean I like it, or that I think it's necessarily right. Also doesn't mean I need to show up on an official list as being a potential criminal based on which direction the political winds blow. The ammo thing legit worries me. California is doing exactly that kind of poo poo right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I've probably put fewer than 100 rds through my Garand in 10 years of ownership. I own my CCW to keep and bear it; I shoot it so I can do so responsibly, not the other way around. You're completely glossing over the fact that there are reasonable restrictions on basically every other constitutional right except firearms. Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean that there can't be public safety restrictions on things. There didn't need to be an amendment to criminalize some speech, and we already restrict ownership right now (lautenberg amendment). Godholio posted:Fair enough on the car thing...I hadn't heard about that happening in the US. It's still not the same as a national or statewide restriction on a Constitutional right. What the gently caress are you smoking? Republicans actively campaign against restoration of felon voting rights all the drat time. Disenfranchisement is a core GOP party platform. Godholio posted:The idea of a real political party advocating the removal of firearms rights is not. And plenty of people ARE worried about voter registration lists...in any other administration the Russians hacking numerous states to gain access to the rolls would be loving groundbreaking news. In 2018 that was Tuesday. The government is not going to come take your weapons away. Your guns are safe until an amendment gets past. You're just wringing your hands about a boogeyman that decades of NRA backed fearmongering have instilled in your mind. The SCOTUS, especially in it's current makeup, is not going to allow any wholesale confiscation program. This is entirely a strawman argument. This holds true no matter how prevalent this fear may be. Fight against the fallacy and look at the reality of the situation. edit: removed some snark. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The SCOTUS, especially in it's current makeup, is not going to allow any wholesale confiscation program. This is entirely a strawman argument. This holds true no matter how prevalent this fear may be. Fight against the fallacy and look at the reality of the situation. It doesn't start wholesale. It starts like California, Chicago or DC. Where "reasonable" becomes "be friends of the administration or gently caress you for trying to exercise this right". Where despite SCOTUS telling them "Shall Not Be Infringed" means "Shall Not Be Infringed, and also you're in contempt now," they pass the same rule with a slightly different wording hoping the next guy wont have enough financial backing to fight. Big D has absolutely acted in bad faith when its backed people like Feinstien and Daly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
The government doesn't have the time or money to take your guns. They can't even decide which immigrants who got a parking ticket 20 years ago to deport. Like that's it. Anyone who's ever worked with the government can tell you that two of the greatest forces keeping them from doing things you do and don't want them to are bureaucracy and a lack of a budget. The amount of money and effort it would cost to round up every single firearm in the US would be equal to about five 9/11 inside jobs or twenty Sandy Hook false flags. psydude fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
psydude posted:The government doesn't have the time or money to take your guns. They can't even decide which immigrants who got a parking ticket 20 years ago to deport. They don't have to send loving gestapo squads door to door for this to become a problem. All they have to do is throw down 10-25 year sentences (or anything, really) if you're caught in possession of something that Mike Bloomberg doesn't like. That feels like infringement. Hope your taillight doesn't go out, that little flag when they run your license might make your night considerably worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They don't have to send loving gestapo squads door to door for this to become a problem. All they have to do is throw down 10-25 year sentences (or anything, really) if you're caught in possession of something that Mike Bloomberg doesn't like. That feels like infringement. Hope your taillight doesn't go out, that little flag when they run your license might make your night considerably worse. A fate worse than death by your calculous, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They don't have to send loving gestapo squads door to door for this to become a problem. All they have to do is throw down 10-25 year sentences (or anything, really) if you're caught in possession of something that Mike Bloomberg doesn't like. That feels like infringement. Hope your taillight doesn't go out, that little flag when they run your license might make your night considerably worse. Want to address your claim that republicans don’t actively engage in voter disenfranchisement? Also holy cow you guys are arguing against sensible poo poo with slippery slopes and other logical fallacies that were untrue decades ago when other countries passed sensible legislation and opponents said the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
Steezo posted:It doesn't start wholesale. It starts like California, Chicago or DC. Where "reasonable" becomes "be friends of the administration or gently caress you for trying to exercise this right". Where despite SCOTUS telling them "Shall Not Be Infringed" means "Shall Not Be Infringed, and also you're in contempt now," they pass the same rule with a slightly different wording hoping the next guy wont have enough financial backing to fight. Big D has absolutely acted in bad faith when its backed people like Feinstien and Daly. Is this like when California passes new automobile emissions standards, automobile manufacturers grudgingly implement the changes on all domestic models because it's simpler than meeting multiple standards, and the people in other states benefit from cleaner air despite the regulatory capture of their local legislatures?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You are guaranteed the right to travel, but there has been restrictions placed on every method of doing so besides walking, and even then you cannot wantonly travel across another's property. Various other parts of the bill of rights come with explicit requirements or tests to balance them out. You don't get your attorney unless you specifically and unequivocally ask for one. Likewise you don't get your fifth amendment right to remain silent unless you explicitly invoke it. There are tons of restrictions on speech from fighting words to assault to tortious acts. While I definitely respect where you're coming from, there already are a bunch of reasonable restrictions on firearms. From a post I saved a long time ago, forgot the author v The DMV / car license example doesn't hold up to scrutiny either since precisely what about licensing is necessary in this case with regards to the 2nd Amendment? Apply that to any other constitutionally granted right and you'll see it is not reasonable. Should you have to pass some kind of test proving that you understand what voting means and that you've read the Constitution? Should there be a required fee for you to waive/accept your Miranda rights? What precisely does licensing for firearms ownership "do" to promote public safety? You're already handed a manual with the gun and I think that most people generally understand "killing people is bad." Cars are comparatively a significantly more complex mechanical device with a huge number of rules and regulations more complicated than "don't point the pointy end of this at something you don't want destroyed." Let me explain why I feel this way: If you have a constitutional right to "X" and there is no public safety reason for you to not exercise right to "X" there should be as little impediment to accessing "X" no matter which right we're talking about. And let us consider that under most understood forms of modern liberalism that expansion of access to rights is ALWAYS a good thing. It is something fundamental to modern philosophy of how a modern free nation should operate. Increased access to abortion? Some people don't agree with it. But we can all agree that limiting rights for someone is generally a bad thing. Consider the case of Texas where "reasonable regulations" have halved the number of clinics. Do we consider waiting periods on abortion acceptable in a free country? Increased access to firearms? Maybe you don't agree with it. But if it's a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. And you wouldn't regulate an abortion clinic out of existence would you? Why is this right somehow "okay" to have restricted access?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
pantslesswithwolves posted:I like all of this except for “prosecute NICS failures,” if only because of mistaken identity. My uncle got on the no-fly list because of that and had to hire a lawyer to clear it up; several years later, I found out I had a warrant out for my arrest because some clerk at the county courthouse confused my last name with someone else’s. I had to pay for a lawyer out of pocket to clear that up. I wouldn’t want to potentially face another charge because someone fat-fingered inputting my name into the database and confused me with some wife beater. Of course there would have to exceptions to the rule. And those should be cleared up for little or no cost to the innocent person. I just think it's a good idea. And definitely agreed with straw purchasers. Look at this stupid poo poo. Quote: ----------------------- The FBI processed more than 51 million NICS transactions from 2008 to 2014, and approved or denied about 50 million of them (state authorities processed more than 68 million requests during the same period). The FBI denied 556,496 of these transactions. Between FY 2008 and FY 2015, an 8 year period, ATF formally referred 509 NICS denial cases that included 558 subjects to USAOs for possible prosecution. The USAOs accepted for consideration of prosecution 254 subjects (or less than 32 subjects per year), declined to prosecute 272 subjects, and decisions for 32 were pending at the time of our review. We determined that, in general, USAOs most often prosecuted NICS denial cases when aggravated circumstances existed in addition to the prospective purchaser’s false “no” answer to at least one question on the Form 4473. An Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) official told us and the Department confirmed in response to a draft of this report that their decisions reflected the application of the principle of the Department’s Smart on Crime Initiative that directs USAOs to prioritize prosecutions to focus on the most serious cases that implicate the most substantial federal interests. https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1632.pdf#page=1 --------------------------- In 2009 there were ~67,000 people denied out of ~6,000,000 NICS checks, for reasons that would establish them as a prohibited possessor like felony charges, being declared mentally defective, or having domestic abuse misdemeanors. Only 4,681 of those cases were referred to a federal prosecutor. 32 of them resulted in a guilty plea or verdict. The following year (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf) there were 72,000 denials, 4,732 were referred to prosecutors and a guilty plea had been obtained on 13 charges as of December 2011. Each case is a slam dunk case. They lied on a federal form. If they were denied because they had the same name as a criminal, or some error in the database, that's one thing. But having just 4,700 cases being referred to prosecutors? There had to have been an awful lot more prohibited possessors than just 4,700 out of 72,000. [All sourced from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/234173.pdf ] How many of these people then went on to buy a gun illegally? How many bought them from a fence, a drug dealer, a friend, or had someone straw purchase a firearm for them? How many simply stole them? By prosecuting these very potentially dangerous people, you deter others. If you're worried about overcrowding the jails and gumming up the courts, how about we decriminalize marijuana and take all of the non-violent drug offenders who behaved well while on the inside, out of prison? That seems like a pretty good solution to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 09:05
|
|
|
Because access to firearms might be a net negative for society but access to abortions is a net positive?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Because access to firearms might be a net negative for society but access to abortions is a net positive? Sure, it might, but it's very arguable that it is a net positive, even though horrible people use them to commit crimes - because good people use them to defend themselves. That's not even considering the very questionable idea that you can reduce access to firearms without 1) violating the constitution, (see: Heller, McDonald), and 2) without somehow making all existing guns disappear. While I intellectually know that you can reduce access to newly purchased firearms to people that don't have them already, and that that might impede someone from committing a mass shooting or a crime, I also know that it's quite possible that they will just find another way to commit that crime. Whether they purchase a firearm illegally, manufacturer one illegally, manufacture a bomb instead of a firearm, or use a large vehicle. Or, if an assault weapons ban is in place, simply bring more pistols or a ban compliant rifle, and bring more and more reduced capacity 10-round magazines. Due to the prevalence of firearms in this country, and the fact that you won't be able to ban all standard capacity magazines, and the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of them out there, even if you did put a ban in place, the person could simply bring more guns or more magazines. I simply disagree with the fact that because reducing access to new guns MIGHT stop a few shootings, that we should impact every other gun owner in the nation and their ability to purchase new firearms. Because unfortunately the most effective firearms for self-defense are the most effective fire arms to kill innocent people. Unfortunately I think that is just a fundamental disagreement that cannot be changed on either side. Which is why I believe that we should focus on things that we can agree upon, like fixing the background check system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 09:35
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:While I definitely respect where you're coming from, there already are a bunch of reasonable restrictions on firearms. Driver's licensing, vehicle registration, TSA travel regulations, etc. are all constitutional limitations on your right to travel. You cannot freely trespass on someone's land to do said constitutional traveling. Likewise, there are restrictions on free speech including appropriate charges for criminal speech and costs related to use of federal venues. If you do not explicitly invoke your right to counsel or right to remain silent, those are waived automatically. And no, you can't institute a test that must be passed before voting because those were used entirely to deprive people of rights rather than to protect anything. Bored As gently caress posted:What precisely does licensing for firearms ownership "do" to promote public safety? You're already handed a manual with the gun and I think that most people generally understand "killing people is bad." Cars are comparatively a significantly more complex mechanical device with a huge number of rules and regulations more complicated than "don't point the pointy end of this at something you don't want destroyed." Nationwide licensing and restricting firearm ownership leads to a direct and traceable reduction in both violent crime and homicide rates. This is supported by the decline in both in every country that has instituted sane firearm measures. There is an almost direct correlation in western countries with the homicide rate and gun ownership rates. By enforcing some sort of licensing procedure before we allow someone to possess an instrument of lethality you become much more able to stop your Stephen Paddocks and Nick Cruz types. As it is now with basically no restrictions, people who obviously are in no shape to handle a weapon can amass a massive stockpile with little to no trouble. Bored As gently caress posted:Let me explain why I feel this way: If you have a constitutional right to "X" and there is no public safety reason for you to not exercise right to "X" there should be as little impediment to accessing "X" no matter which right we're talking about. And let us consider that under most understood forms of modern liberalism that expansion of access to rights is ALWAYS a good thing. It is something fundamental to modern philosophy of how a modern free nation should operate. There is an absolute public safety reason to limiting instrumentalities of death. That public safety reason is less dead people. And before you say "ah ha, chicago has restrictive gun laws and an extremely high homicide rate!" you cannot compare one city to a nationwide scale. Just because one state or municipality restricts things doesn't mean that said restricted items can't just come in. There is no customs or anything to travel from state to state. Without nationwide restriction, individual area restrictions mean little. Additionally Chicago's homicide rate is a multifaceted problem but primarily has one major cause (and it's the same as any high homicide area) - illegal drugs. Bored As gently caress posted:Increased access to abortion? Some people don't agree with it. But we can all agree that limiting rights for someone is generally a bad thing. Consider the case of Texas where "reasonable regulations" have halved the number of clinics. Do we consider waiting periods on abortion acceptable in a free country? The regulations in Texas weren't reasonable and they didn't cut clinics in half. The unconstitutional laws basically forced all but 4 or 5 clinics in the state to close entirely. This isn't an apples and oranges comparison. One is a medical procedure where one is literally a tool for killing things. This is a false equivalency, and not really relevant to a firearm discussion. Bored As gently caress posted:Increased access to firearms? Maybe you don't agree with it. But if it's a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. And you wouldn't regulate an abortion clinic out of existence would you? Why is this right somehow "okay" to have restricted access? It's absolutely ok to restrict certain constitutional rights. It happens all the time depending on the circumstances. And it's only even in the bill of rights because states wanted to have their own little militias. Once again, though, using the abortion comparison is a false equivalency, but I'll address it. Abortion is protected because of the penumbra of privacy rights interpreted by the supreme court granted by the 5th and 14th amendments. Even still, states are allowed to pass reasonable restrictions on abortion (Texas' were not reasonable).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:Sure, it might, but it's very arguable that it is a net positive, even though horrible people use them to commit crimes - because good people use them to defend themselves. Firearms do very little on a large scale for personal protection. Having a firearm on you, depending on your color of skin, is actually going to make you more likely to get killed. Very few people who open carry or concealed carry have ever had or will ever have a reason to actually use their weapons in self defense. You're much more likely to be a George Zimmerman than you ever are to actually defend yourself or other with a firearm. Bored As gently caress posted:That's not even considering the very questionable idea that you can reduce access to firearms without 1) violating the constitution, (see: Heller, McDonald), and 2) without somehow making all existing guns disappear. While I intellectually know that you can reduce access to newly purchased firearms to people that don't have them already, and that that might impede someone from committing a mass shooting or a crime, I also know that it's quite possible that they will just find another way to commit that crime. Whether they purchase a firearm illegally, manufacturer one illegally, manufacture a bomb instead of a firearm, or use a large vehicle. Or, if an assault weapons ban is in place, simply bring more pistols or a ban compliant rifle, and bring more and more reduced capacity 10-round magazines. Due to the prevalence of firearms in this country, and the fact that you won't be able to ban all standard capacity magazines, and the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of them out there, even if you did put a ban in place, the person could simply bring more guns or more magazines. I see this "crazy people will just find another way to kill" argument used a lot, but it doesn't hold water if you look at it with any sort of scrutiny. Let's run with it, though. So America is essentially on par with the rest of the developed world with regards to mental health (at 3-4x the cost but that's a different subject). While our mental health system could definitely use a lot of improvements, we're not so significantly worse than our European counterparts. So it follows that you should have an approximately equal proportion of crazy people throughout the similar societies. Remember that these places consume the exact same (or even less censored) media and video games. And yes, there are occasional but extremely rare events there committed by these "lone wolves." However, they happen with such infrequency that each event on it's own is basically a statistical outlier. We can quickly name specific knife and vehicular attacks from Europe because they are so remarkably rare. In the USA those death numbers are loving Tuesday. So either our sickos in America are unique enough that they would still kill en masse significantly different than the rest of the world, or the simplest explanation is that those massacre methods aren't near as simple as getting guns and shooting up a place. The way you get some of the 300 million guns off the streets of the USA is with a voluntary buyback. It's basically the only effective way, but there is no god damned reason at all for our country to have half of the world's privately owned guns. As for your remaining strawmans about capacity limitations and such, the more difficult it is for someone to go through with a massacre the less likely they are going to pull it off. See, for example, how Europe's crazy people aren't crashing cars into highschools twice a week. Bored As gently caress posted:I simply disagree with the fact that because reducing access to new guns MIGHT stop a few shootings, that we should impact every other gun owner in the nation and their ability to purchase new firearms. Because unfortunately the most effective firearms for self-defense are the most effective fire arms to kill innocent people. Unfortunately I think that is just a fundamental disagreement that cannot be changed on either side. Which is why I believe that we should focus on things that we can agree upon, like fixing the background check system. There is no might. If we reduced the number of weapons in this country to a rate similar to other developed nations we would see a massive drop in homicide rate and mass murders. Once again this fact is supported by everywhere else in the world that has done it. We're no different on a base level than English, Aussies, Italians, Germans, Japanese, South Koreans, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 09:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Driver's licensing, vehicle registration, TSA travel regulations, etc. are all constitutional limitations on your right to travel. You cannot freely trespass on someone's land to do said constitutional traveling. Likewise, there are restrictions on free speech including appropriate charges for criminal speech and costs related to use of federal venues. If you do not explicitly invoke your right to counsel or right to remain silent, those are waived automatically. And no, you can't institute a test that must be passed before voting because those were used entirely to deprive people of rights rather than to protect anything. I'm definitely not saying all constitutional rights are absolute. That would be absurd. As you say, there are quote unquote quote reasonable restrictions on our constitutional rights. However there are also unreasonable restrictions on our constitutional rights. Such as abortion rights. I'll address that a little later in the post. quote:Nationwide licensing and restricting firearm ownership leads to a direct and traceable reduction in both violent crime and homicide rates. This is supported by the decline in both in every country that has instituted sane firearm measures. There is an almost direct correlation in western countries with the homicide rate and gun ownership rates. By enforcing some sort of licensing procedure before we allow someone to possess an instrument of lethality you become much more able to stop your Stephen Paddocks and Nick Cruz types. As it is now with basically no restrictions, people who obviously are in no shape to handle a weapon can amass a massive stockpile with little to no trouble. You see, I would argue that it is unfair to compare the United States to a select few Western European countries and Australia. While we have a higher gun homicide rate than these countries, we also have an overall homicide rate that is higher than those countries. America is simply more violent than those country is, regardless of the tool used to kill. Because of that fact, you have to look at the underlying causes of all violence, rather than the tool used. These European countries that you are comparing the United States to all have relatively homogeneous populations, they have never had a constitutional right to firearms in their history, they don't have a history of 300 + years of owning firearms for self protection against hostiles and wild animals, and most importantly they all have a form of universal health care and a strong social safety net. Most of them also have free higher education or vocational schools. Their education system is also of a higher quality than what we have in the United States. They also do not have huge problem with wealth inequality and poverty. Education, poverty, health care, and mental health are all higher predictors of overall violence than access to guns. Read this quote from TFR: quote:Want to know why the US has more gun deaths, and an overall higher homicide rate than Western European countries? Because we have a permanent underclass strapped with debt in an exploitative predatory economy with no real prospects of escape for them or their children. quote:There is an absolute public safety reason to limiting instrumentalities of death. That public safety reason is less dead people. And before you say "ah ha, chicago has restrictive gun laws and an extremely high homicide rate!" you cannot compare one city to a nationwide scale. Just because one state or municipality restricts things doesn't mean that said restricted items can't just come in. There is no customs or anything to travel from state to state. Without nationwide restriction, individual area restrictions mean little. Additionally Chicago's homicide rate is a multifaceted problem but primarily has one major cause (and it's the same as any high homicide area) - illegal drugs. quote:The regulations in Texas weren't reasonable and they didn't cut clinics in half. The unconstitutional laws basically forced all but 4 or 5 clinics in the state to close entirely. This isn't an apples and oranges comparison. One is a medical procedure where one is literally a tool for killing things. This is a false equivalency, and not really relevant to a firearm discussion. quote:It's absolutely ok to restrict certain constitutional rights. It happens all the time depending on the circumstances. And it's only even in the bill of rights because states wanted to have their own little militias. Once again, though, using the abortion comparison is a false equivalency, but I'll address it. Abortion is protected because of the penumbra of privacy rights interpreted by the supreme court granted by the 5th and 14th amendments. Even still, states are allowed to pass reasonable restrictions on abortion (Texas' were not reasonable).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 10:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:There is no might. If we reduced the number of weapons in this country to a rate similar to other developed nations we would see a massive drop in homicide rate and mass murders. Once again this fact is supported by everywhere else in the world that has done it. We're no different on a base level than English, Aussies, Italians, Germans, Japanese, South Koreans, etc. Americans are more similar to the people living in Central and South America than Europe. If you think about it, you start at the USA and move south and it's all pretty violent. Could be that the culture is just different than that of small, wealth, European nations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 10:25
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Americans are more similar to the people living in Central and South America than Europe. If you think about it, you start at the USA and move south and it's all pretty violent. Could be that the culture is just different than that of small, wealth, European nations. Have you ever been to Central and South America? I can assure you that Americans are very different, with the obvious exception of those who emigrated from those areas. Americans are most culturally similar to Australians, a country that has already banned guns for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:
gun control at the state level is retarded because its easy to bypass. If gun control came from the national level you can't bypass it by going 45 minutes into a state over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
the inescapable conclusions are that we both have too many guns and are mentally incapable of responsibly owning and using guns
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
psydude posted:Have you ever been to Central and South America? I can assure you that Americans are very different, with the obvious exception of those who emigrated from those areas. Americans are most culturally similar to Australians, a country that has already banned guns for the most part. We're basically fungible peoples culture wise with most of the developed world. There's zero different about Americans that should naturally make us more violent as a culture. Other places have the exact same (or less censored) media, approximately the same mental health resources, religion (although our fundies are a special crazy, Christianity really isn't vastly different globally), etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:the inescapable conclusions are that we both have too many guns and are mentally incapable of responsibly owning and using guns I don't think any place in the world is going to be able to handle the equivalent of 1 weapon a person without getting violent. Just a reminder that we have half of the world's privately owned weapons (approx 300 of 600 million worldwide) with only Yemen and one other place even remotely close (approx 0.5/per person) while basically the rest of the anglosphere has 0.3 or less and most countries in the world period less than 0.2 guns per person. The homicide and violent crime rates track right along with those ownership rates. Unfortunately we're fighting against a massive propaganda effort for the last 30-40 years from the NRA who own the republican party wholecloth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Ah yes, the innate desire to kill imprinted in every American. Of course this desire cannot be constrained; it is more humane to let them bear arms. It would be untoward to deny the most violent among us unfettered access to assault weapons. Edit: lol access to abortions are just as important as access to firearms. Ahahahhaahahahahha
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Pay the $40 to have an FFL-ee mediate the transfer and do the NICB? Not every town, city, village has a FFL. In Alaska, that could be a 500 dollar plane ride to go to the closest town that has a FFL. And, in those towns, people still legally subsistence hunt with rifles and shotguns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
TCD posted:Not every town, city, village has a FFL. Carve out a reasonable exception for cases like these. Pretty basic and obvious legislation. The subsistence hunters in Alaska I mean. Some bits of small town America are going to have to "bite the bullet" and take a little drive for their gun needs. Inconvenient, but so is rampant urban gun crime that follows market saturation here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Or introduce a reasonably modern system that can handle basic identity verification remotely. That whole process needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Parts of the background check system are intentionally obtuse, without that resistance and some investment it could be seemless for both the general public and law enforcement (including integrated auditing for due process). AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/02/18/kasich-common-sense-gun-laws-make-sense-sotu.cnn Kasich must not be running for anything after his stint as governor is up. Also, it would have owned if he had gotten the GOP nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
I think Kasich is still a pretty good VP pick in a world where the GOP didn't elect Donald J Trump
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Want to address your claim that republicans don’t actively engage in voter disenfranchisement? They're trying to circumvent what I'm talking about, which is passing a law that says "black people and gays can't vote." That's not happening. Nobody in power is openly calling for it. People in power ARE trying to do that with guns. And pointing out that the GOP is pursuing lovely workarounds like gerrymandering and closing DMV offices in predominantly black areas while passing voter ID laws isn't exactly going to convince me to trust the government not to try similar lovely tactics about guns. Like California's new ammo laws. 45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:gun control at the state level is retarded because its easy to bypass. Illegally. Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
People in power in Florida are actively campaigning against an amendment that restores voting rights to felons. This is a part of the country where you get hit with a felony conviction if you’re black and have 2g of pot on you half in your grinder and half in a bag. Voter disenfranchisement is a core GOP platform and they actively campaign on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Are you trying to change my mind? If I don't trust the government not to abuse its powers, giving me examples of the government actively trying to do it to other people isn't going to change that. Congrats, I'm even MORE entrenched in my position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
nm the mental illness issue is with people who think theyre going to be watering the tree of liberty any time soon
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:57
|
|