|
sirtommygunn posted:oh no a computer registry what will i do when im on a list that encompasses nearly every human being in america Nothing at all. Just like the vast majority of gun owners have nothing to fear from a registry, being law-abiding citizens, but at the same time many see no reason to accept a registry as a condition of exercising a constitutionally protected right.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
twodot posted:I feel like we are just agreeing that the real problem is people aren't willing to unite to vote for a registry, and not that people opposed to the registry care too much to overcome, when the people opposed to the registry are supposedly a minority group (mathematically). Yup, but they are very well organized and very intense in their opposition. It's a really complex issue though and it has a long history and a lot of context. Any attempt at gun control is always seen in context of the disastrous 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and in context of the most restrictive state laws on guns. Gun nuts can easily become 'radicalized' by arguments like "California has a gun registry and also bans many guns that you like. The democrats claim a gun registry will prevent mass shootings, but how will it do that? What they really want to do is enact california style gun bans nationwide. They want an inch so they can take a mile." And even otherwise normal people hear stuff like this and say "I'm not opposed to a gun registry on principle, but I don't trust the people who want to enact one." I can't really blame the democratic party for its gun politics, since it reflects a lot of their constituency, but I don't believe there is going to be any kind of progress on gun control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Nothing at all. Just like the vast majority of gun owners have nothing to fear from a registry, being law-abiding citizens, but at the same time many see no reason to accept a registry as a condition of exercising a constitutionally protected right. This is like a weird statement where you're admitting the opposition is completely unreasonable, yet still trying to frame it as reasonable with this odd "they see no reason not to be unreasonable" stuff. It is strange as gently caress to read.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
I'm continually bewildered as to why Democrats never get around to the stuff they could do purely by executive fiat like unfucking NICS. The Vegas shooter was the result of a federal agency ignoring federal law. That doesn't take a constitutional amendment or a friendly SCOTUS to fix.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is like a weird statement where you're admitting the opposition is completely unreasonable, yet still trying to frame it as reasonable with this odd "they see no reason not to be unreasonable" stuff. It's because the American ontology of "Rights" places them on a magic pedestal and thus are not subject to reason or critical inspection so gently caress your couch. Paraphrasing here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
Yeah hm why didn't President Obama do a better job reacting to the Vegas shooting, what a pickle, and where was he on 9/11
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is like a weird statement where you're admitting the opposition is completely unreasonable, yet still trying to frame it as reasonable with this odd "they see no reason not to be unreasonable" stuff. Nah, you just need to understand that people have their own concerns unrelated to the narrative you want to be true, and consider their own concerns more important because that is the nature of subjective experience. You're never going to convince them with 'If guns didn't exist they couldn't kill anybody!' You might have better luck with 'This specific and well-defined policy has these upsides, which may outweigh your concerns', but as hakimashou notes there's been enough bad faith in the past that many gun rights proponents will regard your suggestions with suspicion at best because they'be been burned before. VitalSigns posted:Yeah hm why didn't President Obama do a better job reacting to the Vegas shooting, what a pickle, and where was he on 9/11 He spent enough time crying on camera after Sandy Hook, and seemed honestly personally affected. You'd think he'd have taken the obvious steps within his power after Congress turned him down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yeah, it's well-publicized, so there is a brief spate of public outrage, similar to every time a foster family turns out to have been locking the kids in the basement and raping them for years. People get upset for a couple weeks, then lose all interest long before it comes time to vote on who gets to set the laws governing it. That's it? The only difference between a swimming pool death and a school shooting is, publicity? Liquid Communism posted:More accurately: Are there difficult things worth doing? Liquid Communism posted:and bad guys will not be particularly effected by it because they already do not go through legal means to obtain their weapons, and those already in the contraband trade have connections well capable of supplying them. Define "Bad Guy" for me here, because I don't think that's a useful distinction for this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah hm why didn't President Obama do a better job reacting to the Vegas shooting, what a pickle, and where was he on 9/11 NICS fixes are absolutely the easiest possible kind of gun control and no one is interested in them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:many gun rights proponents will regard your suggestions with suspicion at best because they'be been burned before. Burned how, exactly? I mean, when did we last have a mass gun confiscation campaign that ended in the deaths of civilians? Or when did we last have an invading army on American Soil where civilians having weapons would have made any difference whatsoever?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:Burned how, exactly? I mean, when did we last have a mass gun confiscation campaign that ended in the deaths of civilians? Or when did we last have an invading army on American Soil where civilians having weapons would have made any difference whatsoever? remember the alamo etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:19
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Implementing strict gun control will result in lower firearm-related deaths. Anyone arguing against that is in denial, IMO. That said, the degree to which it does is another question, and I think it would have a rather mild impact and wouldn't bring you even close to the European levels. Even if you instantly eliminated all guns, the US murder rate would still probably be higher than most developed countries. In the big picture, these mass shootings, while tragic, are pretty insignificant, like any kind of terrorism. It's on the same order of magnitude as lightning strikes FFS, while every year handguns kill thousands but nobody gives a poo poo because it's more spread out and also racism I guess. It's great that the latest shooting seemed to energize people, but my concern would be that the result will be some feel-good measures that do gently caress-all to actually address the issue that affects the largest number of people. Okay, in order of plausibility, let's try to guess the most likely outcome assuming we magically banned and instantly melted down:
That is not to say that nothing should be done, some decent background checks should help a bunch. From what I understand there are already a ton of rules they're just full of loopholes or not quite strict enough to work properly. Let's consider these rules which, while a bit more of a pain in the rear end, aren't fundamentally that different and won't significantly limit sport shooters, hunters or people looking for protection, on the example of Czech rules that I'm somewhat familiar with. IINAL and haven't gone through the process myself so there might be small inaccuracies, but these are the basic requirements you need to go through as far as I can tell:
The "result" is lower homicide rate than UK or Australia. But of course not only will this never pass, it wouldn't solve all mass shootings even if it did. To actually address this you need to steer away from the iceberg rather than move the deck chairs. First, refer to this great post that will save me a lot of typing: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3845406&perpage=40&pagenumber=1517#post481551037 No need to go full COMMUNISM NOW at all but consider some specific, fairly achievable, changes: Representative government A common reason gun nuts give is to overthrow a tyrannical government. I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments that it wouldn't work because of drones or tanks, but nobody should feel that this is necessary in a first-world country with well functioning democracy where people feel they are fairly represented and have an impact on policy. Yeah... so fix gerrymandering, ballot access, electoral collage, proportional representation, limit executive power, etc. This would help Bubba chill out and put down his guns. Crime, law enforcement and criminal justice There's organized crime everywhere but if violent gangs like crips and bloods and MS-69 or whatever existed elswhere, or if home invasions were a thing, I'd probably buy a bunch of guns ASAP too. You can argue that statistically you're more likely to literally shoot yourself in the foot than use it in defense but most people would rather take the risk and be in control. Same poo poo with the cops - if you know they'll never show up, or will shoot you when they do, can you blame people for wanting to do something about it? Almost 70% of gun owners say they have them for protection so this is a major sector you could reduce, but you need to address the issue first and then take the guns, not vice versa. National defense Nobody's invading America but whatever, people feel it's traditionally important. Create actual organized militias or something where people can go play soldier with machine guns and howitzers under adult supervision. Chemicals in the water This should mostly help reduce the guns in circulation, but also actually study what makes the To summarize, here's what I think y'all should do.
 .
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You're never going to convince them with 'If guns didn't exist they couldn't kill anybody!' You might have better luck with 'This specific and well-defined policy has these upsides, which may outweigh your concerns', but as hakimashou notes there's been enough bad faith in the past that many gun rights proponents will regard your suggestions with suspicion at best because they'be been burned before. This seems to lead to the catch 22 outcome of being damned if we suggest any sort of regulation and damned if we do nothing. mobby_6kl posted:Representative government loving lmao. Yea I'm sure once elections are more fair, Jimbo isn't going to care about potentially overthrowing the government anymore. Did you see Oregon? WampaLord fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:remember the alamo etc You mean the Alamo where orders were given to abandon the post a full month ahead of the attack and the locals said "gently caress you, we'll take our chances" and made the wrong decision?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:You mean the Alamo where orders were given to abandon the post a full month ahead of the attack and the locals said "gently caress you, we'll take our chances" and made the wrong decision?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Nah, you just need to understand that people have their own concerns unrelated to the narrative you want to be true, and consider their own concerns more important because that is the nature of subjective experience. Liquid Communism posted:You're never going to convince them with 'If guns didn't exist they couldn't kill anybody!' You might have better luck with 'This specific and well-defined policy has these upsides, which may outweigh your concerns', but as hakimashou notes there's been enough bad faith in the past that many gun rights proponents will regard your suggestions with suspicion at best because they'be been burned before. We do have that proof, and I've posted it multiple times, and it's been discussed multiple times including on the previous page, so what you're actually saying is "OK you have specific and well-defined policy with these upsides that outweigh my concerns but I don't like it anyway" which I don't think can be resolved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:Burned how, exactly? I mean, when did we last have a mass gun confiscation campaign that ended in the deaths of civilians? Or when did we last have an invading army on American Soil where civilians having weapons would have made any difference whatsoever? Burned in the sense of 'put up with restrictions as suggested by the NRA to no clear effect' in the form of the '94 AWB. That was pretty much the litmus test for gun control legislation, and the fact that it didn't have the effect it was sold as going for is a big part of why the next attempt will be a harder sell. I think it is honestly a better argument that the '94 AWB was not capable of having any real effect, because it was targeted based on fear rather than data. The weapons it attempted to restrict were already rarely used in crime, so no measure of further restriction on them could cause a meaningful change in crime rates. In short, it was feel-good legislation that interfered with a right to fulfill no real governmental interest, which is pretty much the definition of bad legislation. VitalSigns posted:"People disagree" isn't exactly profound. Yeah they disagree, and you've admitted their reasons for disagreeing are unreasonable. That they hold different values than you does not make them unreasonable. Especially given those values are in line with the legal framework they are operating within. I'm pretty comfortable with it being difficult for authoritarians to deprive others of rights they don't feel they 'should' have, no matter which ones are in question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Burned in the sense of 'put up with restrictions as suggested by the NRA to no clear effect' in the form of the '94 AWB. That was pretty much the litmus test for gun control legislation, and the fact that it didn't have the effect it was sold as going for is a big part of why the next attempt will be a harder sell. I think it is honestly a better argument that the '94 AWB was not capable of having any real effect, because it was targeted based on fear rather than data. The weapons it attempted to restrict were already rarely used in crime, so no measure of further restriction on them could cause a meaningful change in crime rates. So how many more people have to die because we tried gun control once before and did a bad job of it? Like, ultimately all you're saying is "some people tried it before and it didn't work. Better not try again."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Burned in the sense of 'put up with restrictions as suggested by the NRA to no clear effect' in the form of the '94 AWB. That was pretty much the litmus test for gun control legislation, and the fact that it didn't have the effect it was sold as going for is a big part of why the next attempt will be a harder sell. I think it is honestly a better argument that the '94 AWB was not capable of having any real effect, because it was targeted based on fear rather than data. The weapons it attempted to restrict were already rarely used in crime, so no measure of further restriction on them could cause a meaningful change in crime rates. Instant Sunrise posted:Gun nuts fuckin love to point to the 1994 AWB as the ur-example of ineffective firearms legislation. Elizabethan Error fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:That they hold different values than you does not make them unreasonable. Especially given those values are in line with the legal framework they are operating within. I'm pretty comfortable with it being difficult for authoritarians to deprive others of rights they don't feel they 'should' have, no matter which ones are in question. A registry doesn't deprive anyone of any rights, and you've admitted that thinking it does is delusional. E: Also plenty of authoritarians like having guns that they can use to murder people for say trespassing, although YMMV on whether trespassers in abandoned buildings have a right to life I guess VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So how many more people have to die because we tried gun control once before and did a bad job of it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It doesn't help that "AWB again!" is the height of gun control thought when it comes to politics. or how the NRA made it a lame duck of a law
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So how many more people have to die because we tried gun control once before and did a bad job of it? after careful reading of the second amendment and wayne lapierre’s magic 8 ball, the reading i got was all americans must die at the altar of GUN
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:or how the NRA made it a lame duck of a law Because the NRA is fuckin' dumb. Like really, really fuckin' dumb. Wayne LaPierre is in charge of it level dumb. Like seriously these guys are super huge morons who are a a bigger threat to themselves than anyone else (as has been statistically demonstrated ITT) and yet they apparently run the entire US legislature. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
The AWB is the perfect example of why there can be no compromise on gun control, because no matter what you do to try to find a balance to please the gun nuts, they will always act in bad faith and immediately use the ineffective measures they demanded you hobble gun control with to scream bloody murder that it doesn't work and since it doesn't work the AWB is obviously just borne from hatred of red-white-n-blue gun owners with no other motive than persecuting them personally etc etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Lobbying is a fact of life in America. Sucks, but if the NRA can singlehandedly dunk on an entire multi-billion dollar political party straight through a historic supermajority then maybe that party is fuckin' dumb. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2016
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:not the entire legislature, just one party Do the perfidious tendrils of the NRA expand so far as to nullify the combined fundraising power of the DNC or is it possible Democrats just don't care that much about gun control? Am I reading that right that the sum total of NRA contributions was less than $1.1m in 2016? Because if $1.1m can buy the US government what the gently caress did Hillary Clinton spend $1.4 billion on? Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:not the entire legislature, just one party
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:How does this explain the lack of gun control from a Democrat supermajority during the Obama administration? Idk if you know this but the filibuster means you can't do anything the other party doesn't want unless you have 60 senators. Which Democrats had for about six months. In the middle of an economy-melting recession while they were also passing a huge health care reform. And even if you have 60 senators, lobbyists only have to buy one to stop any legislation they want. See Lieberman, Joe. See Manchin, Joe. There are currently 4 Democratic senators with an A-rating from the NRA, which means at minimum they would need 64 seats to do something. E: The Manchin-Toomey bill got 54 votes in a 100-member body. And failed. And all it did was basic NICS stuff that you want and you pretend the NRA is fine with (but it isn't) and only liberal perfidy keeps it from passing because they hate gun owners or w/e VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Idk if you know this but the filibuster means you can't do anything the other party doesn't want unless you have 60 senators. The number of Democrats required to pass any legislation anyone actually wants always seems to be n+1 Democrats. Yet the Republicans can go hog wild with the worst ideas in the world and count on at least 5 Dems voting with them 75% of the time. I feel like maybe our party is fuckin' dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:or how the NRA made it a lame duck of a law Strange as it may seem, the NRA don't get to vote in Congress, no matter how much money they throw at it. If you want change, get people to turn up and vote for people who will make it happen, and who are capable of not taking bribes. Rent-A-Cop posted:How does this explain the lack of gun control from a Democrat supermajority during the Obama administration? Gotta maintain that belief that the party cannot fail, it can only be failed or lose due to the perfidious Other. Too difficult to accept that the elected officials on both sides of the house have no interest in pursuing gun control as a platform plank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You only need 51 to nuke the filibuster. Yes this is true and it is dumb, the USA is pretty undemocratic. The Democrats would never nuke the filibuster for gun control because then they wouldn't have an excuse to not pass single payer, not pass the DREAM Act, not etc That doesn't have anything to do with whether gun control works, or whether it's a good idea. But at this point if you're retreating to "well our dumb political system makes good ideas impossible" well I agree
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:How does this explain the lack of gun control from a Democrat supermajority during the Obama administration? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-gun-control-proposals-have-been-offered-since-2011/
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Strange as it may seem, the NRA don't get to vote in Congress, no matter how much money they throw at it. quote:If you want change, get people to turn up and vote for people who will make it happen, and who are capable of not taking bribes. twodot posted:Is the take away that the NRA is controlling the Republican party by spending 1 million dollars in 2016, almost all of it to PACs? If the only thing stopping effective gun control was 1 million bucks of PAC money I feel like the problem would have been solved by now. Elizabethan Error fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Lol trying to argue that money doesn't affect our political system. Imagine loving guns so hard you're agreeing with John Roberts VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:it explains it quite succinctly, provided you're not an idiot in denial quote:The National Rifle Association's (NRA) stranglehold over Congress is largely responsible for the inaction. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA spent more than $3 million on federal lobbying efforts in 2013 and 2014. Three million dollars! I am aghast! Seriously, that's like the cost of a particularly nasty mayoral race. How is it the NRA manages such incredible control over both parties with such a small spend? Surely, they must be masterminds of the highest order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Three million dollars! I am aghast! Someone put this man on the Supreme Court, he has Serious Opinions about how giving politicians millions of dollars a year can't have any connection with them voting the way you want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Since the nineties the number of guns in the USA has increased by over a hundred million and the rate of firearm homicides has almost halved. I think its pretty obvious that what we in fact need is more guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Three million dollars! I am aghast!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Someone put this man on the Supreme Court, he has Serious Opinions about how giving politicians millions of dollars a year can't have any connection with them voting the way you want. Spending obviously affects policy. Democrats spent more trying (and failing) to get the formerly Republican governor of my state elected than the NRA spends on the entire US government in a year. Why is NRA spending apparently so much more effective?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:23
|
|