|
Squalid posted:Most of the political conversation regarding gun bans/gun control on Democratic side of US politics is so goddamn stupid I can barely stand it. Most of the visible advocacy I see is a goddamn joke with little hope of actually reducing gun homicide or suicide and terrible political strategy. Actually most of the discussion about gun control on the Democratic side of US politics is pretty sensible and basic, and not even close to as far as most other countries. However it gets treated as unrealistic and absurd by gun owners because there's a noticeable portion of them that are fragile and shrill, and react to any sort of gun legislation as if it was confiscation. This has led to online leftists just advocating confiscation, because might as well if that's going to be the reaction.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:Ok lets say tomorrow Trump sighs a law banning all guns. Who do you think the police are going to disarm? Cops effectively disarm black people now by murdering them with impunity for carrying guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Who cares which demographic gets disarmed first/last if the end result is the same. So long as disarmament quotas are met amirite?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Actually most of the discussion about gun control on the Democratic side of US politics is pretty sensible and basic, and not even close to as far as most other countries. It's not just online leftists saying advocating confiscation. Real politics people basically say it too or at least signal it and its really bad politics, and not necessary. When they want to advocate for something less than banning all guns they waste time going after semi-automatic rifles or useless accessories like bump stocks. The emphasis should be on reducing the velocity of gun transfers or other policies ground on the principle of improving public health and gun safety, but instead we get weird posturing. The debate on both sides is obviously driven by emotion and identity more than reason. If we want to seriously improve gun safety Democrats need to divorce their proposals from identity issues, but instead they do the opposite and actively inflame the identity conflict. Maybe demographic and generations shifts will eventually enable real change but I don't see that in the near term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It's not just online leftists saying advocating confiscation. Real politics people basically say it too or at least signal it and its really bad politics, and not necessary. Can you quote anyone in political leadership specifically saying this? Obama never said nor implied anything like that for example so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Actually most of the discussion about gun control on the Democratic side of US politics is pretty sensible and basic, and not even close to as far as most other countries. If it doesn't go far, it's not sensible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
I don't think any foreseeable gun control will even consider disarming the police. That's extremely rare, even in countries with strict gun control. In my view, gun control of the general population in and of itself will go a very long way to ameliorating the issue of a militarised police force and police shootings. Cops in America are trained to operate under the assumption that every civilian is armed, and that in itself means that they are extremely heavy handed. When you combine poor training and a lack of de-escalation procedures, viewing average citizens as potentially lethal threats and plain ol' racism, you have a recipe for a serious problem. The use of guns and the spectacle of gun violence are completely normalised in the USA. In basically every other developed country, guns are pretty rarefied things and are treated as what they are: deadly weapons of last resort, not the everyday crutch for any slightly tense situation. The first step in tackling that perception is the stripping away of as many guns as possible and making them as unobtainable as is feasible for the general populace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
The UK disarmed their cops and it's fine. E: The UK isn't fine, it's garbage for a ton of reasons, which have nothing to do with their disarmed cops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can you quote anyone in political leadership specifically saying this? it's not so much politicians saying it as it is them pushing for policies that have little potential to reduce gun violence. Its like the bump stock ban that sound good but have have incredibly little potential to effect the problem of gun homicide. Unable to enact real change politicians are taking people's toys and there's just no point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
ok im day drinking so let me back up: Im for gun control but I think any actual attempt at wide scale disarmament of citizens in the US must coincide with massive police reform and abolishing the electoral college
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Or you could just implement gun control and not whatabout it into the dirt.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The UK disarmed their cops and it's fine. No, they didn't. The UK police has never been 'armed' in that manner and it has remained that way. There was never any real policy of disarmament. Putting something back in a box is much, much harder than taking it out with things like these. Not to mention the UK never had the extreme proliferation of firearms within the general population that the US does. Wholesale police disarmament in the USA is pie in the sky, 10x more so than general gun control for ordinary citizens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Real politics people basically say it too or at least signal it and its really bad politics, and not necessary. No they don't. Stop using using weasel words and provide quotes, or you're arguing in bad faith. Squalid posted:it's not so much politicians saying it Oh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Its like the bump stock ban that sound good but have have incredibly little potential to effect the problem of gun homicide. The bump stock ban isn't Democrat's, it's Republicans desperate to appear as if they did anything. If Dems had power it wouldn't stop at bump stocks. quote:Unable to enact real change politicians are taking people's toys and there's just no point. Guns aren't toys but it's insightful that you describe them as such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:ok im day drinking so let me back up: Im for gun control but I think any actual attempt at wide scale disarmament of citizens in the US must coincide with massive police reform and abolishing the electoral college This is where i see Democrats failing on messaging. To get gun control realistically they have to at least win Republican women and moderates who might not have guns themselves but whose family members do. They should be hammering the message that they just want GUN SAFETY, they have to change the conversation away from anything remotely touching on disarmament. Realistically, no politicians actually advocate for anything remotely like disarmament, but we need to get the messaging on point. Honestly though its clear to me minorities are disproportionately harmed by guns in America. If we could reduce the frequency of guns in police encounters and improve their ability to predict when they will encounter guns, it would probably make them less trigger happy. Black communities are also the ones most severely effected by gun homicide, and keeping guns from getting onto the black and grey market is likely to disproportionately benefit black men over any other demographic group. quote:Guns aren't toys but it's insightful that you describe them as such. That was referring to bump stocks but w/e. Taking gun toys also is less important in reducing homicide than many people would think, controlling straw purchases is much more important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:That was referring to bump stocks but w/e. Taking gun toys also is less important in reducing homicide than many people would think, controlling straw purchases is much more important. Yeah and that's what Democrats advocate but you described them as as secret confiscation attempts and then backed off when even mildly challenged on that, so I'd question your knowledge of gun legislation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Taking gun toys (appears anyway) to be low hanging fruit. As long as the gains are finite even if infinitesimal....
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yeah and that's what Democrats advocate but you described them as as secret confiscation attempts and then backed off when even mildly challenged on that, so I'd question your knowledge of gun legislation. My issue is not really with any specific legislation, except insofar as I see a see a lot of what gets proposed as a waste of time, but rather with the Democratic politics of gun control. The NRA tells people any gun control at all is a Trojan horse for gun confiscation, and then in liberal spaces like this thread people are like “yes, we are definitely going to take your guns. That is absolutely the plan. You’ve trolled us into actually wanting that. What are you going to do about it?” As it turns out, they can do a lot. This is exactly the kind of argument the NRA wants and knows it can win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Squalid posted:My issue is not really with any specific legislation, except insofar as I see a see a lot of what gets proposed as a waste of time, but rather with the Democratic politics of gun control. The NRA tells people any gun control at all is a Trojan horse for gun confiscation, and then in liberal spaces like this thread people are like “yes, we are definitely going to take your guns. That is absolutely the plan. You’ve trolled us into actually wanting that. What are you going to do about it?” As it turns out, they can do a lot. This is exactly the kind of argument the NRA wants and knows it can win. You literally bought the NRA line. It doesn't matter what the leftists on a dead message board say, you were just going to make up stuff until you got challenged. You can either talk about real poo poo, or you can you argue in bad faith,and you already established which of those options you prefer. Your gullibility, or is dis-ingenuity, is not the fault of internet leftists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You literally bought the NRA line. It doesn't matter what the leftists on a dead message board say, you were just going to make up stuff until you got challenged. Jaxyon posted:This has led to online leftists just advocating confiscation, because might as well if that's going to be the reaction. These are the people being played by the NRA. They have let the NRA define the terms of the debate, and its a debate they are unlikely to win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Squalid posted:My issue is not really with any specific legislation, except insofar as I see a see a lot of what gets proposed as a waste of time, but rather with the Democratic politics of gun control. The NRA tells people any gun control at all is a Trojan horse for gun confiscation, and then in liberal spaces like this thread people are like “yes, we are definitely going to take your guns. That is absolutely the plan. You’ve trolled us into actually wanting that. What are you going to do about it?” As it turns out, they can do a lot. This is exactly the kind of argument the NRA wants and knows it can win. How does gun control without any gun confiscation whatsoever work? That is, what do you believe the purpose of "gun control" to be, and how does a government achieve this purpose without getting anyone to give up any of their guns? Genuinely curious, because I can't figure out a path to control firearms without a mechanism for both "you no longer get to own these" and "you no longer get to own these".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Squalid posted:These are the people being played by the NRA. They have let the NRA define the terms of the debate, and its a debate they are unlikely to win. Dude, you literally accepted the NRA's framing and tried to trot it out here. People on this forum are not the ones getting played. Nobody cares about a few people on a dead comedy forum. It's you. You got played. We literally just saw it. Internet leftists largely don't matter, and the NRA is losing the public at large due to this type of tactic, because people are getting fed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
I doubt that the average gunowner hangs out on SA just to tell their friends they saw poo poo like this.randomguyonadeadmessageboard posted:YES, we should steal all the guns, also reparations for blacks and mandatory abortion for all!!! Edit: Wait, was Squalid a narc for the NRA this whole time? Everyone, hide your shitposts! RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I doubt that the average gunowner hangs out on SA just to tell their friends they saw poo poo like this. Two of those things are good idea though
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:30
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Guns aren't toys but it's insightful that you describe them as such. Unless you live on a farm or in some rural area where it's to have a gun for varmints, yes they are. For that majority of gun owners, their guns are toys.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Unless you live on a farm or in some rural area where it's to have a gun for varmints, yes they are. For that majority of gun owners, their guns are toys. They shouldn't be seen as toys. They are seen as toys. Calling them that and repeating NRA bull uncritically is indicative of what kind of person I'm dealing with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:42
|
|
Jaxyon posted:They shouldn't be seen as toys. What?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:What? Squalid
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:46
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Squalid I don't care about that, your argument with him is stupid. I can't even tell if you two actually disagree or if one or both of you is just terrible at arguing. I meant your response to the thing I said.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Internet leftists largely don't matter, and the NRA is losing the public at large due to this type of tactic, because people are getting fed up. They are representative of a wider conversation. Something Awful is not an island. Elector_Nerdlingen posted:How does gun control without any gun confiscation whatsoever work? That is, what do you believe the purpose of "gun control" to be, and how does a government achieve this purpose without getting anyone to give up any of their guns? The real objective of gun safety advocates should be to reduce gun homicides, suicides, accidents, and demilitarize public spaces and institutions. If police can safely respond to calls without carrying their own guns, they are less likely to shoot people on accident or on "accident". Gun confiscation is not necessary to achieve these goals, though obviously if it were possible it would help. Firstly because while guns have a long shelf life, in practice over time they degrade, wear out, get lost or otherwise rendered inoperable and non-dangerous. That means it is not necessary to actively destroy guns to reduce gun prevalence, it is sufficient to only reduce the rate at which they enter the environment. Secondly not all gun are at equal risk of causing death. A gun that sits in some libertarian's private arsenal collecting dust for 20 years is not being used to kill people and is not very dangerous. The person most likely to be killed by it is the owner, but I doubt someone with 20 guns is at an elevated risk of suicide vs someone with one. Eliminating these guns does little to reduce gun risk, as most gun assaults and homicides are committed with cheap relatively new handguns and often discarded after a crime, or swapped repeatedly among criminals. More important than trying to remove guns from the system is reducing the velocity of gun transfers and inputs into the population. Most guns used form crimes are obtained by their uses via few common methods: straw purchases, in which someone's friend buys a gun for them and then reports it stolen/lost. Or burglary, or on secondary markets that poorly document transactions, or illegally diverted by legal firearm venders. To control diversion we want to improve monitoring and documentation of legal sales and purchases, so that we can track who is buying guns and where they are going. We can reduce burglary by mandating gun purchasers provide proof they can safely store their weapons in safe. Mandating someone complete an six hour gun safety course before purchase would also dissuade people from going through straw purchases by making it more costly in time for the buyer. One thing to think about is how we can use reasonable speedbumps in the process of obtaining guns to reduce prevalence of gun ownership throughout the population. Requiring people to have a safe and spend 50 bux on a weekend training course before buying their first pistol means people are much less likely to do it on impulse. The result will be a decrease in the rate at which guns enter the marketplace. Controlling and monitoring transfers is also much more important than controlling the total number of weapons. Making gun-owners legally responsible for crimes committed with their weapon if they fail to report when they go missing can also be expected to reduce straw purchases. This is a list of policy proposals that is almost as fantastical as a gun ban. Realistically none of this is likely to happen anytime soon. I just wish we could really have a discussion on gun safety that is focused on safety, rather than culture war bs. Whenever the subject comes up here there's so much posturing its impossible to have a real conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
It’s ironic you both are accusing each other of the same fault. Maybe the NRA ghost hacked both of you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The real objective of gun safety advocates should be to reduce gun homicides, suicides, accidents, and demilitarize public spaces and institutions. If police can safely respond to calls without carrying their own guns, they are less likely to shoot people on accident or on "accident". I'm really not taking a posture here dude, I'm trying to understand your position on gun confiscation because I don't get it. I'm not talking about gun safety in vague terms. I'm not talking about culture wars. It seems like a no-brainer that the general population shouldn't be allowed to own whatever kinds of firearms/weaponry they want, and that some kinds of people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms at all. I thought that was an uncontroversial position generally agreed to by both sides, with the argument being around what kinds of firearms/people are disallowed (if it's not and your belief is that all kinds of people should be allowed to own whatever firearms they want... I strongly disagree, but I'm not going to try to change your mind because that's an argument that's never worth it). Do you think that some kinds of people should be excluded from owning firearms? This could be as broad as "the mentally ill" or as narrow as "people previously convicted for shooting other people", "people with these specific mental conditions", or some combination of those kinds of things. Do you think that people should be excluded from owning some kinds of firearms? This could be something like "heavy machine guns, rocket launchers, and grenades" or even "semi automatics", or something like "illegally imported firearms", or some combination of those kinds of things. What do you think should happen to the (legal, registered) firearms owned by people who are later excluded from owning firearms? What do you think should happen to illegal, unregistered/unregisterable firearms? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:It’s ironic you both are accusing each other of the same fault. Maybe the NRA ghost hacked both of you. I'm just making fun of the same dumb argument we've seen in this thread several times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:I'm really not taking a posture here dude, I'm trying to understand your position on gun confiscation because I don't get it. I'm not talking about gun safety in vague terms. I'm not talking about culture wars. It seems like a no-brainer that the general population shouldn't be allowed to own whatever kinds of firearms/weaponry they want, and that some kinds of people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms at all. I thought that was an uncontroversial position generally agreed to by both sides, with the argument being around what kinds of firearms/people are disallowed (if it's not and your belief is that all kinds of people should be allowed to own whatever firearms they want... I strongly disagree, but I'm not going to try to change your mind because that's an argument that's never worth it). I was not reading any posture into that post, rather I was trying to plainly state my view. Mostly I believe the focus on banning particular classes of weapons or accessories represents misplaced priorities, as it does not address the most important factors in gun homicide or suicide. However if there is one presently legal class of firearm of which ownership should be most discouraged, it is handguns. Handguns overwhelmingly represent the guns used in homicide and represent the greatest threat to public health of any other class of weapon. There may be constitutional issues involved with banning this particular class of weapon so I don't want to belabor the point, controlling distribution is more important than outright bans anyway. If I could pick a single group of individuals who could completely exclude from owning firearms it would be men age 18-25. This group represents that great majority of persons who commit homicide and after 25 their rates of violent crime rapidly decrease. Otherwise if a constitutional case for restricting gun ownership among felons is feasible I believe those such restrictions are good policy. I'm not an expert on criminal law but a large proportion of gun homicides are committed by a relatively small cohort of professional criminals who are likely to have priors. Other reasonable,constitutional restrictions on specific classes should also be able to reduce gun prevalence without great political drama. Any presently legal weapon rendered illegal by new legislation should be grandfathered in, ideally with transfers restricted. Obviously this will slow the effect of new gun safety measures, however looking at the long term it is a small concession. Given 10-20 years time will naturally eliminate most of these from the population. Obviously illegal weapons are removed as they are found, not sure where you are going with this question? edit: it often seems to me people forget the purpose of gun control/gun safety legislation: the object is to reduce gun homicide and suicide. This I believe is most effectively accomplished by reducing % of population with at least one firearm in the household (especially reducing gun possession rates among young men), and stomping on the black/grey market. Squalid fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Squalid posted:stomping on the black/grey market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I was not reading any posture into that post, rather I was trying to plainly state my view. OK, currently illegal firearms are confiscated. I just wasn't sure. People get extremely weird ideas about this stuff. Existing firearms get grandfathered in and therefore cannot be confiscated. Ok, but will they really just kinda expire on their own in 10-20 years? Seems real quick to me given the amount of poo poo from the ww1/2 era that still functions. I'm supposed to maintain and repair the gun as part of my reaponsible owning of it, right? Whatever, if I can keep it forever but it can't be sold, given away, inherited, etc then it's removed from circulation now and from existence when I die, so long term yeah, seems ok. The one you didn't answer at all is: What happens to the legal, registered firearms of someone who becomes excluded from firearms ownership, eg by developing a mental illness, committing violent crimes, or whatever other thing means they're excluded now but previously weren't? This seems like a no brainer "yeah, they confiscate those", but see my first point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:OK, currently illegal firearms are confiscated. I just wasn't sure. People get extremely weird ideas about this stuff. I don't have a coherent opinion about that final point. The specifics of what would make good policy are complicated and contingent of circumstance. I would want to leave it up to people more expert than myself. Guns don't expire but they also don't last forever. Practices that extend shelf life are also likely to decrease the odds that a gun will be used. A gun covered in petroleum goo and sealed in a barrel is not a gun that is going to misfire at a club while some idiot does a handstand. Guns carried daily that are exposed to weather or stashed in hideaways will degrade overtime especially if not properly maintained most won't be. A variety of studies on crime guns find that a very large proportion are found within just a few of years after manufacture. Pulling a relevant quote from the first article I found on Scholar: In a more recent trace study, at least 25 percent of recovered firearms were seized within three years of their initial sale (ATF, 1997c). Guns from WWI are rarely used in crimes because they are expensive and rare. For this reason restrictions on sale of grandfathered weapons could be skipped if they were politically difficult, we should still expect to see a decrease in gun prevalence. Squalid fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
Imagine this is the near future and the gangsters are actually US gun owners who aren't handing in their guns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcq8bPs5y8M&t=44s
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I don't have a coherent opinion about that final point. The specifics of what would make good policy are complicated and contingent of circumstance. I would want to leave it up to people more expert than myself. You can't form a coherent opinion about whether or not a severely mentally ill person who has had their firearms license revoked should also have their firearms confiscated? It's not an obvious thing to do after revoking a license? I genuinely thought "ban on gun ownership for the severely mentally ill" was an extremely uncontroversial thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Squalid posted:it's not so much politicians saying it as it is them pushing for policies that have little potential to reduce gun violence. Its like the bump stock ban Isn't that something Trump did, not "Democrats" Thanks for admitting you were lying about what Democrats are actually saying and doing, takes a big man to admit that. E: Wait didn't the NRA also support the bump stock ban in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting? So now the NRA secretly wants to confiscate all the guns too, right? I guess that's where this crazytown logic goes now? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 07:07
|
|