|
Squalid posted:I keep hearing people say this and it still puzzles me. Why do you think you are in any position to take a mile? What's changed that makes you think that after 20 years of failure by gun control advocates things are suddenly going to turn around, and you're going to start winning? What makes you think you are bargaining from a position of strength? I mean besides the fact Republicans run most of the Federal government, you also have to deal with the courts. Oh man you can't say it's a fight with morons who are okay with massacres if they get to keep their guns, because the NRA WANTS conflict, you just have to politely shrug and disagree Suck my dick
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
Weird how the only people accused of perpetuating a culture war are the people arguing for gun control and not the guy who opened with THEY JUST WANT TO HAVE A CULTURE WAR THE LIMP WRISTED HYPOCRITICAL QUEERS
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Weird how the only people accused of perpetuating a culture war are the people arguing for gun control and not the guy who opened with THEY JUST WANT TO HAVE A CULTURE WAR THE LIMP WRISTED HYPOCRITICAL QUEERS Also literally "liberals participate in society! I am very intelligent"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Weird how the only people accused of perpetuating a culture war are the people arguing for gun control and not the guy who opened with THEY JUST WANT TO HAVE A CULTURE WAR THE LIMP WRISTED HYPOCRITICAL QUEERS Those people are a lost cause. I mean how can even begin to address Kingfisher's points, he almost sounds schizophrenic. To have a good debate on gun control we need to cut that kind of person out of the conversation entirely. For me it seems very clear that reducing gun prevalence will reduce violent deaths in the United States. Arguing that issue is uninteresting. The interesting questions are how do you achieve that, in this world, given these courts? Of course I understand why other people aren't interested in those conversations and just want to vent and poo poo post. Sometimes you just want to call someone an idiot. Still I hope people will think about what it will actually take to build a winning movement. Faith is not enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I keep hearing people say this and it still puzzles me. Why do you think you are in any position to take a mile? What's changed that makes you think that after 20 years of failure by gun control advocates things are suddenly going to turn around, and you're going to start winning? What makes you think you are bargaining from a position of strength? I mean besides the fact Republicans run most of the Federal government, you also have to deal with the courts. The NRA version of the White Moderate from Letter from a Birmingham Jail. "Maybe five or ten years from now we can start to talk about the problem, when it's a more convenient season for justice." Imagine being this robotic about the epidemic of mass shootings that is literally unique to our nation. Do you have any empathy at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Those people are a lost cause. I mean how can even begin to address Kingfisher's points, he almost sounds schizophrenic. To have a good debate on gun control we need to cut that kind of person out of the conversation entirely. For one thing, not just shrugging and pleading decorum when shitheads start ranting, loving push back you coward Like, ythose people get catered to! How do you talk about this at all without addressing those people, especially if you're going to just tsk tsk the behavior of people you claim to agree with
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The NRA version of the White Moderate from Letter from a Birmingham Jail. "Maybe five or ten years from now we can start to talk about the problem, when it's a more convenient season for justice." not really, that's why I have to specifically ask whether you were just expressing frustration and anger or actually making a prediction about the near future. if I had empathy, presumably I'd be able to intuit that. it just sounds like you really expect things are going to change real soon. I'd like to know why and how you expect that to happen. BENGHAZI 2 posted:For one thing, not just shrugging and pleading decorum when shitheads start ranting, loving push back you coward i don't have to address those people when i have you around to do it for me 
Squalid fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Apr 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
Squalid posted:not really, that's why I have to specifically ask whether you were just expressing frustration and anger or actually making a prediction about the near future. if I had empathy, presumably I'd be able to intuit that. The generation of high school kids having to grow up with the threat of seeing them and their classmates die every day they went to school is turning 18 at a rapid pace. Where do you think they're gonna fall on the spectrum of "melt down all guns" vs "free automatic rifles for all?" If your argument is "well I'm gonna continue to dig in and not give an inch because I can afford to wait out the clock as long as possible" I guess that's a perfectly logical argument but you could understand why I might view it as monstrous and ghoulish as gently caress. Now you're going to counter with something like "well I wish you luck in all that, but I doubt you're right" and act like it's some awesome dunk when it actually just reveals that you couldn't give a gently caress about the mass shooting deaths of these children. Being the smug, passionless Adult in the Room when the issue is mass shootings is some loving poo poo, my man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
So your point is basically to not have any real conversation about the matter and just wait it out until the cultural zeitgeist changes for 'gun melting' through more school shootings?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
  Source Turns out most kids are smart enough to know chasing gun bans is dumb. It's the boomers that clutch their pearls when confronted with the thought of a gun. Jehde fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Apr 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So your point is basically to not have any real conversation about the matter and just wait it out until the cultural zeitgeist changes for 'gun melting' through more school shootings? No, but it makes sense that you would view it that way, since you ultimately want nothing to change. I was answering his question of "what makes you think we can get progress on gun control?" with an answer. I would love for us to have a "real conversation" about the matter on the national level but we seem to be trapped in the cycle of:  where right after a tragedy is the wrong time to talk about gun control because we're "politicizing a tragedy" when that is exactly the right moment we should be talking about it the most!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:07
|
|
|
Jehde posted:
Gosh do you think maybe those numbers are different with American teens
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Gosh do you think maybe those numbers are different with American teens Not really. Edited in a smilie for clarity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
Like holy poo poo imagine just dropping that here and not bothering to point out it's Canadian teens, who don't live in fear of massacres, who aren't drilled on what to do in that situation like it's a fuckin fire because poo poo it could happen gotta be prepared, and pretending it's the same for teens around the world
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
Jehde posted:Not really. Edited in a smilie for clarity. You're dumb as all gently caress then
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:where right after a tragedy is the wrong time to talk about gun control because we're "politicizing a tragedy" when that is exactly the right moment we should be talking about it the most! I think now, during a relative 'peace time' would be a great time to reflect on the failures of of the past. Put together something that is bipartisan that both sides can agree they have 'won' something so it actually passes. Right after a tragedy is a horrible time to 'take action' because everyone digs in and the worst voices drown everyone out and just cause everyone to dig in harder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Put together something that is bipartisan that both sides can agree they have 'won' something so it actually passes. I'm not a politician, Shaocaholica, I'm a citizen, I don't draft bills on demand. I'm just advocating that we even have the conversation at all and you have to fight me even on that and accuse me of being the one who wants to keep the status quo anytime the argument gets too uncomfortable for you. And lmao at your understanding of modern politics in America if you think a bipartisan gun control bill can pass through our Congress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
Here's a fun fact: on the wiki page for school shootings, there's a table for every one in Canada since 1902. It's maybe a dozen lines. There's been nine since 1999. The one for the US has its OWN loving PAGE, with breakdowns for every decade. The 2010s? You're lucky if there's only nine in a year How do you possibly look at that and go yeah no clearly teens in these countries have the same thoughts because their experiences are identical
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:I think now, during a relative 'peace time' would be a great time to reflect on the failures of of the past. Put together something that is bipartisan that both sides can agree they have 'won' something so it actually passes. Right after a tragedy is a horrible time to 'take action' because everyone digs in and the worst voices drown everyone out and just cause everyone to dig in harder. Ah yeah the terrible voices calling for us to take action to stop a tragedy from happening again
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Ah yeah the terrible voices calling for us to take action to stop a tragedy from happening again No actually the gun people voices screaming the same bullshit lines they've screamed for decades. But sure, there are some people who think melting all guns (in the US) is a good and reasonable idea right after a mass shooting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:No actually the gun people voices screaming the same bullshit lines they've screamed for decades. But sure, there are some people who think melting all guns (in the US) is a good and reasonable idea right after a mass shooting. You do realize that a "melt all guns" bill has literally never even been floated as an actual possibility in America, but you have to act like it actually might happen any day now to justify your paranoia about the gun grabbers? Yes, online, you see a lot of heated rhetoric about banning/melting all guns, but for actual legislation, that's never even been on the table. So relax, Beavis. I can promise you that no one is banning/melting all 300+ million guns in America in our lifetimes. Can't put all that toothpaste back in the tube, but we can try our best to shoot for that as an ideal outcome, even if it seems unrealistic. e: vvv thank you for apologizing, sorry if I get heated about this kind of poo poo but it is literally a life and death issue WampaLord fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Apr 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm not a politician, Shaocaholica, I'm a citizen, I don't draft bills on demand. I'm just advocating that we even have the conversation at all and you have to fight me even on that and accuse me of being the one who wants to keep the status quo anytime the argument gets too uncomfortable for you. Sure ok. I'm fine to end the loop right here and talk about the nuances since I did actually say now is a great time to do so. I really don't want to be fighting anyone on having an meaningful discussion so apologies if it came off like that. And AFAIK, I'm not aware of any bipartisan gun control bills that actually was viewed as a compromise for both sides. More like we have a thing that some republicans/democrats are on board with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yes, online, you see a lot of heated rhetoric about banning/melting all guns, but for actual legislation, that's never even been on the table. I'm not really worried about that scenario nor do I care about rando internet voices even if they are 'influencers'. But there are elected officials who say some really dumb poo poo right after a tragedy and I would say that the pro gun politicians tend to be worse as of recent history. But they are the ones you have to win over or 'trick' which is really a relative thing depending on where you stand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Being the smug, passionless Adult in the Room when the issue is mass shootings is some loving poo poo, my man. The issue is absolutely NOT mass shootings. This is where I really get mad. The issue is homicide. THE ISSUE IS HOMICIDE. Also suicide, but that is probably more complex and difficult to reduce, I am not sure. Mass shootings represent like 1%<= of gun homicides in the United States. Open your eyes and look at the big picture. You want to change things? Focus on the big killers. It's not the mentally ill. It's not assault rifles. Its overwhelmingly handguns, used by mostly normal young men. You focus on reducing the odds that when they are acting impulsive and stupid someone dies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The issue is absolutely NOT mass shootings. This is where I really get mad. The issue is homicide. THE ISSUE IS HOMICIDE. Also suicide, but that is probably more complex and difficult to reduce, I am not sure. Do you think I disagree in any way? I'm using mass shooting to emphasize the horrible moral wrongness of the pro-gun side because they're one of the easiest things to point to as "this is not something that should be happening in a civilized society!" Of course we should be reducing homicides, and suicides, and all other knock on effects of massive amounts of gun ownership!!! That's the pro-control side's entire argument! Do you want to know what the easiest and most effective way to do that is? Ban/buyback as many guns as possible But you want to talk about banning all handguns? Sure, my friend, I am, as the kids say, here for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Do you think I disagree in any way? I'm using mass shooting to emphasize the horrible moral wrongness of the pro-gun side because they're one of the easiest things to point to as "this is not something that should be happening in society" you might have misread what've been saying itt. perhaps if you looked at my post history my position would be more clear. To some extent I find the framing of the issue around mass shootings objectionable. I fear this framing will mislead activists into spending their energy on fights that have little chance to substantially change gun mortality. On the other hand, I also acknowledge that most people struggle to empathize with anyone different from them. Middle America has a hard time relating with some guy in rural texas or the inner city who got in an argument while drunk/high and was shot dead after pushing the wrong dude. We need to prevent those deaths just as much as anyone else however. It saddens me that this is the case but I guess that's just how it is. I'm interested in the narratives and political issues around gun control, and I want to explore how to effect real policy change. It's why I'm talking about narratives. Which narratives are effective, their limitations, what narratives the NRA types use. Which groups are winnable via what strategies, where can we compromise vs where we need to be firm. Probably most people find these sorts of discussions boring but eh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
qkkl posted:It's pointless to confiscate illegally owned guns because more guns will just flow in. This is the main reason why any gun control measures that blue areas implement are not going to be effective; the fact that guns are easily available in red areas and there are no travel restrictions between red and blue areas. If you can't tell I actually don't mind the free flow of firearms over city/state borders. I'm saying once someone is caught with an illegally owned gun lock them up for 40 years. It's the criminals that make the decision shoot people, lock them up until they rot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 10:25
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Those people are a lost cause. I mean how can even begin to address Kingfisher's points, he almost sounds schizophrenic. To have a good debate on gun control we need to cut that kind of person out of the conversation entirely. Care to address my main point? I.E the left has supermajority control of many city/counties/states and if they wanted could enact serious harm reduction laws doing the following: 1. To address the shooting homicide rate between young men in urban settings, make possession of an illegally acquire gun or the commission of a crime with an illegaly acquired gun a double life sentence. 2. To address the huge disparity of gun use against women pass strong domestic violence / other violent indicrator bans. These would need to go beyond the existing "you have to be convicted" requirements. 3. To address the use of firearms for self harm by those with suicidal ideation, investbin robust mental healthcare systems (also don't criminalize mental illness or stigmatize it). Until super majority Left/Democratic Party controlled polities take the above harm reduction steps (which are within thier power to do and would have an immediate effect at reducing the social harm of "people getting shot" ) it is very difficult to not view them as rank hypocrits who are only anti-gun as a culture war issue. If they actually cared about helping people they would act differently, since they don't it is clear to me they don't care about people getting shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Squalid posted:For me it seems very clear that reducing gun prevalence will reduce violent deaths in the United States. Arguing that issue is uninteresting. The interesting questions are how do you achieve that, in this world, given these courts? Go after the cops with use of force laws. As long as our gun rights are what they are, they are being constantly violated by lack of proper use of force protocols nationwide. Something's gotta give. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Apr 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 12:50
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Care to address my main point? Strengthen NICS by mandating compliance, and open access to the system for private sales. Prosecute straw buyers and sellers who's guns and up at crime scenes way too much. Maybe open the registry back up and put handguns on it. After that I guess unfuck the prison system, end the drug war, and declare Utopia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
why can't we go the other way and enact strict control if we regain power? right now we have it in the opposite direction and in total opposition to the will of the people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:why can't we go the other way and enact strict control if we regain power? right now we have it in the opposite direction and in total opposition to the will of the people. This is what I never get, something like increased background checks has 80%+ approval in America, which is unheard of, even M4A only gets like 70%+, but for some reason instead of just implementing a background check law, they always demand a concession. "Okay fine you can have background checks but you gotta give us something like taking these guns off the banned list." We ain't gotta give you poo poo! If it's that popular, we just gotta pass it and rake in the free political win. Sure the diehard NRA types will get angry, but they're always angry, and the 80%+ of people that support background checks will be pleased to see some progress being made, no matter how minor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is what I never get, something like increased background checks has 80%+ approval in America, which is unheard of, even M4A only gets like 70%+, but for some reason instead of just implementing a background check law, they always demand a concession. "Okay fine you can have background checks but you gotta give us something like taking these guns off the banned list."
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Draconian sentencing is counterproductive in the extreme And it also disproportionately affects  young men in urban settings
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:And it also disproportionately affects
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What does "increased background checks" mean to you? Because vague statements like that are always popular until the legislation gets hosed sideways and turns out to be "We use the same broken system but now it's slower and more expensive." My version of that would be legislation that is not "hosed sideways" and this default assumption that all gun control bills are going to be inherently bad from the get go is part of the whole "poisoned debate" thing. Yes, the AWB was bad, that was 25 years ago, can we move on and not assume the next big bill will be just as bad? Again, I'm not a politician, I can't craft a perfect bill for you that will answer all your questions, that's their job not mine. To me, "increased background checks" means, well, increased background checks! I would like less guns in the hands of people who have records of severe mental illness, or domestic abuse, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:My version of that would be legislation that is not "hosed sideways" and this default assumption that all gun control bills are going to be inherently bad from the get go is part of the whole "poisoned debate" thing. Yes, the AWB was bad, that was 25 years ago, can we move on and not assume the next big bill will be just as bad? If you'd like to know my opinion on the matter, I think half my posts ITT are bitching about NICS. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Apr 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I'm not asking for you to write a bill, I'm asking what specifically you think needs to improve. gently caress if I know! I'm a citizen who doesn't know the ins and outs of this poo poo, that's why I vote for politicians to do that work for me! This is called representative democracy, and is one of the foundational concepts of America. I just want "better background checks" and like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography, I'll know it when I see it. Whatever has the end result of less guns in the hands of crazies/abusers/etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
Jehde posted:Not really. Edited in a smilie for clarity. TBH, Canada already has very strict gun control, they also have a few things here that would be unthinkable with the gun-control crowd here stateside. You need a federal license to own/buy firearms/ammunition, on the other hand there is no registry beyond handguns, and the license turned everyone into a dealer. Want to sell a gun? As long as you and the other fella have a PAL(license) card, you can just sell to each other in the parking lot of a Tim Hortons. Restricted/Prohibited firearms require additional endorsements/rules for those cases. There's also a 5 round centerfire magazine limit. The big thing they also do is rolling background checks on the PAL cards, if there is an issue, 99% of the time the RCMP will be on your doorstep with a warrant to confiscate firearms pending an investigation on whatever landed you on a poo poo list. Oh and the PAL card requires character references for background checks, that helps weed out the crazies. I went to school @ GC Rowe in Corner Brook in 1988-1989, I was there when that turned into a student class hostage situation/attempted shooting/botched suicide attempt, and today you can barely find any blip of that on the news, but it did push me into the anti-gun camp for a while. Until I got held up 2 times in Toronto, and discovered how functionally useless police were, my viewpoint changed 180. Then I immigrated to the US, and oddly enough felt safer in LA/San Francisco/Austin than I ever did in Toronto/Vancouver, looking back. So I understand the Canadian viewpoint of further clamping down on an already restricted bit of equipment wouldn't yield results that would be intended. Stateside? The "universal" background checks issue is easy to solve in different ways: - Make it easier for people to become a legit FFL like in the past. Bring everyone into the fold. - Make NCIS checks available to the public. - Make a Federal version of a carry card where its a rolling background check and meets ATF requirements, I'd go for that if I could swipe that card instead of filling out the same paperwork ad nauseum. Also, - Enforce existing rules, start prosecuting violations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:gently caress if I know! I'm a citizen who doesn't know the ins and outs of this poo poo, that's why I vote for politicians to do that work for me! This is called representative democracy, and is one of the foundational concepts of America. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the current system and its failures (they are many and varied) so you can agitate for something more concrete than "Do better!". Because politicians are dumb as poo poo, and will do whatever lobbyists tell them if all you're asking them for is "something about gun, specifics TBD by the NRA."
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:53
|
|