|
What exactly is expanding a background check supposed to entail? I purchased a firearm a few weeks ago and there was a federal background check associated with it.
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Lemming posted:The "we can't get rid of the filibuster, or Republicans will be able to pass anything they want!" of gun control Pretty much. The "I need weapons in order to protect myself" argument has the same flaws if you are left or right. Your legally owned weaponry is not going to be worth poo poo in a situation where you actually need it to protect against the government. It's fairly telling that the 'best' outcome is "I die and kill a bunch of other people in the process instead of dying alone." It's not a tool of protection, it's a tool for theoretical revenge and nothing else. In exchange you get a tool who is infinitely more likely to be used to kill yourself or your loved ones than anyone who means you harm. Even if you 150% believe a For Real Civil War is coming then your legally purchased and owned guns ain't gonna help you worth poo poo because shockingly the Nazis that are coming for you are not going to just shrug, they are going to come for your legally owned guns and if you think having guns will mean they have to think twice then you have to assume that the Nazi Regime Police will somehow be less willing to reenact the 1985 Move Bombing directly on you and any innocent (non-white) people in a five mile radius. It's the same "My gun will give me the ability to fight the bad guys" logic no matter what end of the political spectrum you are on. If you're really prepping for a Civil War then you drat well better be hiding your guns and absolutely insane amounts of ammunition in hidden bunkers because it isn't going to be worth anything in your closet.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Im drunk as poo poo due to the news, but i hold this minute candle of hope that this time just might be different since this happened in texas. Locality matters, and there are a lot of suburban texas moms having to stare straight at real consequences for their political opinions tonight. It's a heavily Hispanic school. I guarantee not a single one of those soccer moms gives even 1/10th of 1 percent of a single gently caress about dead brown kids
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
Right, but the hypothetical you're talking about, these "pockets of resistance" would be A. extremely ineffective and B. their price tag is the continual slaughter of innocents due to the overwhelming glut of readily available firearms you can buy easier than purchasing a car.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
Zotix posted:What exactly is expanding a background check supposed to entail? I purchased a firearm a few weeks ago and there was a federal background check associated with it. About 1/3 of guns are purchased without a background check because they are sold at gun shows, certain online vendors, or private sales that don't require background checks.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:How many restrictions can we put on body armour? Seems like a background check for that is a good idea at least. Pinning your hopes on the people who couldn't stop ghost guns being 100% free and clear legal to regulate how formed steel or ceramics are worn on someone's person? lol good luck That said this is potentially attainable because nuking body armor available to """civilians""" knowing it wouldn't interrupt the flow to cops could pass on those terms, but I expect the instant anything effective is insisted upon the grand old American tradition of just deputizing entire chambers of commerce will come back into style, and we wouldn't want to interrupt the flow of arms and armor to are cops would we Zotix posted:What exactly is expanding a background check supposed to entail? I purchased a firearm a few weeks ago and there was a federal background check associated with it. In that case? Nothing. In many states you can sell and re-sell face to face without a background check, including at gun shows. I've got 6 firearms and I only had to sign anything for 2 of them, and could've avoided it in even those cases if it had made sense to. I'm absolutely and 100% confident that nothing federal Dems pass regarding gun laws will actually restrict anyone here and this is a state where gun poo poo is a throwaway concern compared to like Texas. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you want to make an impact on gun deaths you need to ban handguns universally and without exception, but nobody seems to want to do that even if it's based on numbers and science
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Pretty much. And in the overwhelmingly more likely scenario where that doesn't happen, all that having a gun in your house is going to do is make it significantly more likely that someone in that household will successfully commit suicide, more than any other outcome. There's just no good reason to have more guns
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you want to make an impact on gun deaths you need to ban handguns universally and without exception, but nobody seems to want to do that even if it's based on numbers and science Why do you think this? Especially since there's other countries that don't have handguns banned universally without exception that don't have even close to our number of gun deaths. An easy example is Switzerland.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Background checks wouldn't have prevented this shooting or Sandy Hook. A lot of times, these shooters wouldn't fail such a check. I'm not saying it's a worthless effort, just that it really wouldn't substantively improve the status quo. There is something to be said for at least slowing down the ease and speed circulation of purchased firearms in this country though, no? Legally purchased guns in lenient states easily become cheap illegally used guns in states with more stringent rules. Extreme risk laws temporarily restricting firearms access for high risk individuals who are a danger to themselves and others may have helped in a lot of incidents. And God knows how many lives might be saved if there was a way to screen for domestic violence risks. I'm going off of what Everytown for Gun Safety has been proposing. https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
We can't shoot our way into a sustainable just world anymore than we can vote our way into it. We are given the unfulfilling, largely ineffectual job of turning the hearts and minds of everybody we know (likely captured by an all encompassing economic and cultural surrounding), to accept they have no power or future, and be ready to organize under a banner which can't be allowed to exist. And that's just America. Still, I think there's purchase in a "you can fight/defend/kill like a badass!" arguments in the spirit of ukraine, or the northland, or classic toxic masculinity survivalist tropes we have here domestically. Survivalist energy is hard to argue against once you remove the baggage and ignorance that so often accompany it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
Fightin Biden announces that he's sick of all these Mass shootings..
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Why do you think this? Especially since there's other countries that don't have handguns banned universally without exception that don't have even close to our number of gun deaths. An easy example is Switzerland. It's modified to our present circumstances in the US, where I live, and not Switzerland, where I do not. I can't speak for Switzerland but I suspect if you changed the starting conditions so that every Swiss citizens had 1.3 handguns per capita I suspect it would be different.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
I'll note that many of the more complex elements of the previously stymied gun control bills that could be implemented by administrative agencies have now been implemented or are being implemented by rulemaking, which reduces the complexity of the needed legislation. These elements are unlikely to be reversed even under an R administration.Epic High Five posted:In that case? Nothing. In many states you can sell and re-sell face to face without a background check, including at gun shows. I've got 6 firearms and I only had to sign anything for 2 of them, and could've avoided it in even those cases if it had made sense to. I'm absolutely and 100% confident that nothing federal Dems pass regarding gun laws will actually restrict anyone here and this is a state where gun poo poo is a throwaway concern compared to like Texas. The expansion of background checks in the Toomey-Manchin amendment (as well as all others I can find) includes, among many other things, requiring background checks at gun shows. One of the fundamental rhetorics used by reactionaries to prevent change is to present any possible new policy as futile or meaningless, usually with contrast to some infeasible alternative. This poisons discussion of all possible improvements, and the specifics of how change can occur (it also promotes a cultural discourse of fatalistic cynicism and civic detachment). Insisting that only a handgun ban will make a difference has the same effect as saying we really need to be talking about mental health. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:37 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The expansion of background checks in the Toomey-Manchin amendment (as well as all others I can find) includes, among many other things, requiring background checks at gun shows. I'm aware of this, I'm just bearish on it actually having a tangible impact in my own real world of being able to just go to a red state gun event and buying whatever I want, on the grounds that so far nothing anybody has done federally has had any effect on it. Like I'm a communist who is on board with select and certain controls on firearm access but if you were to ask me if I were to consider anything at the national level to be a threat to me or my lifestyle I'd just have to laugh. I'm too white for anything proposed by anybody to impact me. And as an aside, how many of these shooters got their guns at gunshows through a loophole instead of through legal means normally? There's not even any need to cover tracks anymore, nobody is following those tracks and most Americans can just write their governor for a pardon for being a patriot. edit - I'm not introducing any of this to dismiss as useless any other arguments because I ultimately don't really care about them, my cynicism is based in results contrasted with promises. Statistics will support incremental halfassed bills saving lives just as strongly as Doom 3D being released right as the 90's crime wave abated as a primary cause. There's nothing to be gained by finding excuses to embrace intellectual laziness because the only other alternative is action Epic High Five fucked around with this message at 02:41 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:There is something to be said for at least slowing down the ease and speed circulation of purchased firearms in this country though, no? Legally purchased guns in lenient states easily become cheap illegally used guns in states with more stringent rules. Extreme risk laws temporarily restricting firearms access for high risk individuals who are a danger to themselves and others may have helped in a lot of incidents. And God knows how many lives might be saved if there was a way to screen for domestic violence risks. Yeah, I don't mean to naysay- if this effort prevented even one mass shooting, it would 100% be worth it. I just think that if we're serious about preventing this type of scenario (a person with no criminal history deciding to purchase a weapon then attack a school), the background check approach absolutely will not work. Systemic gun violence and mass shootings are two related but distinct societal problems, requiring different legislative and regulatory tools. Background checks will definitely help with the former, but not really the latter. Most mass shootings are committed by people who would pass a background check.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:It's modified to our present circumstances in the US, where I live, and not Switzerland, where I do not. I can't speak for Switzerland but I suspect if you changed the starting conditions so that every Swiss citizens had 1.3 handguns per capita I suspect it would be different. I'm confused. You stated that handguns need to be banned without exception to fix our gun violence issues. But now you're saying that handguns per capita makes a [substantial] (my word based on your implication) difference, suggesting that a country with fewer handguns can also be able to solve gun violence. Do you not think that Switzerland has a gun violence problem? Or are you changing your stance on your initial claim?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:And as an aside, how many of these shooters got their guns at gunshows through a loophole instead of through legal means normally? There's not even any need to cover tracks anymore, nobody is following those tracks and most Americans can just write their governor for a pardon for being a patriot. Most crimes involving guns are situations where the shooter obtained them illegally. But, most of these mass shootings involve taking their parents' guns that were obtained legally or the shooter obtaining them legally themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm confused. You stated that handguns need to be banned without exception to fix our gun violence. But now you're saying that handguns per capita makes a [substantail] difference, suggesting that a country with fewer handguns can also be able to solve gun violence. Get us to a point where what I suggest is being enacted and we're in the sort of alternative world where it would work. If you want my opinion of the present one it's the Cormac McCarthy comparison with the US Government being Judge Holden. I presented both for a reason. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:But, most of these mass shootings involve taking their parents' guns that were obtained legally or the shooter obtaining them legally themselves. When is the last time this was the case? In what percentage of mass shootings is this the case?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:We can't shoot our way into a sustainable just world anymore than we can vote our way into it. We are given the unfulfilling, largely ineffectual job of turning the hearts and minds of everybody we know (likely captured by an all encompassing economic and cultural surrounding), to accept they have no power or future, and be ready to organize under a banner which can't be allowed to exist. I would say the #1 problem with the 'resistance cell' argument is that a resistance cell really shouldn't be getting into gunfights. Getting into a gunfight against a superior force who controls your location means you have lost and are probably dying. We have countless years of proof that the most effective way to resist isn't with handguns, it is with bombings/poisoning/assassination/etc. You're not going to win a straight fight and guns shockingly are best at a straight fight. Even if you want to argue about assassination via gun it turns out that "being assassination with a gun" is something that the government has spent an absolutely insanely absurd amount of time prepping for. There's a reason why we have seen this time and time again worldwide, because there is a fairly stable pattern of what works for resisting a more powerful controlling force who has no qualms about hurting/killing you and it isn't gunfire except at the point where you've basically already loving lost. Like I am 150% empathetic to people who are justifiably terrified by the way the world is going and what threats they might face in upcoming years. But guns are the same placebo no matter if you're right or left wing. You're not going to oppose the horrors of reality with a gun you bought from a store. It isn't the world we live in. Supporting gun culture because a gun makes you feel safe just makes it harder to build up any will to do anything. There's a reason that there has been such a hard push to make leftists adopt guns and it isn't because the government is scared of them having guns. It's just the exact same "sell guns to scared people" playbook with a slightly different wording.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
If you're really concerned about the coming civil war, learn to rig and repair a DJI Phantom or equivalent, because that's gonna help you a lot more than an AR-15.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
The only real and lasting solution to gun violence is the over-arching "Just make people's lives materially better so they don't always feel marginalized and with their backs against the wall." But...well that ain't the American way. edit: and proper mental health care comes with that
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:If you're really concerned about the coming civil war, learn to rig and repair a DJI Phantom or equivalent, because that's gonna help you a lot more than an AR-15. This is the one by the company that transmits unencrypted GPS: https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/28/23046916/dji-aeroscope-signals-not-encrypted-drone-tracking Good luck finding an off the shelf drone that won’t be highly vulnerable to constant surveillance of the operator as of next year, btw: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/28/22203398/faa-remote-id-rules-location-night-over-people posted:In 2022, the US government will require every new mass-produced drone weighing over 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) to broadcast your location — and I do mean your location, not just the location of your drone. You’ll also be broadcasting an identification number that law enforcement can cross-reference with your registration number, as well as your drone’s speed and altitude Bad advice imo.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:55
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Get us to a point where what I suggest is being enacted and we're in the sort of alternative world where it would work. If you want my opinion of the present one it's the Cormac McCarthy comparison with the US Government being Judge Holden. I presented both for a reason. I'm not sure if this depends on how you define "mass shooting," but Adam Lanza used his mom's guns in the Sandy Hook massacre. Nikolas Cruz, the guy who shot the victims in Parkland, Florida, also purchased his gun legally due to lack of a criminal record.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Hello, searching for a thread to doomscroll in, popping in to ask what is meant by CE in the thread title?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
Didn't the buffalo shooter also get his guns legally? Edit: yeah he bought legally after passing a background check. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 03:07 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Im drunk as poo poo due to the news, but i hold this minute candle of hope that this time just might be different since this happened in texas. Locality matters, and there are a lot of suburban texas moms having to stare straight at real consequences for their political opinions tonight. Do you know how many of these same people have lost family members to covid and still believe it's either a hoax or a "plandemic" and even after losing loved ones refuse to get them and their families vaccinated or even wear a mask? Trust me when I say these people will not be swayed by school shootings even if it happens at a school their own kids attend. The average American Republican is so beyond a lost cause there isn't even a word to describe it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
The Buffalo shooter from literally like a week ago obtained his guns legally
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Inner Light posted:Hello, searching for a thread to doomscroll in, popping in to ask what is meant by CE in the thread title? Current Events
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Inner Light posted:Hello, searching for a thread to doomscroll in, popping in to ask what is meant by CE in the thread title? It stands for Continuous Exasperation but it's not a good thread for doomscrolling Ciprian Maricon posted:Didn't the buffalo shooter also get his guns legally? Correct
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:When is the last time this was the case? In what percentage of mass shootings is this the case? MJ maintains a dataset: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ It appears between 10 and 20 percent of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased illegally; current count is around 12%, assuming all currently blank cells are legal purchases, or 24 percent if we assume they were all illegal. The dataset's very incomplete for sourcing, so it's unclear how much would be covered by other proposed revisions to the law. Note that proposed reforms also tend to involve correcting other expansions on background check restrictions. edit: The CDC National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) appears to be a good tool for finding general firearm death stats, at first glance. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:13 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Papercut posted:The Buffalo shooter from literally like a week ago obtained his guns legally Notably, New York was one of several states that passed a sweeping new assault weapon ban in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. It was pitched explicitly to prevent things like this, but actually was targeted at ways that guns remind remind people of scary action movie villains over anything that makes them particularly more valuable for murdering people. While very little applied to handguns, due to a whoopsie in its late night drafting and passage they accidentally banned police from carrying their duty pistols (which might have actually saved some lives) and had to go back and revise it. In the end, it was a reactionary, knee-jerk law that did nothing to reduce gun crime; not because of gun industry capture or NRA opposition, but because of what its initial proponents wanted. Because in this country even most gun control activists, by preference, clamor for things to sooth their action movie fears more loudly than they do for anything connected to real-world crime. It's really a hosed situation no matter what your views on gun ownership.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:The only real and lasting solution to gun violence is the over-arching "Just make people's lives materially better so they don't always feel marginalized and with their backs against the wall." Yeah but I'd expect to see the "mental health" discourse emerging from this to be framed entirely in the language of individual self-care and stigma-breaking and whatnot rather than systemic denial of treatment, as it always is
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Notably, New York was one of several states that passed a sweeping new assault weapon ban in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. It was pitched explicitly to prevent things like this, but actually was targeted at ways that guns remind remind people of scary action movie villains over anything that makes them particularly more valuable for murdering people. While very little applied to handguns, due to a whoopsie in its late night drafting and passage they accidentally banned police from carrying their duty pistols (which might have actually saved some lives) and had to go back and revise it. While the gun that was used in the Buffalo shooting was obtained legally, the magazine for it certainly was not. NY has had a 10 round limit on magazines I thinl for decades now but the shooter was using a 30 rounder. Would the time that the shooter would have spent changing out 10 round mags potentially saved some lives? Maybe, maybe not. But I think that's the whole idea of 10 round mag limits.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Notably, New York was one of several states that passed a sweeping new assault weapon ban in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. It was pitched explicitly to prevent things like this, but actually was targeted at ways that guns remind remind people of scary action movie villains over anything that makes them particularly more valuable for murdering people. While very little applied to handguns, due to a whoopsie in its late night drafting and passage they accidentally banned police from carrying their duty pistols (which might have actually saved some lives) and had to go back and revise it. TBH, the real problem is that passing gun regulation on anything less than a federal level does nothing. Unless there's checkpoints/etc when you cross from one regulated area to a different one, which there won't be. That's why the handgun bans in specific cities were/are useless.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
Kalit posted:How many [literal] lives is this stance worth to you? Or unlimited, as long as you think there’s a looming threat? I don't think whether or not there is a looming threat is still under debate, the Supreme Court seems poised to sweep away human rights. With regard to the lives, you'd need to weigh the current gun violence plus the violence of the government forcing citizens to disarm against lives lost under a fascist regime, the latter two are unknowable numbers. We also don't have a guarantee that gun control would be enforced against the people you want to disarm, presumably the right. Some police departments have been quite vocal about their refusal to enforce any new gun legislation, especially if passed by Democrats. Because you don't really have police in America, you have state sanctioned right-wing gangs, which should be the first people disarmed in any gun control discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
Cisneros is 5.5 pts ahead with 85 percent of the vote in. Please eat poo poo on this one, Cuellar. edit: gently caress, I jinxed it. 
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 03:59 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:While the gun that was used in the Buffalo shooting was obtained legally, the magazine for it certainly was not. NY has had a 10 round limit on magazines I thinl for decades now but the shooter was using a 30 rounder. Would the time that the shooter would have spent changing out 10 round mags potentially saved some lives? Maybe, maybe not. But I think that's the whole idea of 10 round mag limits. Magazine bans are entirely unenforceable, and kind of silly regardless. Nobody who is planning a shooting is going to worry about the fine/charges that come with being caught with a larger magazine and everyone else who is using smaller magazines legally are just kind of inconvenienced.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:I don't think whether or not there is a looming threat is still under debate, the Supreme Court seems poised to sweep away human rights. With regard to the lives, you'd need to weigh the current gun violence plus the violence of the government forcing citizens to disarm against lives lost under a fascist regime, the latter two are unknowable numbers. Once again, how many [literal] lives is this stance worth to you? We're currently at ~17,000 this year alone. Last year was ~45,000. Is it worth it if this number gets to 60,000? 100,000? We know that this number is not inevitable, based on other similar countries in the world.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Cisneros is 5.5 pts ahead with 85 percent of the vote in. Please eat poo poo on this one, Cuellar. This one is coming down to the wire and could easily end in recount territory https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1529296662371487744
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
After shootings you see a lot of calls for more mental health, but is there any actual proposal involved? or any kind of clear idea as to how more mental health would prevent shootings? It seems like most shooters are lonely, vulnerable people who got radicalized. Unless "mental health" is code for monitoring everyone's internet and involuntarily committing anyone who spends too long on 4chan, I don't see how mental health fixes that.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 04:04
|
|
