|
PeterCat posted:I've been assured that a legally armed citizen can't stop a shooting, but there it is. No, you've convinced yourself to accept an ocean of blood to offer you this opportunity to indulge in the fantasy of being one of the vanishingly rare "good guys with a gun". Why was there a shooting that needed stopping in the first place? It's the ubiquitous guns.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:No, you've convinced yourself to accept an ocean of blood to offer you this opportunity to indulge in the fantasy of being one of the vanishingly rare "good guys with a gun". This implies a level of control that I don't think exists for any of us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This implies a level of control that I don't think exists for any of us. I don't think anyone's implying that PeterCat is secretly a legislator, just that it's reasonable to criticize the consequences of his argument that ubiquitous guns keep anyone safe. It's also a crosspost that isn't particularly responsive to anything anyone has said, and motte-and-bailey nonsense where he refutes an exaggerated argument that nobody is making to boot. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jun 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I've been assured that a legally armed citizen can't stop a shooting, but there it is. I've been assured that having a gun makes you and your family safer, but there it is. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/year-florida-boy-accidentally-shoots-kills-baby-85811865 quote:PENSACOLA, Fla. -- An 8-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed a 1-year-old girl and injured a 2-year-old girl at a Florida motel on Sunday, authorities said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I've been assured that a legally armed citizen can't stop a shooting, but there it is. You have? By who? Xombie posted:I've been assured that having a gun makes you and your family safer, but there it is. If only we could know what is more common, "good guy with gun stops shotting" or "person accidentally shoots family member". Then we could make informed decisions that aren't based on hyperbole and strawmen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Here's my argument for gun control 1) The police demonstrably cannot be trusted with guns 2) Even if we disarm the police on an institutional level, every police officer will privately own and carry a gun 3) Therefore we need to make private ownership illegal too
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 05:16
|
|
|
Ah yes, because we cannot trust agents of the state not to brutalize the public, we must immediately... make that easier for them to do? That seems like a strange logic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Ah yes, because we cannot trust agents of the state not to brutalize the public, we must immediately... make that easier for them to do? having a gun doesn't make you safer from the cops
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I've been assured that having a gun makes you and your family safer, but there it is. That kid has a future in law enforcement. One bullet to kill two kids?! Cops usually need to unload an entire magazine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Ah yes, because we cannot trust agents of the state not to brutalize the public, we must immediately... make that easier for them to do? How does the public not having firearms make it easier for agents of the states to abuse them? If anything, the public being armed gives the agents of the state a convenient excuse to commit murders at a higher rate. E:VVVV Cease to Hope posted:the police can clearly just lie Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
the police can clearly just lie
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
Kalit posted:How does the public not having firearms make it easier for agents of the states to abuse them? It absolutely does include them. Police are given power over other members of the public by the state, and act as its agents. It says a lot about the state that we accept police behaving as we do without meaningful consequence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 06:28
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It absolutely does include them. Police are given power over other members of the public by the state, and act as its agents. Who is "we" here? People changing the subject, to imply that gun control can't possibly happen until the police are no longer racist, poverty no longer exists, and people with mental illness are all treated with compassion. But the rest of the world has racist police, and poverty, and mental illness, and yet does not have widespread gun death for some reason. The guns are the gun problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 12:17
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Who is "we" here? "The rest of the world" has shitloads of gun death, and part of the problem is pretending the US should be exceptional instead of normal. It's thoroughly middle tier for the western hemisphere. Other countries besides western Europe, Japan, Korea, and Oz/NZ exist and most people live in them. One could equally say the US is shockingly low on gun death considering how many guns per capita there are. Something like 3x the next competitor in total guns (Serbia) while having fewer deaths per capita than half the continent and being on par with almost everyone else. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 12:28
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:"The rest of the world" has shitloads of gun death, and part of the problem is pretending the US should be exceptional instead of normal. It's thoroughly middle tier for the western hemisphere. I like the sleight of hand here. You're specifically limiting "the rest of the world" to a group that is mainly composed of significantly poorer countries, many of which the US has flooded with guns one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I like the sleight of hand here. You're specifically limiting "the rest of the world" to a group that is mainly composed of significantly poorer countries, many of which the US has flooded with guns one way or another. Then the counterpoint would be somewhere like Finland, that has 1/5th the level of gun penetration but *far* less gun deaths. We had a bit over 14,000 gun homicides in the US in 2019. Finland had 5. 1 gun every 4 to 5 people is certainly no US 1 gun to every .9th of a person, but it's not rare either. And yet they don't have a few thousand gun homicides. They had 5. Guns aren't magic death totems that drive people to take life. The problem with America is it's filled with Americans. World would probably be an overall safer place if you disarmed Americans, so good luck with that, but they'd still be Americans when all is said and done. You could take away all their guns and it wouldn't be a massive shock if they passed a law making it legal to own black people again in 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Guns aren't magic death totems that drive people to take life. The problem with America is it's filled with Americans. World would probably be an overall safer place if you disarmed Americans, so good luck with that, but they'd still be Americans when all is said and done. You could take away all their guns and it wouldn't be a massive shock if they passed a law making it legal to own black people again in 5 years. Yes yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns turn fights into murders and suicidal impulses into deaths much more efficiently than any other options. And American gun policy isn't just the availability of guns, but laws shaping self-defense increasingly into a weapon of offense. That's not some sort of unspecified failing of the American heart, but a policy decision to cater to the fantasy of righteously gunning down a deserving victim. And the idea that guns are somehow fending off Jim Crow is laughable. Who do you think is pushing the gun sales and Stand Your Ground laws?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 13:05
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:And the idea that guns are somehow fending off Jim Crow is laughable. Who do you think is pushing the gun sales and Stand Your Ground laws? I don't think they were saying that, it was more an example commentary on general American shittiness. Not if "you do this then" but "even if you got us to do a good thing, we'd still be us and this horrific idea would be unsurprising"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Then the counterpoint would be somewhere like Finland, that has 1/5th the level of gun penetration but *far* less gun deaths. We had a bit over 14,000 gun homicides in the US in 2019. Finland had 5. 1 gun every 4 to 5 people is certainly no US 1 gun to every .9th of a person, but it's not rare either. And yet they don't have a few thousand gun homicides. They had 5. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but I bet Finland's laws are far more restrictive in other ways. Nobody thinks enacting sane gun laws in this country would suddenly wipe out all gun violence that's why we also support an egalitarian society because we understand poverty and our extreme wealth inequality leads to crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 13:49
|
|
|
barring the invention of a gun-eliminating orbital laser, it would be a long time before widespread restrictions on the manufacture and sale of guns would be felt. but reversing stand your ground laws and the carry laws that are rapidly approaching universal carry would make a difference. it's not just owning guns, it's bringing guns and gun violence into every moment of american life. it's why you hear people railing on about "gun-free zones".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
I could walk the steps fairly easily, it's an extension from our current de facto slavery in the monetization of the prison work system and the existing restitution laws. A few rulings is all it'd take to say that forcing someone to work to pay off their debt to the community after incarceration is fine and a racist leaning justice system and you too could have your own black servant again! The only real argument against it is "We've moved past that and it'd never happen.". It's not a particularly tricky legal loophole if you wanted to do it. You just need to be kind of evil and willing to throw out the law. A lot of Republicans want to do it. That's who we are as a culture. "But I'm not!" you might say, and be right, but that's not a what a culture is. It's all of us in aggregate. What happens in spite of those that oppose it defines us as a people. Not you *as a person*, but as a culture. You can be opposed to the standards of your culture, but it does not stop being your culture simply because of that. Relatedly Cease to Hope posted:Yes yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns turn fights into murders and suicidal impulses into deaths much more efficiently than any other options. And American gun policy isn't just the availability of guns, but laws shaping self-defense increasingly into a weapon of offense. That's not some sort of unspecified failing of the American heart, but a policy decision to cater to the fantasy of righteously gunning down a deserving victim. Yes, that we made because we suck. It didn't come down from space wholly formed and overwhelm the minds of Americans. We made these laws and these standards and these aspirations because we wanted to. That's who we are. Again, you miss the point. "Guns turn fights into murders" you say, except we are so loving WILDLY inflated from some others with moderately comparable gun penetration that there has to be more to it. 14k to 5. Don't roll past that number like it didn't happen. Acknowledge it. Internalize it. And actually loving address it. You can have a bunch of guns and it's not going to magically make things worse. At all. If you were a stable and relatively grounded society that is. Which we aren't. Just say that we aren't a well developed or mature society and we aren't equipped to handle guns. That's the truth. Don't pretend guns are the problem. They aren't. Responsible societies absolutely can handle gun ownership. *We* can't. When you pretend that guns are the problem you just leave yourself open to people that will math at you all the places that don't have a problem but do have guns. And then it's just another pointless masturbation break between two groups that aren't doing anything. e: Groovelord Neato posted:Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but I bet Finland's laws are far more restrictive in other ways. As regards to small arms, yes, but others no. And you can still have small arms. And they only got much stricter relatively recently for small arms. The dynamic has always been the same. Strong hunting culture, lots of guns, not even vaguely comparable gun homicides. And it was one country, there's a few more in that 1/5th 1/6th 1/4th gun ownership range that are no-where near us in firearm deaths. The problem isn't the guns. It's us. Wider small arms ownership certainly is one thing that sets us apart from a lot of places. Mulva fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Just say that we aren't a well developed or mature society and we aren't equipped to handle guns. That's the truth. Don't pretend guns are the problem. They aren't. Responsible societies absolutely can handle gun ownership. *We* can't. When you pretend that guns are the problem you just leave yourself open to people that will math at you all the places that don't have a problem but do have guns. And then it's just another pointless masturbation break between two groups that aren't doing anything. you've written a bizarre mini-essay about the failings of the american heart and you're demanding that people concede the inherent moral decadence of americans and it doesn't have anything to do with anything
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:09
|
|
|
It has everything to do with why Americans are constantly killing and the possible effectiveness of any gun control we manage to get
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:you've written a bizarre mini-essay about the failings of the american heart and you're demanding that people concede the inherent moral decadence of americans and it doesn't have anything to do with anything I mean if you want to wildly miss the point the most striking firearms laws we've changed for the better in the past like 20 years is to make it slightly harder to kill your partner if you aren't actively married to them but *are* beating the poo poo out of them. It's loving atrocious that was a thing for as long as it was, and that's the best we've gotten. Conversely? The Supreme Court just ruled that the 2nd Amendment trumps New York law and it's desire to put restrictions on public carry, leaving a precedent that could strike down decades of regulation in all sorts of states. What exactly does that ruling mean? Well we'll find out, when largely conservative judges subordinate to ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justices are called on to define the law for you. Culture is all that matters. People are all that matter. America ended up where it is because of who Americans are, and the thing you want could only happen by magical fiat because Americans as is do not want it to happen. And your argument, everyone's argument, for changing that is.....nothing. Just do it. Guns are a problem and deal with them. And the society that would have to actually do that continues to look at you and say "Lol no" and sign a bill that enforces arming fetuses against radical abortionists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
Mulva posted:I could walk the steps fairly easily, it's an extension from our current de facto slavery in the monetization of the prison work system and the existing restitution laws. A few rulings is all it'd take to say that forcing someone to work to pay off their debt to the community after incarceration is fine and a racist leaning justice system and you too could have your own black servant again! The only real argument against it is "We've moved past that and it'd never happen.". It's not a particularly tricky legal loophole if you wanted to do it. You just need to be kind of evil and willing to throw out the law. A lot of Republicans want to do it. That's who we are as a culture. "But I'm not!" you might say, and be right, but that's not a what a culture is. It's all of us in aggregate. What happens in spite of those that oppose it defines us as a people. Not you *as a person*, but as a culture. You can be opposed to the standards of your culture, but it does not stop being your culture simply because of that. You describe this as a hypothetical chain of events that could potentially happen if guns were banned, and suggest that judges could create the ability to do it by judicial fiat with no countermeasure against it. This is largely wrong. This is something that did happen for much of the Jim Crow era. It was called "convict leasing". There was no need for judges to create the right to do so, since it didn't violate the Thirteenth Amendment in the first place. The reason it doesn't happen now isn't because "we've moved past it", nor is it because of gun ownership - it doesn't happen now because the states which did it eventually passed their own laws making it illegal. To resurrect the practice, the states would need to repeal those laws. None of this has anything to do with guns, and having access to guns didn't stop it from being possible in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:To resurrect the practice, the states would need to repeal those laws. Or they'd just have to rule that <blank> overrules state law. Like they just did. With guns. And the argument wasn't that "If you take away guns they'd do this". It's that this is who we are, with or without guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Mulva posted:As regards to small arms, yes, but others no. And you can still have small arms. And they only got much stricter relatively recently for small arms. The dynamic has always been the same. Strong hunting culture, lots of guns, not even vaguely comparable gun homicides. And it was one country, there's a few more in that 1/5th 1/6th 1/4th gun ownership range that are no-where near us in firearm deaths. The problem isn't the guns. It's us. quote:The ownership and use of firearms is regulated by the Firearms Act of 1998. A license is always needed for possession of a firearm and all firearms are registered. Firearms may only be carried while they are being used for a specific purpose (e.g. hunting, shooting at the range). When transporting a firearm to or from such activity, the firearm must be unloaded and stored in a case or pouch. The owner of a firearm is responsible for making sure that firearms and ammunition do not end up in unauthorized hands. The exact requirements regarding storage of firearms depends on their type and quantity. What do you know! I was right!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:What do you know! I was right! And other than universality lots of states have safe requirements, or license requirements, or transportation requirements, and....still blow other nations out of the water in the level of their firearms violence. Yeah, it'd be nice to have universality in our gun requirements. It's not a practical limit to any particular act though. The fact you think it is.....is somewhere between baffling and naive. Like it's illegal to carry a gun loaded. It's also illegal to shoot children in the face. What about the law stops you from putting the bullets in the gun and shooting a child in the face? Do you think if those nations allowed you to legally carry a gun loaded they'd suddenly start killing more children? What did you think you were 'gatcha'ing with that statement?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but I bet Finland's laws are far more restrictive in other ways. Funnily enough, the common thread in the countries brought up on this context is almost always socialized health care and existing safety nets'. The US is in a lot of ways more like the less affluent countries in the western hemisphere than the EU countries. Massive inequality and generational poverty on a level unthinkable there is just normal here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Or they'd just have to rule that <blank> overrules state law. Like they just did. With guns. And the argument wasn't that "If you take away guns they'd do this". It's that this is who we are, with or without guns. If the states want to resume convict leasing, they'd repeal the laws. If the states don't want to resume convict leasing, then a judge can't force them to. Even if you assume full constitutional calvinball rules are in effect, it's difficult to see how a judge could possibly compel an unwilling state government to do that. And all this stuff about the nature of the American soul seems like pure conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
So stats are ok to use when you want to say how they will affect what happens when an individual chooses to arm themself, but not ok to use to describe the collective behavior of a broad group? It seems like you have this exactly backwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If the states want to resume convict leasing, they'd repeal the laws. If the states don't want to resume convict leasing, then a judge can't force them to. They can absolutely force them to allow it to happen on a federal level inside their state, and rule that their laws on the books are illegal. They can't physically force everyone to take part, but they could absolutely universalize it's legality in the country on some level. And I defy you to tell me that it's not the sort of thing this Supreme Court would do with a Republican majority and a Republican in the White House. Because I don't think anyone can tell me a limit to what they would do that they are absolutely sure of. We are in the stage of chaos, where we won't know what the limits are until they are hit. *If* they are hit. quote:And all this stuff about the nature of the American soul seems like pure conjecture. ....K. I don't. Good talk? I mean I think the "Wanting to do something" naturally leads to "How you would do it". And the tool to enact change in America is Americans and their social systems. I think the large scale beliefs of Americans, and perhaps more importantly those that control the law, are the most important thing to deal with. Which naturally begs the question of "What are Americans really willing to do about this issue, and what do their law enforcement systems want to do about this issue?". What you want to do is constrained by the reality of what you can do, which is informed by what people will let you do. Do you disagree?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Funnily enough, the common thread in the countries brought up on this context is almost always socialized health care and existing safety nets'. Barring the complete overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a perfect utopia, there are an infinite number of things that the US could do to improve its society, decrease crime, and improve people's mental health. You can always point to, "Instead of guns, why don't we..." It's exactly the same dodge as Republicans. It's not guns, it's mental health. Or school layouts. Or rap music. Or a lack of fathers. Or a lack of guards in schools. Let's gently caress with doors, let's arm teachers, let's do anything but talk about guns and gun control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
Hey, I don't disagree entirely, but given confiscatory gun control is as likely as the end of capitalism or anything materially being done about our right wing domestic terrorism problem... Stuff that either enforces the laws on the books or materially improves people's conditions such that violence is less likely is just another angle to work the problem of shootings from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hey, I don't disagree entirely, but given confiscatory gun control is as likely as the end of capitalism or anything materially being done about our right wing domestic terrorism problem... You just did it again. There are forms of gun control that matter other than confiscation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hey, I don't disagree entirely, but given confiscatory gun control is as likely as the end of capitalism or anything materially being done about our right wing domestic terrorism problem... The laws on the books are often variously intentionally flawed to the point of being mostly nonfunctional (background checks, sale tracking) or intentionally written to enable gun violence and prevent anything from deterring it (liability shields for gun manufacturers, stand your ground laws, ubiquitous carry). None of those things are "confiscatory gun control," and "enforcing the laws we have" doesn't work when the laws don't work the way they're written now. On top of this, new laws are being written and passed (or pushed through Supreme Court fiat) to make the gun problem worse, by making guns inescapable, through new laws expanding public carry. Often hand-in-hand with making police inescapable: blaming school shootings on "gun-free zones" and proposing more police and armed guards in schools are two sides of the same coin. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
whether its poor people or mentally ill people or abused spouses or whatever, republicans don't have a monopoly on exploiting harms done to vulnerable people to explain that actually what we need is MORE firearms
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Mulva posted:They can absolutely force them to allow it to happen on a federal level inside their state, and rule that their laws on the books are illegal. They can't physically force everyone to take part, but they could absolutely universalize it's legality in the country on some level. And I defy you to tell me that it's not the sort of thing this Supreme Court would do with a Republican majority and a Republican in the White House. Because I don't think anyone can tell me a limit to what they would do that they are absolutely sure of. We are in the stage of chaos, where we won't know what the limits are until they are hit. *If* they are hit. I don't even know what to say. You're suggesting that the federal government might want to forcibly impose slavery on prisons over the protests of Southern states, who fight it in the courts to preserve their on-the-books anti-slavery laws, only to be overruled by federal judges who declare that it's unconstitutional to ban slavery? I suppose you're correct in that there's no hard obstacle that would definitively prevent this, but it's so incredibly counterfactual that it's hard to have a clear conversation about it. The federal government being more eager to reinstitute slavery than the deep-red former slave states doesn't really make sense, the profits of convict leasing aren't as attractive to the federal government as it would be to tight state budgets, and there's something to be said about how even the former slave states of the Deep South willingly gave up convict leasing on their own long before the end of Jim Crow. But why bother getting into the details of it if it doesn't really have anything to do with guns or gun policy in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:But why bother getting into the details of it if it doesn't really have anything to do with guns or gun policy in the first place? Why are you asking me like you didn't do it yourself? If you think it's a bad idea you also could have...not done it. I've said why I did it, it's part of the post you didn't respond to. I think policy itself is irrelevant if it doesn't talk about how it's going to enact change, and that the most important part of that process is the people and systems that would have to enact that change. Their character is the point. On the 12th I was mildly shocked that it seemed like the smallest bit of positive gun control would happen with that boyfriend loophole. I was quickly reminded of why I had the views I had when less than 2 weeks later the Supreme Court just went "lol naw" to some entirely straightforward gun legislation from New York, and did so in a way that can challenge a whole lot of state laws across the entire country. 1 step forward, NINE loving MILLION back. This is the reality of the world that any gun control has to exist in. You can't just say "It would be a social good to do this" like that means anything in a world where your social systems will actively criminalize a miscarriage if you happen to be in the wrong state. But that's my viewpoint, and I never got yours. Which I asked for. Do you or do you not think that the actual people and systems you will have to deal with to enact change are important when formulating an idea of what to do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Mulva posted:1 step forward, NINE loving MILLION back. This is the reality of the world that any gun control has to exist in. It's American politics in general. It's hardly limited to guns. If you find discussing American politics futile, I'm not sure what this discussion has for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:09
|
|