|
DarkCrawler posted:I'm honestly not sure what would lead into gun control laws on the level of other first world countries being enacted in U.S. Two dozen children being gunned down in their classroom might have been my answer few years back but that would have been a wrong answer. I just don't think it will happen. On the other hand, Reagan did enact sweeping gun control legislation in California when black people were carrying them in courthouse steps, so maybe a huge massacre where a black guy is the perpetrator? There was very little backlash after the DC Sniper, the Navy Yard shooting, Fort Hood, or Chris Dorner, so I doubt a minority perpetrator would be as big a deal as the "gun advocates are just racist" narrative implies.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
This is one of those things where changing public opinion doesn't even help very much because of how hosed up our political system is. Depending on the poll something like 80% want universal background checks on all gun purchases... but we're no closer to getting those than we are to getting single-payer health insurance, or whatever else the rest of the developed world has that the US doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Your characterization of gun owners is about as valid as a universal view of blacks as gun-toting thugs waiting to rape you at a moment's notice. .013% of guns are involved in deaths yearly and the person you're describing is an even tinier percentage of that. The gun nut for the left is the same as the welfare queen for the right. They don't exist in meaningful numbers at all and only serve as a cultural stereotype for people to easily attack. How is that in any way a valid equivalency when gun ownership is shrinking because the demographic that owns guns is also shrinking with it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
moller posted:vvv I think so, you'll have to pay a $200 tax per missile though and register each one with ATF. You'd have to find someone willing to sell to you as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I'm honestly not sure what would lead into gun control laws on the level of other first world countries being enacted in U.S. Two dozen children being gunned down in their classroom might have been my answer few years back but that would have been a wrong answer. I just don't think it will happen. On the other hand, Reagan did enact sweeping gun control legislation in California when black people were carrying them in courthouse steps, so maybe a huge massacre where a black guy is the perpetrator? I think people finally may have caught on to the fact that when a firearm used in the rarest of gun crimes is used in the rarest of gun crimes, acting against said rare gun used in a rare occurrence does not even scratch the surface of the vast majority of common gun crime. People now know that it is feel good knee jerk reactionary bullshit. It leads to "see? we are doing something!". sean10mm posted:This is one of those things where changing public opinion doesn't even help very much because of how hosed up our political system is. Depending on the poll something like 80% want universal background checks on all gun purchases... but we're no closer to getting those than we are to getting single-payer health insurance, or whatever else the rest of the developed world has that the US doesn't. Maybe if they didn't try to attach all the stuff on to the good stuff in the name of being "comprehensive"? Peven Stan posted:How is that in any way a valid equivalency when gun ownership is shrinking because the demographic that owns guns is also shrinking with it? Define "own". Folks are happy to bring out the shrinking demographic of the folks who would mainly make up such statistical evidence, while ignoring that perhaps the vast portion of gun crime is perpetrated by those who would not be volunteering data. edit: on top of many crimes being perpetrated with cheap drop guns. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
It'd be nice if gun control proponents would stop listening to people like Feinstein and Bloomberg. There's no point to the cosmetic laws they propose, and the confiscation of firearms is a terrible idea. On the flip side, at least they don't advocate the abolition of concealed/open carry permits in favor of a free-for-all. Or eliminating waiting periods, background checks and other perfectly reasonable checks on firearms. Not to mention the threats toward political adversaries and even threatening to kill the president. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:On the flip side, at least they don't advocate the abolition of concealed/open carry permits in favor of a free-for-all. Or eliminating waiting periods, background checks and other perfectly reasonable checks on firearms. Not to mention the threats toward political adversaries and even threatening to kill the president. The requirements for a carry/conceal permit are roughly similar to what we should require of anyone owning a gun in the first place. Also, permit-less concealed carry used to be the norm, and there weren't any problems with it until the type of people carrying guns made the white voters scared.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
on the left posted:The requirements for a carry/conceal permit are roughly similar to what we should require of anyone owning a gun in the first place. Also, permit-less concealed carry used to be the norm, and there weren't any problems with it until the type of people carrying guns made the white voters scared. I'm perfectly fine with those permits and laws. I'd like them to be a bit more thorough in their background check to weed out the mentally unstable, domestic abusers and violent felons, while reinstating the right to own a firearm to non-violent felons after they've served their time. And let's not be coy and try to blame race on the progressives here, it's pretty obvious that the reason for the current panic from the gun control crowd is that people keep going nuts and shooting up innocents for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:And let's not be coy and try to blame race on the progressives here, it's pretty obvious that the reason for the current panic from the gun control crowd is that people keep going nuts and shooting up innocents for no reason. There is no panic from anyone with political power, there's only the steady and methodical re-introduction of the nonsense legislation centrist dem filth tried to pass in the 1990s. Feinstein and Schumer don't have emotions like you and me, we're bugs to them and so are dead kids. But laws that punish their base's imagined foe are useful to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:This seems like a gross oversimplification and an attempt to pathologize all aberrant behavior. Some spree killers are suicidal but not all - Chris Dorner for example. Was every British/German soldier who went over the top mentally ill? Or every samurai who committed seppuku? Chris Dorner literally committed suicide so I'm not sure where you're getting that he wasn't suicidal. Two points: 1) Suicidal Behavior is its own disorder in the DSM-V. Going on an armed rampage is pretty much by definition suicidal behavior. Admittedly, it isn't always, but in almost every case where it isn't, there's some other major mental illness such as schizophrenia or paranoia or delusional behavior. Going on an armed rampage is not something mentally healthy people do. 2) That may seem an overly technical argument; ok. There's substantive support for this too. Mark Ames has written a novel-length analysis of the past twenty-five or so years of mass killings in America. What he found is that the vast majority of multiple-homicide killings, workplace shootings, spree killings, etc., are committed by frustrated, angry, depressed people who have lost their jobs or their place in society and are lashing out. They're murder-suicide revenge killings. As you point out, that's largely a result of the capitalist system, but it's hardly a shock that the capitalist system makes a lot of people really depressed! That doesn't mean the mentally ill are all homicidal maniacs. Hell, it doesn't even mean spree killers are "homicidal maniacs." It just means that the most common cause of mass shootings is depression and suicidality. When I say the cause here is mental illness, I mean no stigma by that. Having mental illness should be no more stigmatized than having a cold. But it does mean that the proper response to spree killings and mass shootings is to dramatically increase our public mental health care system. natetimm posted:I mean, you essentially have both sides saying the same thing. If the left conceded to stop seeking further gun control measure against the right in exchange for bipartisan support and funding for the treatment of the mentally ill wouldn't that probably produce a much greater net benfit to society? There's an opportunity right there in front of everyone's face to reach out and grab but people are so polarized that it isn't even seen as a possibility. The right wouldn't go for that deal because it uses the gun rights crowd to drum up votes. It would be a very smart strategic move for the left to start pushing that angle but it would take uniformity and there will always be Bloomberg types going off-reservation in order to build up their status. GlennFinito posted:I find it amazing that both sides in this thread went "yeah, it's totally mental health" and then continued to attack each other's strawmen without batting an eye. America, gently caress Yeah! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
So I'm skipping the same old gun poo poo rigamarole and responding to the only interesting points raised in this thread.meristem posted:Uh, I'd say that firearms are a symbol of distrust more than trust. If people with guns feel safer with them than without them, this means that, unless they have a gun, they fear others. Here is a chart and write up of the GSS info: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-pn-crime-is-down-and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722  Basic interesting points: The drop in gun ownership (half of what occurred in 1970s) correlates with a drop in the number of Americans who hunt (now about 5%). Also interesting: the number of Democrats who value in protecting the rights of guns versus "controlling gun ownership" (25% to 30%) What'll really be interesting to see what the drop in gun ownership entails for the future regarding these dynamics. There are much more polarized Republicans regarding the issue versus a few decades ago, and a narrow but energetic (soon to occur) minority of those who prioritize it might hold onto the gains by the likes of the NRA and other gun groups in the political sphere. Or a dropping interest in the issue among the general population might entail it receding as political dynamite, and a push by those who value more gun regulation. OR continued partisanship on the Republican side might serve as polarizing the issue for Democrats and their ilk, who increasingly see it less evident in their lives, but seek to oppose it due to the opposition. Who knows what'll happen in a couple of decades, or if a few more Newton like incidents turn over the apple cart. EDIT: And here is the NY times breaking it down by region: quote:The geographic patterns were some of the most surprising in the General Social Survey, researchers said. Gun ownership in both the South and the mountain region, which includes states like Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming, dropped to less than 40 percent of households this decade, down from 65 percent in the 1970s. The Northeast, where the household ownership rate is lowest, changed the least, at 22 percent this decade, compared with 29 percent in the 1970s. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0 Shageletic fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:There is no panic from anyone with political power, there's only the steady and methodical re-introduction of the nonsense legislation centrist dem filth tried to pass in the 1990s. Feinstein and Schumer don't have emotions like you and me, we're bugs to them and so are dead kids. But laws that punish their base's imagined foe are useful to them. You're right, and it's good to clarify that. Not that it'll get the NRA to stop screaming that Obama is "coming to take your guns!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:This is one of those things where changing public opinion doesn't even help very much because of how hosed up our political system is. Depending on the poll something like 80% want universal background checks on all gun purchases... but we're no closer to getting those than we are to getting single-payer health insurance, or whatever else the rest of the developed world has that the US doesn't. The 80% claim and the 90% claim that Obama touted are flawed. Most people don't understand that all new guns already require background checks. They also don't understand that selling guns between states require background checks. Also they failed to understand what exactly universal background checks would entail. Like having to pay an FFL to give a gun to their children or grand children. Or making felons out of people that lent their buddy a gun because someone broke into their friend's house. Once you explain what the current laws are and what the actual proposed universal background checks implied the support for them drops way down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Or making felons out of people that lent their buddy a gun because someone broke into their friend's house. It should be a fine, not a felony. Unless that friend is lying, and uses the gun on his estranged wife/girlfriend, or goes on to shoot up his workplace. Then it should be accessory to murder. "Lending" a weapon to a friend could (and is) simply be used as a way of trying to go around background checks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
quote:What'll really be interesting to see what the drop in gun ownership entails for the future regarding these dynamics. There are much more polarized Republicans regarding the issue versus a few decades ago, and a narrow but energetic (soon to occur) minority of those who prioritize it might hold onto the gains by the likes of the NRA and other gun groups in the political sphere. Or a dropping interest in the issue among the general population might entail it receding as political dynamite, and a push by those who value more gun regulation. OR continued partisanship on the Republican side might serve as polarizing the issue for Democrats and their ilk, who increasingly see it less evident in their lives, but seek to oppose it due to the opposition. Here's an excerpt from an industry study by the NSSF. The full thing is behind a $500 paywall unfortunately. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/16/retail-sales-up-2/ The bit at the end that's interesting to me is that 25% of gun store customers were first time buyers in 2012 and 2011. In 2010 it was 20%. I trust the NSSF's data over a phone survey where an unknown number of people lied about whether they owned guns. My own anecdata says that ranges have been really crowded since Newtown and still are a year and change later. I do notice more women and minorities there, which is great. Fat Ogre posted:The 80% claim and the 90% claim that Obama touted are flawed. At the risk of being one of ~those people~ I'd say that the federal government claiming regulatory jurisdiction over a non-commercial person-to-person gun sale within the same state is some real Gonzales v. Raich bullshit. The background check law was passed in the 90's, before that case, and as such it regulates the only thing the fed has power over: federal license holders (gun stores) and interstate sales. Really though, the idea you have to prove yourself innocent with a background check is crap too. If you've gotten out of jail, you should get your rights back. If we can't trust you with a gun (that you very likely will be able to get no matter what in America), then we can't trust you to be out of jail. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
I guess the GUN TALK alarm has been sent out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Here's an excerpt from an industry study by the NSSF. The full thing is behind a $500 paywall unfortunately. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/16/retail-sales-up-2/ I agree 100% on this. The idea of a prohibited purchaser is spurious to me. It forces the onus of proving your innocence on the individual instead of the state. It also requires individuals to give up their right to privacy every time they wish to exercise their 2nd amendment rights by purchasing a new firearm or one across state lines. If you replace guns with something less politically charged like free speech or religion it becomes readily apparent that most gun control laws are entirely unconstitutional. Universal background checks on free speech or religion? Federal Free Speech Licenses if you want to sell print goods across state lines? Meaning that just by posting on this website you'd need a federal license for it if it was as restricted as firearms rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I guess the GUN TALK alarm has been sent out. I am absolutely shocked that a thread about gun bills might bring out gun chat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I guess the GUN TALK alarm has been sent out. Have you even looked at the thread title? beaten like a concealed carrier trying to live out his fantasies 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
No just posters that obsessively post in them. Its the same arguments, over and over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It should be a fine, not a felony. Unless that friend is lying, and uses the gun on his estranged wife/girlfriend, or goes on to shoot up his workplace. Then it should be accessory to murder. "Lending" a weapon to a friend could (and is) simply be used as a way of trying to go around background checks. If your friend lies and asks to borrow your car and then runs over a bunch of people at a farmer's market should it be accessory to murder? Background checks making felons out of law abiding citizens is just bad policy period. And it tramples on states rights over intrastate commerce.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:At the risk of being one of ~those people~ I'd say that the federal government claiming regulatory jurisdiction over a non-commercial person-to-person gun sale within the same state is some real Gonzales v. Raich bullshit. The background check law was passed in the 90's, before that case, and as such it regulates the only thing the fed has power over: federal license holders (gun stores) and interstate sales. I agree for the most part, but post-prison restrictions as part of conviction makes sense sometimes. An accountant convicted of tax fraud being prohibited from doing other people's tax returns, for example. Of course being unable to vote or own a gun because you bounced a $501 check is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:
Do you really want people convicted of domestic violence or with a history of recent mental health commitment as a danger to themselves or others to be able to freely purchase firearms? If not, do you want lifetime imprisonment for domestic violence? Do you want to dramatically lengthen mental health commitment times? There should probably be a way to "clear your record" and restore your right to purchase firearms once lost, short of a presidential pardon. If nothing else, it's an issue with vets who often refuse to seek mental health treatment for fear of losing their gun rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Improved mental health treatment is the most essential component of reducing random gun violence, but mental health professionals should have absolutely no input into the restriction or granting of people's rights. Mental health treatment as a discipline is not rigorous enough to have a say in the exercise of rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Do you really want people convicted of domestic violence or with a history of recent mental health commitment as a danger to themselves or others to be able to freely purchase firearms? If not, do you want lifetime imprisonment for domestic violence? Do you want to dramatically lengthen mental health commitment times? Restoring gun purchasing rights is a relatively easy task. quote:Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found. quote:Margaret C. Love, a pardon lawyer based in Washington, D.C., who has researched gun rights restoration laws, estimated that, depending on the type of crime, in more than half the states felons have a reasonable chance of getting back their gun rights. quote:The Times analyzed data from Washington State, where Mr. Zettergren had his gun rights restored. The most serious felons are barred, but otherwise judges have no discretion to reject the petitions, as long as the applicant fulfills certain criteria. (In 2003, a state appeals court panel stated that a petitioner “had no burden to show that he is safe to own or possess guns.”) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I'd say there's certainly symbolic significance being granted to firearms, probably well in excess of their actual practical utility or hobbyist enthusiasm. Whether or not it's different from, say, how samurai saw their swords is a different sort of matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Do you really want people convicted of domestic violence or with a history of recent mental health commitment as a danger to themselves or others to be able to freely purchase firearms? If not, do you want lifetime imprisonment for domestic violence? Do you want to dramatically lengthen mental health commitment times? Are they currently incarcerated? Have they paid their debt to society? Do we trust them with other deadly instruments like cars, bats, gasoline, chainsaws, axes, etc? If the answer is yes, then yes I am fine with those people owning guns as well. If they are so dangerous as to not be trusted around firearms, they are too dangerous to be trusted with automobiles, matches, knives, bats or other items as well and should be locked up until they are trustworthy again. I do not like the idea of creating permanent second class citizens because of fear of possible 'future crimes.' It sets a dangerous precedent. Saying if you belong to groups that have statistically higher rates of X crime you should be a prohibited from Y rights forever is ridiculous. Sex offenders have a statistically higher rate of sex offenses so they should be prohibited from living near people they might sexually offend. Domestic violence offenders have a statistically higher rate of domestic violence offenses so they should be prohibited from using anything ever that could allow them to commit domestic violence offenses. Ultimately leads down the path of Minorities (Gays, Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Atheists) have a statistically higher rate of X criminal offenses so they should have curfews, or Jim Crow style laws used against them to keep that from happening. The issue with a way to clear your record is something that is currently an issue in the United States. The federal government removed funding from the ATF to process restoring firearm rights to felons. The way the law is written, there is nothing that automatically restores it if they fail to process your application. I wouldn't mind it if that is made into a law, but what is to keep them from removing that portion again later? I really don't like fundamental rights being contingent on bureaucratic funding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Restoring gun purchasing rights is a relatively easy task. Too bad that doesn't apply for federal laws or crimes. http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01435.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Are they currently incarcerated? Have they paid their debt to society? Do we trust them with other deadly instruments like cars, bats, gasoline, chainsaws, axes, etc? I just think this seems a little too simplistic. What about people on probation? What about individuals with outpatient treatment orders? "Ready for discharge" and "Safe for society" aren't binary on/off states; they're spectrums and it often takes a long time for someone who is not safe for society to transition to a place where they're ready to live completely independently. If we have to wait till people are 100% ready for full safe discharge before they can leave the psychiatric hospital, a lot of people will be staying a lot longer than if they could move to halfway houses, supervised independent living programs, or the like. And once we have people living with some degree of freedom, you have to worry about them going over their set boundaries and buying things they shouldn't. Shageletic posted:Restoring gun purchasing rights is a relatively easy task. Wow, I wasn't aware things had moved that fast in that area -- just a few years ago that was a brand new idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Here's an excerpt from an industry study by the NSSF. The full thing is behind a $500 paywall unfortunately. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/16/retail-sales-up-2/ I missed this, so after some quick searching I can't find anything that looks into it outside of right-wing/gun enthusiast websites and commenters. The GSS results are easily read and accounted for by numerous other well respected authorities. Considering that the NSSF is not (and comes from a gun lobbying organization), I have to find myself finding it not as credible. Though even if it were, a rise in 5% in first time buyers among the gun stores contacted is numerically a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of households contacted in the GSS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Restoring gun purchasing rights is a relatively easy task. Like most rights restrictions that target low income people, this one is "relatively easy" for white people with more money and time to get around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I just think this seems a little too simplistic. What about people on probation? What about individuals with outpatient treatment orders? Should people be on probation forever to keep firearms from those that might abuse them? I'm fine if the probation is in lieu of time served and isn't longer than the actual prison sentence would be. If it probation becomes overly punitive like a 1 year sentence and 20 years probation it is way too excessive and ripe for abuse. As for felons I'm fine if there is a way to restore gun rights on a federal level and can trump punitive state laws against them. Like a guy that commits a crime in Oklahoma serves his time, gets his gun rights back, but California still treats him as a felon. That needs to go away. Though I also support making it illegal to ask about felony status on job applications just like asking race or religious preferences. Again if the person is allowed to live independently and doesn't require active supervision and is trusted enough to drive a car or own knives I don't have a problem with it. This needlessly stigmatizes the mentally ill when by and large they aren't the violent boogeymen perpetrating the majority of gun crimes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I missed this, so after some quick searching I can't find anything that looks into it outside of right-wing/gun enthusiast websites and commenters. The GSS results are easily read and accounted for by numerous other well respected authorities. Considering that the NSSF is not (and comes from a gun lobbying organization), I have to find myself finding it not as credible. Though even if it were, a rise in 5% in first time buyers among the gun stores contacted is numerically a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of households contacted in the GSS. NSSF is MUCH more trustworthy as it is coming directly from the actual people selling and buying the guns, backed up by FBI stats for background checks. That you're dismissing their stats is amusing. It is like saying stats released by planned parenthood about abortions they've carried out are less trustworthy than the thousands of households surveyed about 'have you ever had an abortion' over the phone or in person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:28
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:NSSF is MUCH more trustworthy as it is coming directly from the actual people selling and buying the guns. That you're dismissing their stats is amusing. Random sampling is, in fact, much more trustworthy than self-reporting, and sampling is best when there is a large population to draw from. That's why it's the bare minimum for trustworthiness in medical studies, for example.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Random sampling is, in fact, much more trustworthy than self-reporting, and sampling is best when there is a large population to draw from. That's why it's the bare minimum for trustworthiness in medical studies, for example. Ahh so the CDC reporting diagnosed cases of syphilis is less trustworthy than a random sample of people responding to questions of "have you ever had syphilis" on the street? Many people when asked if they own a gun etc don't answer, lie or evade the subject entirely. The NSSF is literally a collection of companies that sell guns. They report their sales. All new guns sales have to go through background checks. Most of those checks are done through NICS which is handled by the FBI. FBI stats year over year back up the numbers reported by NSSF. Hence why it is laughable to say they aren't trustworthy and the comparison to the CDC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:If your friend lies and asks to borrow your car and then runs over a bunch of people at a farmer's market should it be accessory to murder? If he intended to run them over with the car? Absolutely. You're liable for your actions. You should be asking yourself why your friend has no car in the first place before you lend it. Also,  at  states rights
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
moller posted:I don't mean to be presumptuous, but I feel that there are more than two sides to this conversation. UN troopers aren't coming to get my shotgun in much the same way that I'm not allowed to own a fully outfitted Bradley. e:the comma and the space key are very close on my phone GlennFinito fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:
This seems like a reasonable position though "active supervision" can mean a lot of different things (i.e., checking in with a probation officer once a week?). I think we can probably all agree that someone on probation after an armed robbery conviction probably shouldn't be owning a gun. Once we have really anybody wandering around outside by themselves, who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, some kind of background check system makes some degree of sense, so long as it's minimally cumbersome. The current instant system is actually pretty good on that front. We might need to change or reword some of the questions or alter precisely how people get their purchase rights back, etc., but that's just fiddling with details.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:If he intended to run them over with the car? Absolutely. You're liable for your actions. You should be asking yourself why your friend has no car in the first place before you lend it. You're an idiot. Endorsing getting charged for accessory to murder because you lent your car to a friend is insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:If he intended to run them over with the car? Absolutely. You're liable for your actions. You should be asking yourself why your friend has no car in the first place before you lend it. If you didn't know his intent you aren't liable for it. You lack basic Mens Rea for it. Same with lending a gun to someone. This is why it is so hard to prosecute straw purchases is that they have to prove you KNOWINGLY gave a prohibited person a gun. States rights when it comes to Pot sales are important. When they come to marriage, not important. When it comes to allowing unions important, except if the state is at-will then they aren't important. They are important when it comes to gun permits and gun laws, but not important when it comes to abortion laws and abortion clinic permits. States rights are a thing whether we want them or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:43
|
|