|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:A Good Start If our goal is banning all guns perhaps we should start with the military and police and then work our way down the power structure.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:36 |
|
Fog Tripper posted:There won't be a genuinely helpful discussion/debate about guns in crime until antis acknowledge that the vast majority of gun crime is not perpetrated by those who'd be affected by their "common sense" ideas. Read: "assault weapon bans" This relies on the assumption that it's impossible to restrict the number of guns in circulation or on the black market meaningfully, and that most crimes committed with a gun are done by professional criminals. The first would seem to be unlikely given Australia has reduced people to making zipguns and Japan has similarly managed to restrict guns in circulation as well, while the second would require a lot more data than is realistically available, though comparing first-degree murders versus second-degree/manslaughter would be an interesting start.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:If our goal is banning all guns perhaps we should start with the military and police and then work our way down the power structure. ok
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:
Ah yes, this is why so many democrats have run on gun control in their campaigns of the past couple years. Oh wait...
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Australia has reduced people to making zipguns Look at these unsophisticated, crude, ineffective zip guns being produced on an isolated island nation with a small population.      
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Also Japan is a police state. hth
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:There won't be a genuinely helpful discussion/debate about guns in crime until antis acknowledge that the vast majority of gun crime is not perpetrated by those who'd be affected by their "common sense" ideas. Read: "assault weapon bans" This is my problem. The current GOP position is pretty stupid (e.g. against universal background checks) but the current Democrat position is even worse ("assault weapon" bans, magazine restrictions, waiting periods, etc.) Same reason GOP is so against registration: they rightly fear that their registered guns will be quickly confiscated like they were in NYC and CT. If some Democrat legislator proposed a law that would enforce universal background checks and create a federal registry, but ALSO preempted all state-level feature bans, magazine restrictions and the like, I think you would see a lot of support from both sides. Gun owners could feel good about legalizing normal guns like AR15s, and gun control people could feel good about universal background checks and a traceable registry of weapons used in crimes. Also silencers should be removed from the NFA and sold in hardware stores.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:they rightly fear that their registered guns will be quickly confiscated like they were in NYC and CT. bidikyoopi posted:Also silencers should be removed from the NFA and sold in hardware stores.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:01
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Also Japan is a police state. hth You'd think that if it were really impossible to significantly affect the amount of guns in circulation, then this wouldn't matter because they'd have easy access to guns regardless of Japanese cops being cheerfully jackbooted.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:
We can dream. (also, iftfy) I'd be happy continuing with the $200 tax stamp, if it meant that suppressors were more affordable and accessible without a ridiculous waiting period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You'd think that if it were really impossible to significantly affect the amount of guns in circulation, then this wouldn't matter because they'd have easy access to guns regardless of Japanese cops being cheerfully jackbooted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
^^ ain't no reason single payer can't work in USA but that is for another threadI am not a book posted:That actually happened? Yes it did. NYC banned all guns with a capacity over 5 rounds, including some "assault" grade .22LR rifles with tube magazines. They sent letters requiring proof of sale, transported out of state, or surrendered to local PD. Meanwhile, in NYC and around the country, 90% of firearm homicides occur with handguns. Democrats are really good at antagonizing gun owners, while their laws don't actually address the problem. When you antagonize gun owners, they come out and vote to recall you. You can't make good laws about immigration and education and all kinds of poo poo if you get thrown out of office for trying to ban magazines, you dummy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:Democrats are really good at antagonizing gun owners, while their laws don't actually address the problem. When you antagonize gun owners, they come out and vote to recall you. You can't make good laws about immigration and education and all kinds of poo poo if you get thrown out of office for trying to ban magazines, you dummy. This is not sticking up for gun control or whatever, but the frame of these things makes it seem like the gun-control advocates are either stupid or wicked, and this seems to be implausible for explaining why Political Group X reached Policy Y. Even the dumb-rear end poo poo the current crop of Republicans spews has an identifiable point. What was this identifiable point for all of this vaunted 'cosmetic features and magazine sizes' stuff I keep hearing about? Does anyone even know, or is this all just a bunch of bullshit which has, in the final analysis, actually become too fogged and heated for any sort of discussion or discovery, what-so-ever? Nessus fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So if we dispense pure ignorance and sheer wickedness, Why do you feel the need to dispense those things from the reasoning? It's feel-good knee-jerk lunacy. edit: and I will add that I'd wager they believe that their party's voting base aren't the ones affected. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:24
|
|
Nessus posted:So if we dispense pure ignorance and sheer wickedness, what, exactly, do you think motivates these politicians to do these stupid and self-destructive things? Granting that perhaps for a period the political climate was different. Presumably there was something other than a seething, irrational loathing of the freedoms of law-abiding gun owners involved in these particular legal restrictions; do any historian sorts know what those reasons were? It's something that doesn't meaningfully affect things, so the NRA can let it pass and drum up support for then among gun owners without risking anything meaningful.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Why do you feel the need to dispense those things from the reasoning? To make a comparison of what I mean: Invading Iraq was stupid and wicked. It was also rooted in neoconservative theories of international influence, leavened with several other factors which you can say had a greater or lesser role (greed for oil wealth/reconstruction contacts; Bush wanting to get back for his father; whatever.) Saying "Bush invaded Iraq because he was stupid and wicked" is incomplete.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:As best as I can tell, much like single-payer health care, American exceptionalism makes it uniquely impossible and also an awful idea at the same time. This paper was pretty interesting when it comes to some of the practical ends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So if we dispense pure ignorance and sheer wickedness, what, exactly, do you think motivates these politicians to do these stupid and self-destructive things? Granting that perhaps for a period the political climate was different. Presumably there was something other than a seething, irrational loathing of the freedoms of law-abiding gun owners involved in these particular legal restrictions; do any historian sorts know what those reasons were? I'm also a Democrat, so I don't think I do either of those things. I think what motivates them is a desire to stop gun violence combined with an ignorance of gun design, use and crime. And ignorance influences policy a lot, in every subject, on every level. I don't think GOP politicians are necessarily any less ignorant, but Democrats particularly tend to push legislature that doesn't affect crime one iota, but affects law-abiding citizens a great deal. edit: I also think that assault weapons bans have a lot to do with fear, and perception of dangerousness. "feature" bans are just that: banning cosmetic features. A pistol grip looks scary, but doesn't really make the gun more lethal. Bayonet lugs are nearly 100% cosmetic. Folding/collapsable stocks are a storage and comfort feature. But all those things make a gun look a lot scarier than a wood-stocked sporting rifle. Marvin K. Mooney fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Because just-so stories are typically bullshit, if sometimes partially grounded in actual events. Presumably someone, somewhere decided on these useless and futile measures, and I am curious what those reasons were, if only out of historical interest. If you really wanted to dig up said things, it doesn't take much to find out who has continually been pushing for the feel-good knee-jerk stuff and their motivations. Short list: Bloomberg McCarthy Feinstein Those are not household names because of how awesome their leadership skills and critical thinking skills are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Because just-so stories are typically bullshit, if sometimes partially grounded in actual events. Presumably someone, somewhere decided on these useless and futile measures, and I am curious what those reasons were, if only out of historical interest. This is kind of my point. People who talk reverentially of guns and ascribe to them an almost mystic power simply cannot conceive that people who favor gun control don't view guns in the same way. It's assumed that gun control proponents also invest guns with this sort of unlimited significance. But since they're "anti-gun" they must be wicked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:This is kind of my point. People who talk reverentially of guns and ascribe to them an almost mystic power simply cannot conceive that people who favor gun control don't view guns in the same way. It's assumed that gun control proponents also invest guns with this sort of unlimited significance. But since they're "anti-gun" they must be wicked. Are you being intentionally obtuse when you claim that the significance of guns is "mystical"? There is a reason that every American police office on the beat carries one and it isn't out of religious observation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Are you being intentionally obtuse when you claim that the significance of guns is "mystical"? There is a reason that every American police office on the beat carries one and it isn't out of religious observation. As someone whose childhood exposure to guns was "a little target shooting in the woods," and who otherwise lived in cities, it does kinda seem cultish sometimes. Not overtly so much as indirectly. The pistol will keep my family safe, etc. This is not so much Joe Average Gun Owner, I imagine, so much as the guys who are SUPER into guns... and, perhaps, the NRA. And I imagine J.A.G.O. may adopt some of the language of the latter when the topic comes up, which may increase that impression.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Much like the symbolic significance ascribed to gay marriage or abortions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Much like the symbolic significance ascribed to gay marriage or abortions? This is of course purely pragmatic and is not meant to say "people who own guns or enjoy gun hobbies are bad, or crazy." But I've never heard someone fantasize about how their gay marriage will smash the patriarchy, or about ever since they got an abortion they've been filled with a renewed confidence. Or how in the face of the inevitable and imminent collapse of society, the responsible thing to do for your family is get gay married and/or abortions - plenty of them!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Nessus posted:No, more like the symbolic significance ascribed to the saving blood of Jesus Christ. You've never heard how abortions are a symbol of liberated womanhood, or that gay marriage is a symbol of greater societal acceptance? Polarizing issues regardless of what they are, by they're very nature have symbolic significance. What you're ascribing to gun owners are symbols it is easy to disagree with as a way to prove your point. Firearm ownership is also a symbol of trust in your fellow man, a symbol of freedom from oppression and a symbol of independence. Why exactly are those bad symbols?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:You've never heard how abortions are a symbol of liberated womanhood, or that gay marriage is a symbol of greater societal acceptance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What do you think my point is? My gun control inclinations go about as far as "perhaps we should review the Stand Your Ground laws, otherwise I don't give a gently caress." I am OK with all three of those things you are listing. I have only heard one of them discussed in weird theological terms, and I have only been excoriated lengthily for agreeing with someone in slightly different terms on one of them - and it was guns. The problem is that instead of reviewing stand your ground laws, gun-control advocates have focused on regulating guns that look like guns on movies and tv.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:The problem is that instead of reviewing stand your ground laws, gun-control advocates have focused on regulating guns that look like guns on movies and tv.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:Yes it did. NYC banned all guns with a capacity over 5 rounds, including some "assault" grade .22LR rifles with tube magazines. They sent letters requiring proof of sale, transported out of state, or surrendered to local PD. Meanwhile, in NYC and around the country, 90% of firearm homicides occur with handguns. on the left posted:The problem is that instead of reviewing stand your ground laws, gun-control advocates have focused on regulating guns that look like guns on movies and tv. Out of curiosity, has there ever been an attempt at gun control at the federal or state level in the US that focused on the ownership, import, or sale of handguns? I don't mean like extended magazines or cosmetic features or anything, just an attempt to stem the supply of cheap and cheerful holdouts? Also, the film Lost in Translation taught me that in Japan you can drunkenly have airsoft fights in the streets and no one gives a gently caress, which I feel might be a fair tradeoff for no real guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
moller posted:Out of curiosity, has there ever been an attempt at gun control at the federal or state level in the US that focused on the ownership, import, or sale of handguns? I don't mean like extended magazines or cosmetic features or anything, just an attempt to stem the supply of cheap and cheerful holdouts? The GCA of 1968 doesn't allow importation of non-sporting weapons. For handguns, the ATF uses a point system. Also, more than a few states ban the sale of cheap handguns entirely, if you look up what a "Saturday Night Special" is. These types of guns represent a disproportionately large portion of crime. The commonly available study is the 1994 study of which guns are traced back to crimes:
The Glock 17 and Mossberg shotgun are the only two guns a hobbyist would have any interest in. Various state governments have also tried to sue these cheap gun makers with mixed success.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
on the left posted:The GCA of 1968 doesn't allow importation of non-sporting weapons. For handguns, the ATF uses a point system. So, uh, say Glock pistols in the US are made in the US and not in Austria? I always assumed that the domestic handgun market would be flooded with cheap imports, but I honestly never looked in to it. EDIT: Also I realized after typing this that it was a bad example, since an Austrian import to the US would generally be an expensive and niche item, given the relative standards of living. on the left posted:Also, more than a few states ban the sale of cheap handguns entirely, if you look up what a "Saturday Night Special" is. These types of guns represent a disproportionately large portion of crime. The commonly available study is the 1994 study of which guns are traced back to crimes: The wikipedia page for "Saturday Night Special" makes it seem like about as useful of a term as "Assault Weapon." At the same time it's cool that states have actually gone after the sorts of (hand)guns that are commonly used in crimes. I feel like the Mossburg probably only makes that list because of it's ubiquity though, since shotguns seem relatively useful for all sorts of things compared to small handguns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
moller posted:So, uh, say Glock pistols in the US are made in the US and not in Austria? I always assumed that the domestic handgun market would be flooded with cheap imports, but I honestly never looked in to it. All but one or two Glock models qualify for import. The rules are pretty easy for almost any pistol manufacturer to make something that qualifies. Glocks are a unique case though because the Glocks used in crimes were generally traded in by police departments buying new Glocks, creating a large supply of inexpensive, lightly used guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
on the left posted:All but one or two Glock models qualify for import. The rules are pretty easy for almost any pistol manufacturer to make something that qualifies. Glocks are a unique case though because the Glocks used in crimes were generally traded in by police departments buying new Glocks, creating a large supply of inexpensive, lightly used guns. Second-hand cop guns seriously make the top ten used in crimes by model? That's totally insane. Guns are weird as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Firearm ownership is also a symbol of trust in your fellow man, a symbol of freedom from oppression and a symbol of independence. Why exactly are those bad symbols? 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. That's actually one of the interesting points I found in the GSS. There is a question there called "Neighborhood Fear". It's basically, "Is there a place in your neighborhood where you're afraid to go?" And the answer to this question very much differs on the social stratum, and, depending on the stratum, on gun ownership. For women, the percentage of those who said "no" (i.e. they felt completely confident) is around 40-60%. For men, it's from 70% up. In all the cases where there is a statistically significant sample, gun ownership added 3-6% percent to the percentage of those who felt confident. Apart from one specific stratum - young white men. For them, it added 11%. Young white men with guns just feel much more secure in their neighborhoods than those without them. It wouldn't be so funny, except that young white men already have exceptionally high neighborhood confidence levels, around 80%. So, in essence, guns don't do much for women, who are much more afraid of their neighborhoods in general, but serve as an additional crutch for young men, who are already pretty confident. Then again, since most women are killed by their partners, I guess this makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
moller posted:Second-hand cop guns seriously make the top ten used in crimes by model? That's totally insane. Guns are weird as poo poo. Yeah, Glock's story shows the flip side of the AWB: quote:[T]he magazine-capacity law worked in Glock’s favor. First, the law contained a loophole: All guns and magazines manufactured before the effective date in 1994 were "grandfathered" in. So Glock ran the factory at full tilt and built up a huge inventory of "pre-ban" product. When the ban took effect, the price of those guns skyrocketed, leading to huge profits for Glock. http://failuremag.com/feature/article/glock/P1/
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
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. 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. vvv Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Actually you are in most states I can have wire guided anti-tank missiles? poo poo, I think I just picked my side. moller fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Actually you are in most states 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
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? Start a nationwide program for minorities to own firearms, and include large numbers of billboards of black people and Hispanics cheerfully using guns or carrying guns in their place of work/out in public. They'll be banned by the next week. e: Seriously though a major reason why guns are this big thing is that they're essentially all owned by a subset of the population with massive political influence. If you challenge that by giving them to a detestable part of society (or at least one that's not as politically powerful), you'll see laws that are specifically aimed to ban them. computer parts fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:23
|
|
