|
CommieGIR posted:Then what are your proposed firearms law changes? - Strengthen and fund NICS participation at the state level - Aggressively prosecute straw purchases instead of pleading them out The best part is, most of this can be done within the framework of existing laws or with minor tweaks. Add in the usual bits about ending the drug war and improving mental health care, which would be far more effective in suppressing violent crime than any legislation related to guns specifically.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:That's a pretty cool idea, using socialization in a positive way. What is the case that is going to revisit Heller? And who is advocating for Heller to be revisited? What is so special and unique about Heller, that we MUST REVISIT IT?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Prove it. For reasons I outlined above and that you've continued to responded to with childlike obtuseness. Just like you are here- people being fearful about minorities with guns isn't the same thing as those people using the government to stop minorities from having access to them. The racism and bigotry you're positing (I actually can't recall any recent NRA freakouts about black open carry advocates) isn't actually stopping anyone from exercising their rights. Bias inherent to the police and justice system might (do) pose additional barriers, but that's something that needs to be addressed, not used an excuse to throw up your hands and say "welp, racism already exists, therefore the parts of my policy that play into it and extend its reach don't matter."
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Prove it. "Prove that the government or its agents will for a fact abuse this power if granted it" is a rather ridiculous counter-factual to demand people prove.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:What is the case that is going to revisit Heller? And who is advocating for Heller to be revisited? What is so special and unique about Heller, that we MUST REVISIT IT? A municipality will pass a similar law to Heller, and it will be challenged in court. I'm not sure what the rest of your post means. There's nothing special or unique about Heller, but it's a contentious issue that was ruled on 5-4--these are the kind of cases that get revisited, especially when they fall on a point of interpretation that nothing else depends on. LGD posted:For reasons I outlined above and that you've continued to responded to with childlike obtuseness. Just like you are here- people being fearful about minorities with guns isn't the same thing as those people using the government to stop minorities from having access to them. The racism and bigotry you're positing (I actually can't recall any recent NRA freakouts about black open carry advocates) isn't actually stopping anyone from exercising their rights. Bias inherent to the police and justice system might (do) pose additional barriers, but that's something that needs to be addressed, not used an excuse to throw up your hands and say "welp, racism already exists, therefore the parts of my policy that play into it and extend its reach don't matter." You could use that argument to argue against literally almost every new law restricting any sort of behavior at all, with the argument that it will disproportionately affect minorities because of bias in the system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
LGD posted:For reasons I outlined above and that you've continued to responded to with childlike obtuseness. Just like you are here- people being fearful about minorities with guns isn't the same thing as those people using the government to stop minorities from having access to them. The racism and bigotry you're positing (I actually can't recall any recent NRA freakouts about black open carry advocates) isn't actually stopping anyone from exercising their rights. Bias inherent to the police and justice system might (do) pose additional barriers, but that's something that needs to be addressed, not used an excuse to throw up your hands and say "welp, racism already exists, therefore the parts of my policy that play into it and extend its reach don't matter." I already warned you about this, and despite how 'childish' you think it is, its a slippery slop argument, and you are just trying to use fear tactics to appeal to not having to implement change. Obdicut posted:You could use that argument to argue against literally almost every new law restricting any sort of behavior at all, with the argument that it will disproportionately affect minorities because of bias in the system. Dead Reckoning posted:I think he's pretty thoroughly explained why your proposed system is vulnerable to abuse, which should be quite sufficient. All. Systems. Are. Vulnerable. To. Abuse. Including the current one and any FUTURE systems. This is not a valid argument of why there should be no change. Might as well have used this excuse to fight against the Civil Rights Act or Equal Opportunity. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You could use that argument to argue against literally almost every new law restricting any sort of behavior at all, with the argument that it will disproportionately affect minorities because of bias in the system. Which is probably a good reason to look at such laws with more care than people usually do. But you're not getting my argument at all- the problem isn't that the law restricts a specific behavior (and the enforcement of good behavior will fall disproportionately on the poor and minorities) it's that the proposed system changes a right into a privilege that can only be accessed by being deemed the "right" sort of person by the subjective judgement of a state appointed arbiter. The system is arbitrary and capricious by its very nature, and that is absolutely a problem from both a practical and theoretical standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I already warned you about this, and despite how 'childish' you think it is, its a slippery slop argument, and you are just trying to use fear tactics to appeal to not having to implement change. So why are gun control advocates (generally) against making permits shall issue? Certainly, such systems can still be abused, but shall issue laws were specifically designed to combat the most common abuses and keep the teeth of the permitting law in place without enabling corruption or discrimination?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
LGD posted:Which is probably a good reason to look at such laws with more care than people usually do. But you're not getting my argument at all- the problem isn't that the law restricts a specific behavior (and the enforcement of good behavior will fall disproportionately on the poor and minorities) it's that the proposed system changes a right into a privilege that can only be accessed by being deemed the "right" sort of person by the subjective judgement of a state appointed arbiter. The system is arbitrary and capricious by its very nature, and that is absolutely a problem from both a practical and theoretical standpoint. Sure, it's a problem. It's not some unsolvable one. It's a problem in that the system needs oversight and examinations for racial bias etc. It's not like you just have to throw up your hands and say 'oh well'. We have a ton of systems that work this way, like building permissions. Again: It is really, really likely that Heller will one day get revisited. Gun advocates resting on that 5-4 decision as though it is the permanent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is foolish. We need to figure out how guns and gun owners actually integrate into our society in the long-term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I already warned you about this, and despite how 'childish' you think it is, its a slippery slop argument, and you are just trying to use fear tactics to appeal to not having to implement change. quote:All. Systems. Are. Vulnerable. To. Abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sure, it's a problem. It's not some unsolvable one. It's a problem in that the system needs oversight and examinations for racial bias etc. It's not like you just have to throw up your hands and say 'oh well'. We have a ton of systems that work this way, like building permissions. Why shouldn't any permitting system be shall issue?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I already warned you about this, and despite how 'childish' you think it is, its a slippery slop argument, and you are just trying to use fear tactics to appeal to not having to implement change. But some systems are far much more abuseable than others, and just because, say, judicial corruption exists is no reason to advocate a return to the Star Chamber. Your proposal is just such a system, and I've outlined what I feel are very good reasons to be skeptical of it for both historical and logical reasons. Childishly screaming about slippery slopes over and over while constantly presenting false dichotomies and politicians syllogisms isn't going to change that, especially when you're repeatedly unable to articulate any reasons why my criticisms of your proposal's mechanisms are illogical and invalid. I am trying to discourage people from considering implementing your change because it is a badly thought through idea that would absolutely have discriminatory consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
KaiserBen posted:Why shouldn't any permitting system be shall issue? Why should they? Having one sweeping universal rule seems kinda weird to me. LGD posted:But some systems are far much more abuseable than others, and just because, say, judicial corruption exists is no reason to advocate a return to the Star Chamber. Your proposal is just such a system, and I've outlined what I feel are very good reasons to be skeptical of it for both historical and logical reasons. Childishly screaming about slippery slopes over and over while constantly presenting false dichotomies and politicians syllogisms isn't going to change that, especially when you're repeatedly unable to articulate any reasons why my criticisms of your proposal's mechanisms are illogical and invalid. I am trying to discourage people from considering implementing your change because it is a badly thought through idea that would absolutely have discriminatory consequences. Comparing what he's saying to putting judicial decisions back to the Star Chamber, and calling him childish at the same time, is kind of a neat move but it is pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why should they? Having one sweeping universal rule seems kinda weird to me. Because doing so makes them much much harder to abuse? Why is "one sweeping universal" rule bad? We have exactly that for drivers licenses (pass a test, prove who you are, pay the fee, get license); why not mandate that for guns? EG: instead of sheriff joe looking you over and going "well, ok. I guess so", you have a legally mandated set of requirements to fulfill, and if you pass, you get a license.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
KaiserBen posted:Because doing so makes them much much harder to abuse? Why is "one sweeping universal" rule bad? We have exactly that for drivers licenses (pass a test, prove who you are, pay the fee, get license); why not mandate that for guns? EG: instead of sheriff joe looking you over and going "well, ok. I guess so", you have a legally mandated set of requirements to fulfill, and if you pass, you get a license. Well, advocating for increased training like that would be something well-received in general. One sweeping rule is bad because there's many permits--like toxic waste dumping, for example, or adoption record mediator--where we want to exercise discretion. Guns may or may not be one of those--with a sufficient level of testing, I bet most people would be fine with 'shall issue'. To put it another way, it matters a lot what comes before the issueing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sure, it's a problem. It's not some unsolvable one. It's a problem in that the system needs oversight and examinations for racial bias etc. It's not like you just have to throw up your hands and say 'oh well'. We have a ton of systems that work this way, like building permissions. Your proposals and your arguments for them are like 1:1 with voter literacy tests dude. What do you think, realistically, the outcome of what you're proposing is? Your political enemies will still be able to get guns. You can be 100% sure that the local white nationalist will deal with whatever barriers you throw up in front of him to get or keep his guns and the black dude who works at the mcdonalds will give up almost immediately because he won't have the time or money to deal with it. The other thing is that, if you could arrange it such that these two people were equally capable of jumping through the hoops, you wouldn't need the gun regulations anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sure, it's a problem. It's not some unsolvable one. It's a problem in that the system needs oversight and examinations for racial bias etc. It's not like you just have to throw up your hands and say 'oh well'. We have a ton of systems that work this way, like building permissions. The basic setup invites abuse, part of good policy design is creating structures that don't need to be constantly monitored. This system would be enormously expensive and difficult to implement in the manner envisioned, subject to all sorts of abuse, and of dubious effectiveness. Even if we should be doing something, it's very unlikely that this anything like the smartest public policy we could be pursuing. I'm also not sure why you're so convinced Heller will be overturned. It might be, but McDonald is the more relevant decision, and as case law and legal structures continue to be built around it, its overturn will become less and less likely. Has there ever been any precedent for the Supreme Court removing an incorporated right? edit: Plus I think gun rights advocates have a long term plan- making incorporated individual rights the default societal and legal assumption. Why would they be doing control advocates work for them by undermining that position in the hopes that they can keep some scraps when control advocates inevitably triumph? Things could change, but they're winning now and for all we know the U.S. government could completely collapse in 50 years. Why not work to advance their preferred interpretation, especially now that it has the highest legal backing? LGD fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
I'd also point out that building construction and toxic waste disposal are generally not considered individual rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Well, advocating for increased training like that would be something well-received in general. One sweeping rule is bad because there's many permits--like toxic waste dumping, for example, or adoption record mediator--where we want to exercise discretion. Guns may or may not be one of those--with a sufficient level of testing, I bet most people would be fine with 'shall issue'. I'm keeping this part of the discussion to simply "why not shall issue", intentionally avoiding "what are the requirements", because that's a rabbit hole I don't want to go down just yet. I'm saying "why are gun control proponents so afraid of stating their requirements in law"? The actual requirements are a different argument, but we'll get around to that. Tell me why we should exercise discretion, in this case where it's already been shown to be abused (NYC, most of CA, etc). Provide an example of a case where someone would fulfill all legal requirements to have a gun (assuming the requirements are whatever you want them to be) yet you'd deny their permit application.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Your proposals and your arguments for them are like 1:1 with voter literacy tests dude. What are my proposals again? Are you confusing me with someone else? Dead Reckoning posted:I'd also point out that building construction and toxic waste disposal are generally not considered individual rights. And if Heller is revisited, it is very likely that gun ownership and use won't be either. LGD posted:The basic setup invites abuse, part of good policy design is creating structures that don't need to be constantly monitored. Almost all structures need to be constantly, or at least heavily periodically monitored. quote:This system would be enormously expensive and difficult to implement in the manner envisioned, subject to all sorts of abuse, and of dubious effectiveness. Even if we should be doing something, it's very unlikely that this anything like the smartest public policy we could be pursuing. Probably not. Most public policy isn't the smartest thing we could be doing. I think that a shall-issue with high requirements for training is good-I also really like the buddy system as described above. But I also think that municipalities and states should have the right to regulate guns, their use, possession, and sale, as much as fireworks. quote:I'm also not sure why you're so convinced Heller will be overturned. It might be, but McDonald is the more relevant decision, and as case law and legal structures continue to be built around it, its overturn will become less and less likely. Has there ever been any precedent for the Supreme Court removing an incorporated right? The 2nd amendment and the arguments around it are relatively unique. One of the reasons I'm convinced it is very likely Heller will be overturned is the intransigence of the gun rights lobby to meet anyone halfway or in any way compromise in the form of increased testing, etc., even when their membership supports it. Saying 'this has never happened before' is powerful right up until the time it happens. As for cases that removed rights, the Slaughterhouse Cases come most to mind. quote:Plus I think gun rights advocates have a long term plan- making incorporated individual rights the default societal and legal assumption. Why would they be doing control advocates work for them by undermining that position in the hopes that they can keep some scraps when control advocates inevitably triumph? Because if non-gun-owners think of gun owners as trustable members of society and not outsiders who are anti-government, paranoid, and dangerous, those 'scraps' are likely to be far more substantial. Legal battles obfuscate societal battles. Gay people are being accepted in society and gaining rights not because of legal decisions, but because of societal acceptance, which is driving those rulings and negating attempts to stem the tide. There is obviously somewhat of a feedback loop, but in gun rights the feedback loop runs the opposite way. KaiserBen posted:I'm keeping this part of the discussion to simply "why not shall issue", intentionally avoiding "what are the requirements", because that's a rabbit hole I don't want to go down just yet. I'm saying "why are gun control proponents so afraid of stating their requirements in law"? The actual requirements are a different argument, but we'll get around to that. I'm not afraid of stating requirements in law. I'm not sure if I'm a 'gun control advocate', given that I think it's currently politically impossible to implement any gun control, for reasons I already said. quote:Tell me why we should exercise discretion, in this case where it's already been shown to be abused (NYC, most of CA, etc). Provide an example of a case where someone would fulfill all legal requirements to have a gun (assuming the requirements are whatever you want them to be) yet you'd deny their permit application. Obviously this depends on what the legal requirements are. For example, denying the purchase of a gun to someone who has a repeated history of domestic abuse charges filed against him, with the charges being dropped each time, and the professional testimony of police officers and social workers that domestic abuse is likely occurring but the woman is caught in the cycle of abuse and afraid to commit to charges. However, again, as i said above, I'd be fine with shall-issue with training requirements. I just don't see shall-issue as the apocalyptic horror that you do, and I don't think that noting inherent racism in the system is a strong argument; that racism will be present in the 'shall-issue' system as well. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not afraid of stating requirements in law. I'm not sure if I'm a 'gun control advocate', given that I think it's currently politically impossible to implement any gun control, for reasons I already said. You advocate changes, in a way that sounds like increased control, so for today's purposes, sure. But why do you think "shall issue" is unusual or "bad"? You've said it is weird, but how so? In your example, would you confiscate any weapons he already owns? On what grounds? What sort of appeal process do you envision? How would a sheriff prevent a black man from getting a shall issue permit? May issue laws have been used time and time again to prevent the "wrong" race (NC, GA, AL, etc), the politically unconnected (NYC, CA), etc from exercising their rights. How would anything you propose be different? I've given examples of how may issue has been abused, why don't you agree that it can be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The 2nd amendment and the arguments around it are relatively unique. One of the reasons I'm convinced it is very likely Heller will be overturned is the intransigence of the gun rights lobby to meet anyone halfway or in any way compromise in the form of increased testing, etc., even when their membership supports it. Saying 'this has never happened before' is powerful right up until the time it happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
If codes are followed they do. You are implying that the codes are being followed. I am saying that in large scale disasters there is a significant issue with shady contractors rolling in and not adhering to the building codes. This same issue is not simply related to large scale disasters. Where you have a significant elderly population there are plenty of unlicensed handymen who make repairs that are not up to code. That is where the failure is. Same concept with gun control. What gun control can not do is prevent illegal person to person sale, theft from legal gun owners (such as the San Francisco woman killed by an undocumented immigrant with a weapon stolen from a law enforcement officer) and home made weaponry. Prohibition failed because of illegal smuggling from Canada and private brewing operations. Drug prohibitions fail for the same way. And so does gun control. You can not restrict gun ownership in a reliable manner. Look at current gun laws. How often in mass shootings were there failures in the law? Stolen guns, guns acquired from the residents of legal gun owners, the inability for agencies to properly coordinate allowing those who do not meet the purchase standards still being able to purchase through dealers, private sales.... It doesn't work. As for the other part... If you grew up in a rural farming community then you know it is common for 12-13 year olds driving trucks back and forth to the fields. And thats one example of unlicensed drivers. Look at suburban communities where you have plenty of individuals who are caught driving with a suspended or revoked license. quote:He said he liked guns though, right? He said that TFR and GiP shouldn't exist. But thanks for playing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
KaiserBen posted:You advocate changes, in a way that sounds like increased control, so for today's purposes, sure. But why do you think "shall issue" is unusual or "bad"? You've said it is weird, but how so? What are you talking about? Obdicut posted:I think that a shall-issue with high requirements for training is good-I also really like the buddy system as described above. How does 'good' become 'bad' to you? Genocide Tendency posted:If codes are followed they do. You are implying that the codes are being followed. I am saying that in large scale disasters there is a significant issue with shady contractors rolling in and not adhering to the building codes. This same issue is not simply related to large scale disasters. Where you have a significant elderly population there are plenty of unlicensed handymen who make repairs that are not up to code. That is where the failure is. No, I didn't imply all codes are followed. you have a tendency to say stuff that isn't true, repeatedly, which is a really silly way to argue. Codes are followed a large majority of the time. That is why we have a better standard of building than countries with laxer codes, and/or more corruption. Common sense should tell you someone arguing something is efficacious isn't claiming that it works every time. quote:Same concept with gun control. What gun control can not do is prevent illegal person to person sale, theft from legal gun owners (such as the San Francisco woman killed by an undocumented immigrant with a weapon stolen from a law enforcement officer) and home made weaponry. True, obviously. quote:
Again, comparing alcohol to guns is a very stupid comparison. one is a substance that you ingest, which has broad societal acceptance and is part of the majority of people's social lives. The other is a device designed to kill people and animals, and is deeply divisive. quote:Drug prohibitions fail for the same way. And so does gun control. Again, it's a terrible analogy. Guns are not like drugs--drugs are a mix of addictive, like heroin, oxy, the rest, and societally accepted, like marijuana, and the more moderate ones don't pose a danger to anyone else. Guns are guns. They are not analogizeable to many other things. quote:You can not restrict gun ownership in a reliable manner. Look at current gun laws. How often in mass shootings were there failures in the law? Stolen guns, guns acquired from the residents of legal gun owners, the inability for agencies to properly coordinate allowing those who do not meet the purchase standards still being able to purchase through dealers, private sales.... It doesn't work. I don't think that gun restrictions will prevent mass shootings, though they will lessen their frequency. quote:As for the other part... If you grew up in a rural farming community then you know it is common for 12-13 year olds driving trucks back and forth to the fields. And that's one example of unlicensed drivers. Look at suburban communities where you have plenty of individuals who are caught driving with a suspended or revoked license. No, I didn't know a lot of 12 and 13 year olds driving trucks back and forth to the fields, unless you mean along private roads, in which case yes, but more often tractors and 12 and 13 is pretty young. Anyway, since I didn't claim that no unlicensed drivers ever operate, I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. quote:He said that TFR and GiP shouldn't exist. But thanks for playing. How does that make your point?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What are you talking about? You said having one sweeping rule was "weird". I interpreted that in a negative way. You didn't seem to accept that making a permit shall issue would lessen abuse (or even seem to admit that permitting systems have ever been abused). Sorry if you didn't mean it that way, but that's what I got out of the statement about "one sweeping rule" and talking about other may issue permits as being fine. BTW, how would a racist sheriff deny a shall issue permit because someone was the wrong color?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
KaiserBen posted:You said having one sweeping rule was "weird". I interpreted that in a negative way. You didn't seem to accept that making a permit shall issue would lessen abuse (or even seem to admit that permitting systems have ever been abused). Sorry if you didn't mean it that way, but that's what I got out of the statement about "one sweeping rule" and talking about other may issue permits as being fine. Oh, I was saying a sweeping rule for all things, not just guns. Having one policy is fine, but having different policies in different areas is also fine. Did you just skip over my posts where I said shall issue was good? Nothing I said in any way denied that permitting systems had been abused, in any way. How a racist sheriff might deny a shall issue permit depends on what the requirements are for that permit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, comparing alcohol to guns is a very stupid comparison. one is a substance that you ingest, which has broad societal acceptance and is part of the majority of people's social lives. The other is a device designed to kill people and animals, and is deeply divisive. What planet do you live on? Obdicut posted:Again, it's a terrible analogy. Guns are not like drugs--drugs are a mix of addictive, like heroin, oxy, the rest, and societally accepted, like marijuana, and the more moderate ones don't pose a danger to anyone else. Hrmm. These items can be manufactured in secret, are easy to smuggle, are often traded by criminal organization, and are subject to high inelastic demand. They sound about the same to me. Obdicut posted:I don't think that gun restrictions will prevent mass shootings, though they will lessen their frequency. Okay, so you spend billions of dollars, leave old ladies helpless, etc, etc, and mass killers method shift to say, arson. Now Instead of shooting twenty or so people at a time, they burn up a bus or a nightclub and take 50-100 people with them. Money well spent on a method shift?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The 2nd amendment and the arguments around it are relatively unique. One of the reasons I'm convinced it is very likely Heller will be overturned is the intransigence of the gun rights lobby to meet anyone halfway or in any way compromise in the form of increased testing, etc., even when their membership supports it. Saying 'this has never happened before' is powerful right up until the time it happens.  Nor do I think that any modern court is likely to re-adopt that court's particular views on the 14th amendment.The main point is that the 'intransigence' you describe has led to far more success than 'meeting anyone halfway' ever did. It's certainly possible to get drunk on success and overreach, but all indications are that the current strategy of ceding no ground works far better on both a strategic and tactical level than "compromising" by only letting your opponents implement some of their proposed policies ever did. It only backfires if this strategy is in fact sapping the long term social support necessary to maintain the preferred legal edifice. However I'm not sure that this is actually the case- there is something to be said for shoving the Overton Window as far as you possibly can in your direction. While you have a problem if people picture crazy open-carry advocates wearing confederate flag shirts as the default when they think "gun owner," you've definitely changed the situation in your favor if you can get people picturing those guys as the extreme "gun nuts" who are a minority in opposition to your perfectly reasonable neighbor who owns a few AR-15s for target shooting (as opposed to viewing him as a dangerous loon obsessed with ASSAULT WEAPONS). Additionally, while there is a concerted effort to portray gun-owners in such a manner (and it is absolutely true for a subset of them), gun owners are capable of speaking for themselves and most indications are that they're at least holding their own in the public argument. Even after a sharp shock like Sandy Hook where there was a legitimate moment where something might have happened legislatively, the initial overwhelming support for background checks declined fairly rapidly and then (by all appearances) accelerated when the details of the proposed gun control measures came out and it became apparent that it was a combination of a reheated 90's AWB and incrementalist bullshit that didn't seem to meaningfully relate to the tragedy at hand. It eventually settled at more or less the same level it was before (unless I'm misremembering my opinion polls). While it's clear how 'compromising' on such legislation would have advanced an incrementalist control agenda, it isn't clear that it would have made any sort of substantial difference in crime rates OR built real trust in the public that gun advocacy organizations were 'reasonable.' Because similar compromise in the past didn't seem to do so (hard to get much credit for going along with someone else's policy proposals), and actively undermined support for organizations among their base-. I think not losing the social battle you're describing is a long term battle of messaging values, not policy positions. I do have very serious doubts about the NRA's current messaging strategy (and possibility of further partisan capture in a confluence of toxic right wing politics), but I don't see this as a battle that will inevitably be lost, nor do I see real gains for them by pursuing the sort of compromise you're advocating. LGD fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Oh, I was saying a sweeping rule for all things, not just guns. Having one policy is fine, but having different policies in different areas is also fine. Ah, ok. IMO, permits for anything should be shall issue absent a very compelling reason (or standards that are incredibly difficult to legislate, but those should largely be reconsidered). Different requirements for different things, of course; but in general, I dislike the way our system applies its discretion. There are cases where it's necessary, but I think we given local governments far too much discretion in issuing most permits. You didn't address abuse at all, other than to say it'd still happen. I took that to mean you didn't think it was real, or thought it was a good thing (as many people do). Apologies if that's not your position. Let's use an example then, say North Carolinas CCW permit system. Requirements (when I lived there, at least) include a clean NICS check, clean state background check, fingerprints, and an 8hr class offered by most shooting ranges (state mandated curriculum but private instructors) followed by a written and live fire test. How would that be abused? Contrast California, where you have much of the same legal requirements (longer class, more money and a different test, but not a huge difference overall), but can be denied for any or no reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
http://www.nahb.org/~/media/Sites/NAHB/SupportingFiles/1/130/ICC-NAHB-common-code-violations-Survey.ashx?la=en Scroll down to page 16. These are violations caught in inspection. Earlier in that report, there was a couple charts dealing with denial at submitted plans. Where a third of violations were caught before the building process. But lets skip that part because I am talking about violations that are committed. So back to page 16. Frequency of Code Violations Found Residential: 42.6% 46.9% 50.5% 44.0% Commercial hovering between 35% and 48%. And thats violations that are found in inspections. Hence my entire point. Building codes are being violated at an alarming rate. Making laws doesn't mean they are being followed. Yes. When they are followed it makes houses safer. All laws when followed reduce the issue they are meant to address. What I am getting at is making a law that people don't want to follow means that issue is still going to persist. quote:True, obviously. And yet you are still telling me that I am wrong..... quote:Again, comparing alcohol to guns is a very stupid comparison. one is a substance that you ingest, which has broad societal acceptance and is part of the majority of people's social lives. The other is a device designed to kill people and animals, and is deeply divisive. Do you not understand the very simple point here? The US has a hilariously bad track record at preventing people from having things they want. Like booze, drugs and guns. quote:I don't think that gun restrictions will prevent mass shootings, though they will lessen their frequency. How? quote:No, I didn't know a lot of 12 and 13 year olds driving trucks back and forth to the fields, unless you mean along private roads, in which case yes, but more often tractors and 12 and 13 is pretty young. Anyway, since I didn't claim that no unlicensed drivers ever operate, I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. They are operating motor vehicles with out a license. Well if you omit this part, that part, this way, that circumstance.. It never happens! quote:How does that make your point? You are an idiot. That was the entire point. He doesn't think TFR and GiP should exist. Because he doesn't like them. How else do you need this very simple thing explained to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:What planet do you live on? Earth, where alcohol and guns are really obviously different. quote:Hrmm. These items can be manufactured in secret, are easy to smuggle, are often traded by criminal organization, and are subject to high inelastic demand. They sound about the same to me. Well, they're not. Analogeis are almost always bad, because you can find a few points of connection while overlooking the vast numbers of differences. quote:Okay, so you spend billions of dollars, leave old ladies helpless, etc, etc, and mass killers method shift to say, arson. Now Instead of shooting twenty or so people at a time, they burn up a bus or a nightclub and take 50-100 people with them. Money well spent on a method shift? That's kind of an odd fantasy. It's getting weird in here, so I'm going to check out. This isn't anything like a reasonable discussion, it's getting into the deeply weird. When people are denying the efficacy of building codes, it's time to pack it in. Genocide Tendency posted:
Probably the weirdest thing about you is that right after I clearly said "I'm not saying that this never happens" you try to mock me in this way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The 2nd amendment and the arguments around it are relatively unique. One of the reasons I'm convinced it is very likely Heller will be overturned is the intransigence of the gun rights lobby to meet anyone halfway or in any way compromise in the form of increased testing, etc., even when their membership supports it. Saying 'this has never happened before' is powerful right up until the time it happens. Name something you'd be willing to give ground on before you accuse the other side of being unwilling to compromise. When's the last time the pro-gun-control side proposed an actual compromise? Hint: a compromise would be something like "Ok, we'll repeal 922r in exchange for NICS checks on private sales", not "We'll only ban magazines >15 rounds instead of >10, and you'll like it or next time it'll be 7". Saying the other side is being unreasonable when you won't offer them anything but "we'll gently caress you over less than we want to" is dishonest and frankly counterproductive. Obdicut posted:Because if non-gun-owners think of gun owners as trustable members of society and not outsiders who are anti-government, paranoid, and dangerous, those 'scraps' are likely to be far more substantial. Legal battles obfuscate societal battles. Gay people are being accepted in society and gaining rights not because of legal decisions, but because of societal acceptance, which is driving those rulings and negating attempts to stem the tide. There is obviously somewhat of a feedback loop, but in gun rights the feedback loop runs the opposite way. Given that 35-50% of US households have guns, I'm not so sure we're as much "outsiders" as you think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
Yup. I'm done with this thread too. Between the accusations of any argument being childish and the slippery slope arguments, TFR is in full swing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yup. I'm done with this thread too. Between the accusations of any argument being childish and the slippery slope arguments, TFR is in full swing. "Slippery Slope" is not a Magic Power Word phrase. Repeating it endlessly does you no good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is extremely likely that Heller will be revisited and overturned, and gun owners and gun rights advocates should prepare for that, which will allow locales to set up 'hoops' for people to jump through, and that will be the application of the 2nd amendment. I think this is the worst kind of wishful thinking. You can tell yourself that Heller is naturally going to be overturned, but there is absolutely nothing in the way of precedent or reasoning that would suggest this will happen. It took literally decades for the Court to be willing to hear any case hinging on the 2nd amendment, and Heller was rapidly followed by McDonald vs Chicago which went even further towards incorporating the Second Amendment against the States than Heller. Your only real chance of rolling that back is a full-on repeal of the 2nd, and that is roughly as likely as you making GBS threads a diamond. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yup. I'm done with this thread too. Between the accusations of any argument being childish and the slippery slope arguments, TFR is in full swing. Seriously, what proposal do you have to discourage abuse of the system you propose? On one hand, I can definitely see why people would support it, but it is wide-open to abuse by several groups (local gov putting pressure on doctors, litigation and insurance companies doing the same, local LEO simply denying permits because they don't like your political views, etc); so what do you do to counter that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:"Slippery Slope" is not a Magic Power Word phrase. Repeating it endlessly does you no good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think you're just trying to deter people from learning and using your "repeating the same poo poo endlessly" strategy, sir But don't you see, we should be handing guns to violent criminals en masse so that they won't resort to using arson to kill people. If you're a convicted felon you should be required to carry a firearm at all times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think you're just trying to deter people from learning and using your "repeating the same poo poo endlessly" strategy, sir
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Earth, where alcohol and guns are really obviously different.  quote:That's kind of an odd fantasy. Nice parting shot as you storm out in a huff because you can't defend your position. quote:Probably the weirdest thing about you is that right after I clearly said "I'm not saying that this never happens" you try to mock me in this way. You said the laws have done a good job controlling it. I disagreed and backed up my statement with examples, you stood on your point by trying to amend instances. So yes. You should be mocked for it. CommieGIR posted:Yup. I'm done with this thread too. Between the accusations of any argument being childish and the slippery slope arguments, TFR is in full swing.  people disagree with me and I can't reasonably defend my stance. I'm taking my ball and going home Nessus posted:I think you're just trying to deter people from learning and using your "repeating the same poo poo endlessly" strategy, sir Repeating the same poo poo endlessly is a valid strategy when it has yet to be proven wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 01:55
|
|