|
JerryLee posted:Clearly, recklessly releasing toxic substances into the environment is the appropriate analogy for responsibly owning/using something in a way that harms no one. Ah so you're in favor of an EPA-like licensing and inspection routine so the ATF can be sure you're responsibly owning/storing/using your firearms instead of recklessly leaving them for anyone to find like Nancy Lanza?
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:Except for the 230,000+ firearms stolen per year mostly as a result of gun owner paranoia, sloth and stupidity, their annual funneling of tens of millions into the gun industry, and their ceaseless opposition to any credible attempts to regulate firearms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah so you're in favor of an EPA-like licensing and inspection routine so the ATF can be sure you're responsibly owning/storing/using your firearms instead of recklessly leaving them for anyone to find like Nancy Lanza?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I think the National Firearms Act of 1934 is a bad law, and I will be voting for Hillary next year. Then you weren't one of the people I was talking about from the last thread. This is good and I am glad and you should not be insulted by the knowledge that there are people out there who are bigger assholes than you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Then you weren't one of the people I was talking about from the last thread. This is good and I am glad and you should not be insulted by the knowledge that there are people out there who are bigger assholes than you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Oh well that's a relief because when you put all "pro-gun" people in the same bucket as voting straight-ticket (R), I thought you were referring to me, since I'm definitely "pro-gun" and I've posted in a D&D thread about guns. So you can see my confusion after parsing your words and taking their literal meaning to its logical conclusion. I didn't say anything about all gun owners actually, you just got mad defensive when I posted about other people's behavior
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
"This guy says there's a lot of people who like to pay lip service to issues but are actually single issue voters who will vote against those things they claim to support, in favor of their single issue? MOTHERFUCKER"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Gun control won't happen until the majority fears the minorities access to fire arms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:how many pro gun people post this in these threads  There were plenty of ways to word that to get your point across more clearly, but you didn't bother because you don't care if you alienate people who don't favor increased gun control. Which is ironic considering what your beef is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
ColonelDimak posted:Gun control won't happen until the majority fears the minorities access to fire arms. This, specifically, is the root of gun control in this country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:My biggest worry with very strict gun control in America isn't whether we have it or not, it's what the fallout would be after such restrictions were implemented. It would be as big a deal as the Civil Rights Act, except in the case of the Civil Rights Act you could at least point to the fact that we have civil rights, as a justification for being left in the political wilderness for 50 years and enabling e.g. the Southern Strategy and Reaganomics and all the other horrible poo poo that movement conservatism has wrought on America since then. That was worth it, but in the case of gun control, well the country will still be full of violent paranoid assholes, just now they can't buy guns. If that victory is important enough to sabotage the rest of the progressive agenda then go ahead, but I don't think it is. Basic income, single payer health care, highly-regulated capital markets, a top marginal income tax rate of 90%, and deep cuts to carbon emissions, are all realistic goals to have for 2040, and none of it will happen if the left gets even half of what it wants with regard to gun control. Better question is how you would go about confiscating 350+ million firearms, and how you try to justify not paying for them to the public, since doing so at even a tiny fraction of their actual value would be an absurd amount of money we usually reserve for wasting on military appropriations. This is, of course, assuming somehow pulling enough votes to repeal the second amendment out of a hat, and getting the states to ratify it without Texas trying secession again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah so you're in favor of an EPA-like licensing and inspection routine so the ATF can be sure you're responsibly owning/storing/using your firearms instead of recklessly leaving them for anyone to find like Nancy Lanza? Yeah, I'm pretty much in the same boat with Kilroy here. Kilroy posted:I actually wouldn't have a problem with that. I doubt the national or even any state government could implement the policy in such a way that it didn't become a total shitshow, but in principle at least that sounds fine to me. Of course, there's the matter of showing good faith and reassuring people that you aren't just trying to strangle gun ownership by other means, the way people often (correctly) accuse the right of trying to do with social programs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah totally just being over-sensitive considering I'm posting an awful lot in this thread still doesn't say anything about "everyone", almost like you assumed that so that you could get super mad despite, by your own admission, not being one of the people i was talking about you're literally just getting mad to pick a fight at this point, dude. chillax.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It doesn't fit on a social left-right axis either, or basically any other axis you can name aside from the "thinks gun control is a good idea/doesn't" axis. And yeah, we consider the Democrats the center-right party in the US - what's your point? icantfindaname posted:rejection of American style gun culture most definitely fits on a social left-right axis, and the whole 'no war but class war' shtick is dumb, stop it Then again I was talking firmly about economic leftism because in my mind I didn't think left/right worked for a social axis; only liberal and conservative, then leftist/rightist for an economic one (which is how you can have socially conservative leftists, as many old school populist movements were) Second of all, I don't know how you'd say I think 'no war but class war' considering I've said plenty of times that racism and paternalistic resentment of perceived lesser peoples will make any non-democratic economic efforts of some vanguard party or humanitarian military interventions between unequal peoples turn out badly long-term. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Of course, there's the matter of showing good faith and reassuring people that you aren't just trying to strangle gun ownership by other means, the way people often (correctly) accuse the right of trying to do with social programs. And on the other side assholes like Chuck Schumer would be heaping nonsense into the bill that does nothing to address gun safety or gun violence, but makes a good headline. Basically reasonable gun legislation is impossible in America, and it's everybody's fault. Literally The Worst posted:chillax. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I actually wouldn't have a problem with that. I doubt the national or even any state government could implement the policy in such a way that it didn't become a total shitshow, but in principle at least that sounds fine to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I'm not really cool with government agents popping into private citizens' homes without any sort of individual suspicion in order to make sure they're following the law. Which, FYI, is not a thing the EPA does. The way it works here in Aus' is the police give you notice they are coming and if it's a bad time you let them know and they work around you. There's no forced entry, they don't just "pop" around like "lol let us see your three oh mate" or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I'm not really cool with government agents popping into private citizens' homes without any sort of individual suspicion in order to make sure they're following the law. Which, FYI, is not a thing the EPA does. They wouldn't "pop in". You would voluntarily agree to schedule an annual inspection when you sign the paperwork for your firearm license. If you don't want them in your house, don't keep your guns there. Or take up a hobby that's not a threat to public safety if you're irresponsible. It's no different than if I decided to operate a restaurant or bakery out of my home. Suddenly I'm doing something that is a threat to public safety if I'm irresponsible, so I have to get a food service establishment permit and allow inspections, if I don't want inspectors in my home I don't do those things there. Not that any of this will ever happen, of course, it's already been pointed out that even obviously beneficial regulation like universal background check will be defeated by the usual group of dedicated crazy voters who think everything is a federal/lizardperson plot to put them in a FEMA camp and rape their sweet sweet buttholes. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Tasmantor posted:The way it works here in Aus' is the police give you notice they are coming and if it's a bad time you let them know and they work around you. There's no forced entry, they don't just "pop" around like "lol let us see your three oh mate" or anything like that. But you have to let them in at some point I assume. Do they have to get a warrant for suspicion of a specific crime before sending you this notice? If not, it doesn't matter how accommodating they are. Every civil rights org in America would be suing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:25
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I'm not really cool with government agents popping into private citizens' homes without any sort of individual suspicion in order to make sure they're following the law. Which, FYI, is not a thing the EPA does. it's a thing the ATF does with certain kinds of license holders, but it's more a pointless minor bureaucratic hassle and less stormtroopers kicking in the doors and burning the house down to punish them all for being Probable Republicans so it's understandable that some folks ITT would feel that shouldn't even count. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They wouldn't "pop in". You would voluntarily agree to schedule an annual inspection when you sign the paperwork for your firearm license. If you don't want them in your house, don't keep your guns there. Or take up a hobby that's not a threat to public safety if you're irresponsible. A private kitchen is not subject to health inspections, no matter how many dinner parties you throw. Running a restaurant or bakery is a commercial business. If you were selling guns out of your living room, you would already be subject to licensing and inspection by the ATF under current laws. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
No because online communications don't get people killed on a daily basis no matter how irresponsible you might be, and secure private communication is actually an important right, whereas the right to play with toys isn't all that important compared to the right of your neighborhood kids to not die because you decided you wanted to leave a bunch of weapons lying around your house with your emotionally disturbed son. But I'm open to other inspection regimes if we can find one more to your liking: *checks criminal justice thread* ah here we go, if a cop is worried you might be unsafely handling your firearms, he can roll his car up to your yard, shoot dead you within like two seconds, then claim he told you to put your hands up three times in those two seconds and that he was afraid for his life. Naturally it doesn't matter whether a firearm is found on your body as long as he says he thought you had one. You've got to admit it's effective and even more importantly, constitutional right now no amendments required. :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No because online communications don't get people killed on a daily basis no matter how irresponsible you might be, and secure private communication is actually an important right, whereas the right to play with toys isn't all that important compared to the right of your neighborhood kids to not die because you decided you wanted to leave a bunch of weapons lying around your house with your emotionally disturbed son. Also, this would have been a much shorter discussion if you had just led with, "I don't think guns are actually a right and the only reason I advocate for death by a thousand cuts instead of confiscation is that people would take my position less seriously if I did. Also, I fantasise about you and everyone who believes as you do dying."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
Well first of all I don't want confiscation, I like taking my guns to the range, I just think like any dangerous hobby our funtimes should be better regulated. Keep your gunsafe in your garage or your toolshed or your gun in your gunowner's condo building with community locking gunracks next to the lobby or at your range if you don't want inspectors in your living room. It's not like you have to keep your guns in the same room as your illegal casino/porn studio/drug dealership/whatever. And I don't fantasize about you dying, I'm just always amused by the selective distrust/total faith in government. "Hey the government needs to make sure you have a gun safe, keep accountability of your weapons, and are trained in proper use and handling." "That's tyranny, I'm not going to live in some totalitarian fascist hellhole like France!" "Oh okay, how about the government just shows up, we kill anyone we want in like two seconds and say they made a furtive movement and ignored a whole bunch of commands?" "That's fine!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well first of all I don't want confiscation, I like taking my guns to the range, I just think like any dangerous hobby our funtimes should be better regulated. Keep your gunsafe in your garage or your toolshed or your gun in your gunowner's condo building with community locking gunracks next to the lobby or at your range if you don't want inspectors in your living room. It's not like you have to keep your guns in the same room as your illegal casino/porn studio/drug dealership/whatever. yeah that guy sucks, the guy who said the thing you quoted. I'm glad you took him down a peg or two, since nobody else was brave enough to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
itt let's speculate about what those subhuman homonculus ffffffucking conservatives would, like, totally say, if they were talking to me which they're not since I got disinvited from Thanksgiving dinner
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I'm not really cool with government agents popping into private citizens' homes without any sort of individual suspicion in order to make sure they're following the law. Which, FYI, is not a thing the EPA does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:yeah that guy sucks, the guy who said the thing you quoted. I'm glad you took him down a peg or two, since nobody else was brave enough to. not sure if youre joking but DR is fine with the way Tamir Rice was killed
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 14:25
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:itt let's speculate about what those subhuman homonculus ffffffucking conservatives would, like, totally say, if they were talking to me which they're not since I got disinvited from Thanksgiving dinner Weren't you pissing up a storm about "lovely sarcasm" earlier? Blatant hypocrisy seems to be regrettably common on this issue. People will stake out an absolutist position on access to guns being essential for self-defense and then say it's okay to ban felons and "mentally unwell" people from having them. People will declare that being pro on gun control is solely because of culture warring, while being anti is inherently reasonable as a position. People will talk up their desire to have guns for self-defense, but although this requires a willingness to kill, they curiously rage about the supposed genocidal desires of pro-control people. In the end, this is somewhat understandable if we take anti-control posts as propaganda, in some cases as subtle as the reframing I just used, in other cases much more crude. But of course we are not allowed to treat propaganda as propaganda in this subforum, so you can have it mostly your own way.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Weren't you pissing up a storm about "lovely sarcasm" earlier? Blatant hypocrisy seems to be regrettably common on this issue. People will stake out an absolutist position on access to guns being essential for self-defense and then say it's okay to ban felons and "mentally unwell" people from having them. People will declare that being pro on gun control is solely because of culture warring, while being anti is inherently reasonable as a position. People will talk up their desire to have guns for self-defense, but although this requires a willingness to kill, they curiously rage about the supposed genocidal desires of pro-control people. you're the Elliot Rodger failson who's been spewing out death threats nonstop and there's 'people' somewhere who say the President is a lizard from outer space, if you need to come up with an imaginary friend with worse ideas than yours to be airily dismissive of it is time for you to face the brutal truth that you are the dumbest actual person you can find and start desperately agreeing with anyone you hear
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I'm not really cool with government agents popping into private citizens' homes without any sort of individual suspicion in order to make sure they're following the law. Which, FYI, is not a thing the EPA does. The way it usually works in countries with actual gun control is that in order to obtain a firearms license you must demonstrate secure storage, which is at most one home visit by police with notice on your own explicit request, if even that (such as producing a ticket that shows you have a locker at the gun club.) If this is such a problem for you there's a simple solution: don't own bang bang shooty toys for cretins. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:But you have to let them in at some point I assume. Do they have to get a warrant for suspicion of a specific crime before sending you this notice? If not, it doesn't matter how accommodating they are. Every civil rights org in America would be suing. Tons of government inspections already don't require suspicion of a crime. Health inspections, CPS. Plenty of pet adoption agencies require a home inspection before they'll let you take home a puppy. Civil rights orgs don't sue because they tend to employ people who can tell the difference between a police search and a safety inspection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:06
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:you're the Elliot Rodger failson who's been spewing out death threats nonstop and there's 'people' somewhere who say the President is a lizard from outer space, if you need to come up with an imaginary friend with worse ideas than yours to be airily dismissive of it is time for you to face the brutal truth that you are the dumbest actual person you can find and start desperately agreeing with anyone you hear Who are you talking to?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
The question of gun control and how it relates to violence in America is, unfortunately, mired in the nature of our culture, and what we (as a people, not necessarily as individuals) revere as various ideals. To move to an admittedly not ideal analogy, consider the question of transportation. Somewhere along the line, I guess in like the 50s, we developed this idea that owning and driving a car is a basic requirement for prosperity. We built highways, and we started designing our developments around the idea that anybody would be able to travel 10 miles and not give a poo poo because they did so in a car. This became the satus quo, and the concept of "car brings freedom" became ingrained over less than a century to the point that, rather than ride the bus like a damned hobo, many people would rather own and drive a car that they realistically shouldn't be able to afford. And, as a result of this attitude among both the populace and the people in charge of civic planning, we now live in a climate where both of the following are true: It is inconvenient bordering on unfeasible to live in most cities without access to a car, if you plan on being a functioning member of society. We won't ever have a pan-American high speed train, or other similar facilities that other developed nations possess. These things are reinforced partly due to the stigma of not owning or driving a car, because we attribute mass transit (that's not an airplane) to being a thing used by the Dirty Poors. That situation is not a universal truth. Plenty of places have public transport and/or city planning that allows a person, even a professional, to live perfectly well without access to a car. Some American cities even allow for such an existence, such as Boston or New York. I, however, have lived in two cities where it would take up to 2-6 hours of combined bus rides and walking to get to a place that I can drive to in 15 minutes. I can ride a bicycle to those places in about 30-90 minutes if I want to risk being run off the road by a sociopath who is in a hurry. Many other countries do not have this problem. There is adequate infrastructure for people who don't have access to their own car, and reduced or no stigma against people who use this infrastructure. It's like guns. There's something busted in American culture that reveres this folk hero archetype of "the hero who saves the day with a gun." There's this idea here, always buzzing under the surface, that you can definitely solve any problem by killing it, ideally with your gun. This is reinforced by much of our entertainment media, and demonstrated regularly by our demonstrable continued infatuation with our astonishingly violent police force, as well as policymakers' total refusal to actually change anything about the ongoing mass shooting situation. People actually think they can be like their favorite action hero, and just fuckin Jack Bauer whatever person thinks they have the balls to pull a gun in their crowded venue. Of course, nobody ever does, probably because actually very few people bring a gun to a place they aren't planning to shoot up. I'm starting to lose coherence of this text wall, so I'm gonna skip to the short version. I think the gun ban worked in Australia because of Australians. I think that banning guns in America wouldn't change the above stated underlying idea that Americans have, that you can solve basically any problem by killing it. It is, however, a lot harder to kill 12 people in 12 seconds with a knife than with an automatic weapon. A mass gun ban isn't possible without a voluntary weapon turn-in program like Australia used; America is too big, it's too easy to hide your arms cache somewhere for later use. The people who have tied their identities to their weapons will still be able to keep those weapons, and the black market for weapons will probably remain unaffected. Like, there are already so many guns, including what we would consider assault weapons, circulated around America, that I don't think it would be possible physically to remove them. Only the cooperation of the owners of those guns would be able to ensure the success of an actual gun ban, and America's culture of gun worship and acceptable killing will be there to prevent it, probably still decades down the line from now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Anyone know what a "reality monster" is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Tons of government inspections already don't require suspicion of a crime. Health inspections, CPS. Plenty of pet adoption agencies require a home inspection before they'll let you take home a puppy. Civil rights orgs don't sue because they tend to employ people who can tell the difference between a police search and a safety inspection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:When is the last time your home was inspected by the health department? CPS definitely requires suspicion of a crime. I get the impression you had a really weird childhood. Your pet adoption thing is too stupid to directly address. Actually, CPS will investigate if you report abuse, regardless of suspicion. I've had a gay friend whose been investigated multiple times due to local Conservative Christians being 'concerned' about the welfare of her children. Don't forget SWAT'ing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Actually, CPS will investigate if you report abuse, regardless of suspicion. I've had a gay friend whose been investigated multiple times due to local Conservative Christians being 'concerned' about the welfare of her children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:31 |
|
twodot posted:Are you saying reports of abuse aren't grounds for suspicion of a crime? Like I'm not sure I'm even parsing this post correctly. CPS agencies must investigate regardless of the credibility of the report or reporter. Should this be a general practice?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:14
|
|