|
I suppose I'm pro guns, but really I'm anti dumb gun control politics. This is mostly because I find gun control advocates and politicians to be shamefully intellectually dishonest. Every time I hear someone with a talking point about 'gun deaths' who knows full well how that two thirds of gun deaths are suicides, I think they're full of poo poo. Every time I hear about 'assault weapons' which is meaningless or how high capacity magazines are some kind of newfangled thing that hasn't been around for forty years, full of poo poo. Every time I hear about 'common sense gun control' without describing one example of what that would be, full of poo poo. Every time I hear about gun buybacks or other horrible policy, full of poo poo. I'm anti gun control because I've yet to see solid evidence (or even solid logic really) that economically viable gun control policy would be effective in preventing non law abiding persons from carrying out gun crimes. (The closest I've heard of is dramatically increased penalties for having a gun merely present during any felony, which again would be primarily effective in locking up lots of people, not preventing mass murders.) In my experience, when traditional taking points are challenged your average armchair expert says 'surely we should not let people who are mentally ill own guns, who could disagree with that'. Forgetting about the adverse consequences for getting people treated, there's zero thought about how you'd even begin to implement such a policy. No one seemed to know that Adam Lanza or Dylan Klebold or Va Tech guy were as dangerous as they were. All of that being said, Republicans are always going to look like assholes after something like San Bernardino happens. Most of them are assholes. I think Democrats look just as bad by using tragedy to get retweets but that's surely up for debate. antiga fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Dec 3, 2015 |
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Geniasis posted:Question for those who think gun control won't solve anything: It's path dependent and the starting point is very, very different. How many countries in Europe have a few hundred years of legal and cultural history based on the right to bear arms? If firearms were just being invented / popularized today, the culture and legal status would almost definitely be very different (not unlike the arguments about alcohol vs. marijuana were they introduced today).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Omne posted:why not put some caveats on the second amendment that would make it maybe just a little bit more difficult for bad people to get guns? To me, this sounds like the people that say support the Patriot act because you shouldn't be afraid of surveillance if you're doing nothing wrong. That's bad logic for a number of reasons. The fact that policymakers have their heart in the right place (and not all do) is not an excuse for lovely, expensive, and often useless policy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:...and craft messages that don't really appeal to the voting public. Instead they complain about how the NRA doesn't compromise with them(their notion of 'compromise' is 'give us something and expect nothing in return'). No wonder they fail to connect. Part of this is that they're not trying to convince the NRA types. The politicians message is designed to rally their own supporters and convince the undecided portion of the public that their opposition is inherently evil or otherwise bad. There are legitimate non political types that are very interested in gun control but sadly they're not really better at suggesting viable solutions. Omne, if you're asking me I don't think a three day waiting period is overly onerous but you have to prove/convince someone that the policy will have a positive effect. Maybe there's a possibility that someone flips out, tries to buy and then comes to their senses in 72 hours. To me, that's not very compelling. I thought three days was already in effect in a lot of places but it could be a state thing. antiga fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Governor Malloy (CT) announced his intent today to ban gun sales to all persons on the federal no-fly list. You know, the list that is not regulated in any way whatsoever, doesn't require a criminal conviction, and is nigh impossible to be removed from. You're all one really bad internet comedy forum post from being banned from buying a gun in CT, ever. http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-no-fly-list-connecticut-20151210-story.html https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms Executive orders seem to be the flavor of the month for forcing through terrible ideas because they would never pass the legislative branch. antiga fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 01:09
|
|