|
SocketWrench posted:Actually we import a lot of guns made all around the world. So you'd cut off domestic makes, I guarantee you there's plenty outside the country. If you removed the US market as a consumer, less guns would be manufactured.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
SocketWrench posted:They're already manufactured; surplus arms. And as guns are removed from circulation this surplus would diminish.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
All the ridiculous lies ITT about the simplicity of making a functional and effective firearm (without purchasing kits) do not change the fact that no one actually does it outside of an extreme few notable exceptions, and rarer still are criminals manufacturing firearms for the purpose of committing crime in places where there are firearm restrictions. Hell, even simple IEDs like pipebombs are rare in use and require little in the way of knowledge and tools. It is a dumb thing to bring up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
For something actually germane: I have been reading some literature on the NICS background checks and some various state laws. Under the existing system, it appears that at the federal level, the FBI can place a hold to delay a purchase without initial due process, and many states have a "subversive group" clause which does not seem that different from the idea of the no fly list, as well as denial at judicial discretion without conviction or existing indictment. It seems that the government position on "due process" and gun purchases is that they are allowed to delay your purchase as long as you have a route to appeal without it being a rights violation. Is this accurate, or are there other checks and oversights of the various open ended catch-all capabilities that exist?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
I hate to quote myself but the 'deadly zip gun' debate might have drowned out something I would legit like to discuss:archangelwar posted:For something actually germane: Comedy option: If it passed, potential terrorists could use periodic firearm purchases to determine the point at which they have landed on the government's radar.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Here are 12 times in the past 20 years: I like these examples because almost all of them would not be impacted at all by any proposed gun legislation, most of them could be handled better by better resource allocation, and when left with the 1 or 2 examples that might be impacted by anything up to a complete ban of firearms, you have to start asking yourself if it is possible such a ban would reduce total incidence mass shootings by more than 2 over the course of 20 years. It would be a great thing for the CDC to determine for proper action.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I don't think we should hamper research efforts based on what we think the outcome might be. Whatever ban you're going on about, I'm in favor of lifting it and using the resulting research to inform future policy. Basically my stance; as having been a strong gun rights proponent, I have been evolving my position based on discovering the intellectual bankruptcy of most gun advocacy. I would gladly sacrifice my guns, used primarily for acquisition of tasty sausage, sport and entertainment, if it means it will result in an overall reduction in death and suffering. This corresponds to my distance from misguided teenage libertarianism as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:How are you going to complain about intellectual bankruptcy in one sentence and then say "i changed my position because i'm afraid i'll get called a libertarian" in the next one That is... quite the interpretation. Here, let me clarify... As my beliefs have evolved away from libertarianism, so has my belief in the strength of individual gun rights.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Yeah, it's funny to see people who would generally consider themselves liberal admit that they want to ban guns out of disdain for gun owners. That's a fundamentally illiberal concept and if the topic were anything other than guns this sort of argument wouldn't be accepted. This is an interesting avenue of attack given that: * Liberal is used as a pejorative against Democrats (and by association misc. leftists) in US political parlance * In general leftism subordinates individual liberties against strength of social contract, and believes in strong collectivist solutions * Individual firearm rights are not settled dogma among classic liberal thought, nor was it among America's founding elite So whether you meant it as a descriptor of the left, or in the broader political "classic liberal sense," this seems to be an incredibly weak avenue of attack.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It's not the banning guns part that I was describing as illiberal, it's the concept of wanting to ban a thing because you personally dislike the people who use that thing. I wouldn't use that criticism against something who wanted to ban guns purely out of public safety concerns. Pretty sure the dislike of those people stems from his existing position on guns and not vice versa.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 16:25
|
|