Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

3d printers will have made gun control efforts irrelevant in the next couple years, the idea that you can prevent gun files from being distributed with legislation is utterly laughable. The tech will continue to improve, become cheaper, and there's literally nothing you can do about it.

If anything all the noise the states have made this past week has done nothing but Streisand'd the issue.

You can make your own guns without a 3D printer. They aren't magic. If you can afford a 3D printer, you can afford to just buy a gun. We are still able to have gun laws. The entire issue is a red herring.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

zapplez posted:

Its illegal to drive people over with vehicles, despite anyone with a credit card being able to rent a truck.

Trucks keep being used in mass casualty incidents, sometimes having death tolls much higher than typical mass shootings.

Are legal trucks the problem? Or its it income inequality and mental health?

Tell me more about the death toll from the typical mass shooting

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

zapplez posted:

I was specifically referencing the studies are out on the "copycat effect" and the part the media has to play about mass shooters.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/22/17041382/school-shooting-media-coverage-perpetrator-parkland

http://www.center4research.org/copy-cats-kill/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141

When it comes to preventing mass shooters, I can't think of an easier and more practical law to happen than refusing to publish the full name of the shooter on TV or radio news, and to not show their picture.

Whew, good thing you included easy as a qualifier. Can't put actual, like, effort into preventing murder or god knows where we might end up

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
It's also worth pointing out that banning alcohol massively reduced the amount of consumption and thus the harm it was inflicting.

It also created organized criminal syndicates. Win some, lose some.

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
I like how after pages of gun and alcohol comparisons, your proposed laws dont include an age limit.

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

zapplez posted:

No I wouldnt argue that at all. Universal healthcare is a good thing everywhere. Don't just put words in my mouth.

Its disingenuous to say only the USA has a problem with mass murderers. Its not like only 1 or 3 every few years is an OK amount either. Im sure if you asked a frenchman if he thinks mass murder is his country is a serious problem or not he would have a strong answer.

Indeed there is no difference between 1 and 50

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
I would like to point out that the "Is America really safe??" idiocy was asked in response to whether a gun ban would work.

I politely suggest that anyone asking whether gun laws can work in an area made unsafe by gun crime go gently caress themselves.

What, precisely, is the alternative being offered to areas deemed "unsafe"? Abandon the rule of law in Chicago? Just go full Escape from New York with it?

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
What happens when one of the highly trained, well vetted member of the military loses one of the U.S. government's guns

Just curious, asking for a friend.

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
In theory, you don't teach your kids how to open either the ammo container or the gun safe.

In reality, you have to indoctrinate them to the cult of Gun as early as possible so by the time they can speak you have already told them about the great power you keep with your vault and taught them the combination to use "just in case"

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

KingFisher posted:

1. To address the shooting homicide rate between young men in urban settings, make possession of an illegally acquire gun or the commission of a crime with an illegaly acquired gun a double life sentence.

Guys my dog just started barking but I dont hear anything

It's like he can hear some kind of whistle

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Lol "think of the children" is your argument. <.001% of american teens "live in fear of massacres." In fact I can only think of like 2 total, and one has gone full grifter.

Teens organized the third largest protest in US history with over a million people speaking out for gun control.

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

Dead Reckoning posted:

Interpersonal violence is depressingly common in America. Being gunned down by an "assault weapon" wielding spree shooter is so staggeringly rare that it shouldn't merit major legal changes.
Is rarity how we create laws now?
Death by nuclear weapon and high explosive seem pretty rare nowadays, why cant I own those? Oh right because society has deemed it not worth the risk, much like it should for guns.

Dead Reckoning posted:

This is the correct way to run a society though. Perfect safety is not possible.
Ahhh, you're just against laws then. At least your position is cohesive, despite being completely reprehensible.

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

Dead Reckoning posted:

I mean, I don't think mass shootings are a good thing, but I also don't think anything that kills, on average, less than 100 people nationwide per year (at least according to the MoJo database) is worth curtailing everyone's rights over.

How many would need to die to justify "curtailing everyone's rights"

Just asking if you had an actual number you wanted to commit to or if this is a weak justification

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

Dead Reckoning posted:

I don't have an exact number in mind, but I know it's at least 88,000. That's how many excess deaths the CDC estimates are caused by alcohol each year. Alcohol has absolutely no redeeming social value, but we tolerate it in spite of its staggering cost to society. I don't think one can coherently be in favor of both strong gun control and legal consumption of alcohol, if your objection is from a public health standpoint.

What's your number? Would you have everyone give up the right to vote, or free speech, if it saved a million lives a year?

I mean we limit it to those over the age of 21, arrest you if using it unsafely (DUIs) and empower sellers to cut people off, so you're down for like 25% of that, yeah?

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm not sure I understand your question. You have to be 21 to buy a handgun, and most unsafe things you might do with a gun are already covered by various criminal statutes. There isn't a specific dram shop law for gun stores, but OTOH the cashier at the grocery store doesn't make a phone call to the FBI every time I buy a six pack to make sure I'm allowed to have it, so let's call that a wash. If congress wanted to raise the age to buy semiautomatic center fire rifles to 21, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape.

How about defining a gun stored outside a gun safe as unsafe use

Because, ya know, ...it is

"Guns are inert, bombs are not inert" lmao

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

Dead Reckoning posted:

A gun outside a safe is no more inherently dangerous than a knife outside a safe. Are you unfamiliar with what the word inert means?

Please feel free to set fire to a pile of knives and then a pile of bullets and report back on your findings.

Or dont. Depending how it goes.

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

Shooting Blanks posted:

Language is important, including understanding the language of those you disagree with.


Do you have an actual link?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fn6GFSwTEw


This is probably what he was thinking of

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

Parrotine posted:

Definitely not, but I do think McConnell's inaction here will be the thing that will finally get his crusty rear end elected out of office, I don't see his campaign having a chance of winning since he's got such a negative stigma behind it now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
Guys, I think all of the mass shootings might have another common factor! At last, I have solved the mystery of the ages!




Males. The problem is males. What did you think I meant

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

Groovelord Neato posted:

they don't commit most of the gun violence.

But the media said

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
The biggest red flag is being a Republican voter.

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
Why is that guns can only be spoken of obliquely, like those who do not know the holy word of The Gun must instead compare it to cars, or alcohol or loving skin cancer.

It's a tool made to kill people. That's all.

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

zapplez posted:

Just like a sports car. What honest man needs to go 100 miles an hour. Your dumb hobbies shouldn't put the rest of the public at risk.

Your car only shoots bullets at 100 mph? That's a pathetic muzzle velocity and will barely hurt anything at all!

A gun that shoots bullets at 750 mph on the hand might need to be regulated!

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
:iiaca: but forever because God forbid we actually talk about guns

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

TenementFunster posted:

depending on bullet weight and barrel length, an AR-15 is cranking em out at over 1,900 mph

Jeez, that sounds downright dangerous

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
hey, let's use pool analogies rather than talk about guns

e: before we go any further, how many mph do pools go

Unoriginal Name fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Sep 5, 2019

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
The real threat is of terrorists committing mass drownings tbh

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

zapplez posted:

Guns are really fun

You could have saved some time typing and just posted this

e:

zapplez posted:

we as a society accept risks like that all the time.

gently caress off with this. There is no other similar risk and you can tell because we arent talking people committing mass murder with a pool or a fifth of whiskey. Plot twist: The disingenuousness is coming from inside your own post!!

Unoriginal Name fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Sep 6, 2019

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo
I am very anti-gun. The following 17 point plan will reduce gun violence.

Point 1: Regarding pool usage,

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

zapplez posted:

Percentage of households with a firearm in it has been going down since the 60s. Mass shootings have been on a stark increase since the early 2000s, when at the same time the overall violent crime rate and the homicide rate have been decreasing as well.

Households seems like an odd stat to choose. How about firearms per capita?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006

by sebmojo

zapplez posted:

How does % of households with a firearm having nothing to do with access to firearms?

How does number of firearms have nothing to do with access to firearms

Imagine a house with one gun, carefully kept in a gun safe because the owner has a child.

Imagine the same house with 100 guns. Are you really stupid enough to say these are the same thing

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply