Gun Control: apologies, i'm on desktop and didn't notice the corpse

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Control: apologies, i'm on desktop and didn't notice the corpse

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Publicly arm a bunch of Black people.

It worked on Reagan.

The only outcome of the NFAC protests was they ended up accidentally shooting each other

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 20:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:07

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

He's talking about the Black Panthers. Multiple major gun restrictions were signed into law in California as a direct result of Black Panthers showing up armed to "observe" police actions.

Edit; At least, I assume that's what the OP was referencing.

I know? I was pushing back against the [presumably facetious] insinuation of that being an effective and/or the sole way gun control gets passed in our country.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 20:36

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Yeah remember when there was a huge bipartisan effort to bail out banks, hedge funds, and insurance companies? That was the result of a massive upswell of public support for Lehman Brothers right?

Public opinion has effectively zero effect on policy.

I got some bad news for your example (2008 poll):

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/09/23/57-of-public-favors-wall-street-bailout/

Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jun 3, 2022

# ¿ Jun 3, 2022 15:26

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Liquid Communism posted:

Yep. It is easier to understand the landscape of gun control in the US when you realize that almost all gun control in the US historically has been about keeping minorities from being armed.

Same reason the NFA of 1934 had a carve out to let the wealthy keep their toys by paying for a tax stamp, and same reason Cali's gun control laws intensified when Reagan realized the Black Panthers were arming themselves. The 'may-issue' laws endemic in the South and Midwest are directly out of Jim Crow laws, to let the usually white elected or appointed sheriffs exercise discretion on who was allowed to carry or own a weapon.

Is it, though? I hear this all the time, but I feel like the only example people bring up is the Mulford Act. A while back I actually went through federal gun legislation passed throughout the years to see if it was nearly all. I wish I could remember exact numbers, but I felt like it definitely wasn't nearly all due to a minority with a gun.

And if it's true, is that still the case today? The largest gun control legislation passed in much more recent history that I can think of was the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. And that was due to white people with guns.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 4, 2022

# ¿ Jun 4, 2022 21:33

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Liquid Communism posted:

Anecdote isn't data, but it's exactly why my state went to shall-issue for carry permits. Had a huge problem with elected sheriffs using paper bag tests and/or only issuing permits to people who donated to their reelection campaigns.

Yes. Anecdote isn�t data. Which is why I get annoyed when people who insinuate that gun control legislation passing [nearly] only because of racist reasons because of the Mulford act annoy me. And I noticed you hadn�t refuted/stated any specific legislation beyond the Mulford Act.

If you want to state what legislation your talking about, please tell me the state/county/city statute number. But as a warning, if you want to continue down the anecdotal non federal level legislation, I can easily provide a counter example to every example you bring up

Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jun 5, 2022

# ¿ Jun 5, 2022 02:08

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Bishyaler posted:

You don't need to look hard to find the extremely racist history of gun control. The 1968 gun control act, the one that bars all felons from owning firearms, was specifically created to target black people. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill had this to say: "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither."

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf

Once again, anecdote isn�t data. Of course gun control laws have implemented with racist intent. But that�s not the same as �nearly all� gun control laws passing to keep guns out of minorities hands, which is what the original claim.

I get annoyed when people seem to spew this �fact� for a couple reasons. One, for why gun control laws are actually bad. All while ignoring the fact that the 2nd amendment/gun ownership was put in place because of racism. Or two, as in this case and often in this thread already, that minorities arming up is the only way gun control gets passed. Which is absolutely not true.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Jun 5, 2022

# ¿ Jun 5, 2022 12:51

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Yea, this claim is just completely incorrect too. The extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was a result of the Civil Rights Movement.

In the U.S., Backlash to Civil Rights Era Made Guns a Political Third Rail

Basically, they're straight up rebelling.

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1532827061890457600?s=20&t=4IF5bcXwcU-_qIfB_rJv5Q

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1532828865432805376?s=20&t=4IF5bcXwcU-_qIfB_rJv5Q

Sorry, but I don't follow. My claim is the reason that the 2nd amendment exists, carrying all of the "gun rights" arguments, was because of racism. Not the later interpretation of it. Unfortunately, that article is paywalled to me, so I'm unsure of if you're claiming that the 2nd amendment wasn't steeped in racism up to that point or what you're referencing.

For a source about the 2nd amendment existing solely because of slave owners: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-slave-owners-dictated-the-language-of-the-2nd-amendment

Jaxyon posted:

But you didn't do this when someone posted an example....

What example? I asked for an exact statute number and wasn't supplied one for the generalized statement that the poster made. I'm not going to hunt down what law they're insinuating with a lazy, broad generalization.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jun 6, 2022

# ¿ Jun 6, 2022 00:51

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

I think I am agreeing with you. Sometimes it is true that gun control has been done for racism but it is also true that gun control has also been removed/weaken for racism too.

Gotcha, this is true and thanks for the clarification.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2022 01:59

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

The Lord of Hats posted:

I'm strongly in favor of gun control, to make my position clear from the start.

But I did read some of TFR's gun control thread, and while I disagree with a lot of it, a question that did make sense to me as a practical concern is enforcement. Namely, that enforcement would pretty inevitably be in the hands of the police. Who are... well, the police.

Not that I think that owning a gun is any kind of protection against cops (and neither is not owning a gun). And it's not like cops don't already indiscriminately harass the poor and minorities. But at the same time, it's hard to have faith that any kind of gun control measure doesn't just get turned into the war on drugs all over again. It's tempting to say that poo poo already sucks in that department, gun control can't make it suck worse, but that's a declaration I really don't want to be boldly making from a position of unaffected privilege.

Is this something that's blown out of proportion? Is it something that's been thought through already? Or is it just "yeah, poo poo sucks but we have to do something"

So�I think connecting laws with the current police state is a bad thing. It�s so easy to connect the dots of X is the law, law is enforced by police, ergo�..

But that misses the nuance of laws. If that held true to the absolute limit, than all laws are fallible, therefore anarchism is the only true answer. Maybe you agree with that. But I do not. There�s also the flip side, such as who is enforcing the gun rights laws for white people to kill minorities that they view as a theat

In my opinion, laws are much more than the current police state. I think it�s important to take in the entire context. Such as who is more often killed by guns. How are those guns more often acquired. Who benefits from lax gun laws. What is the history of gun rights and gun control laws. Etc, etc, etc

# ¿ Jun 6, 2022 05:40

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Liquid Communism posted:

Law doesn't exist in an academically approved vacuum.

As amply demonstrated by the existence of judicially invented concepts like qualified immunity.

Who interprets the law, and who enforces it are as important as the actual text.

But in addition to the main point of my post, which you handwaved away, you seem to be ignoring that I also mentioned that enforcement is done by the same people on both sides of gun rights/gun control.

If who enforces the law is as important as the text itself, how can you make that argument against one side (gun control) and not the other (gun rights)? Even if we magically had 100% no gun control, you'll still have the enforcement issues as long as those enforcers exist [and have power] (e.g. Philando Castile)

Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Jun 6, 2022

# ¿ Jun 6, 2022 13:23

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Bishyaler posted:

These can't simultaneously be true, sorry. The US government is not some unstoppable juggernaut and the US military has always fared poorly against insurgencies. The odds are even more dire for the government if the insurgents have the backing of a foreign power.

When's the last time that the US military fared poorly against an internal insurgency? How has weapons technology beyond firearms changed since then? What foreign power would back an internal insurgency against the US government when it's guaranteed they would need to also fight all the other countries in NATO (and most likely some other allies of the US/NATO countries)?

E: From a previous post that I want to point out:

Bishyaler posted:

First off, the idea that the US government would use nukes on its own soil is insane, and if you're talking about a traditional insurgency, they can't really go leveling entire cities with tanks or fighter jets either, unless they feel like doing free PR for the insurgents.

Even though it wasn't a nuke, remember what the government did to MOVE in Philly? That was a tiny sampling of what the government is willing to do to squash who they perceive as a threat.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 6, 2022

# ¿ Jun 6, 2022 14:41

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Bishyaler posted:

I sure wish liberals would stop trying to empower the government right before it tips into the GOP's hands forever.

The government is already empowered, your delusions about your political enemies are getting the best of you.

Mulva posted:

Because once a government loses it doesn't tend to exist anymore, so there's generally only one example. It's not the sort of thing you get a do-over to.

No... it doesn't? There's been lots of revolutions in lots of different countries. Those countries still exist, their government just changed forms/policies/etc. Hell, I would even count the civil war in the US as an example.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jun 6, 2022

# ¿ Jun 6, 2022 17:43

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

This is such an incredibly important part of the discussion I'm surprised it never gets mentioned. The fact that the law is largely enforced by white supremacists (cops) must be taken into account when talking about gun control.

I already addressed this point earlier:

Kalit posted:

.... I also mentioned that enforcement is done by the same people on both sides of gun rights/gun control.

If who enforces the law is as important as the text itself, how can you make that argument against one side (gun control) and not the other (gun rights)? Even if we magically had 100% no gun control, you'll still have the enforcement issues as long as those enforcers exist [and have power] (e.g. Philando Castile)

Or, stated another way,

Main Paineframe posted:

Cases like Philando Castile, shot simply for informing the officer of his legally-possessed firearm, just go to show that the Second Amendment is already a whites-only right

Removing all gun control laws will not change this.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jun 7, 2022

# ¿ Jun 7, 2022 02:43

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

PeterCat posted:

My point is comparing car ownership to gun ownership is not the clever comparison people think it is.

........you do understand that guns are severely less regulated than cars, right? You can't just pretend like gun ownership exists only on private property and then use that as a baseline of comparison.....

Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jun 8, 2022

# ¿ Jun 8, 2022 01:42

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Harold Fjord posted:

The laws we are most likely to get aren't the ones most likely to benefit public health. We aren't getting handgun bans.

Handgun bans aren't the only thing that would benefit public health. We can pass measures less restrictive and it will still help dramatically. See: Australia.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Jun 8, 2022

# ¿ Jun 8, 2022 03:33

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Baronash posted:

Are there any studies or news investigations that actually dive into different policies and see what type of effect those could (in the best possible circumstances) have on shootings, or even just mass shootings? Something like "X number of shootings were conducted with weapons bought at gun shows/through private parties," "Y number of shootings were conducted by individuals with a disqualifying DV conviction," etc. It'd be useful if such a thing existed to see exactly how toothless the regulation will be.

Not exactly what you�re looking for, but if you didn�t see it, LT2012 just posted a broad brush policy-related study in the USCE thread:

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Summarizing study (in LT2012�s words)

https://twitter.com/BradWilcoxIFS/status/1535244050663624706

But I think it�ll take a while for what you�re specifically asking about. The reason I think this is it has to be a long term study to be able to attempt to isolate it outside of the broader context of our overall societal/economic impact. And due to CDC finally getting allotted funding for gun violence, they�re basically starting from square one

Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jun 13, 2022

# ¿ Jun 13, 2022 16:32

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Liquid Communism posted:

I don't think anyone has yet argued that the status quo isn't racist. Gun laws in America are, have been, and likely always will be racist, classist, and sexist on many levels as they seek to reinforce social strata and establish who can be trusted to be armed.

You�re correct that gun laws, especially the 2nd amendment and its origin, are racist/sexist/classist. But I�m confused on what you�re advocating for. You seem to be saying like this makes these laws bad, but then the end of your last statement sounds like it�s pro-2A�.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 15, 2022

# ¿ Jun 15, 2022 15:53

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Discendo Vox posted:

Washington Post has discussion of one potentially impactful aspect of the developing gun control deal:

The gun deal could close the �boyfriend loophole.� Here�s what it is.

Eh... I'm not too hopeful that support will remain since the language hasn't even been drafted yet. But, if they somehow pull this off in a meaningful way and get Manchin/10 Republicans to sign off on it, that would definitely be a big improvement.

E: Looks like it's already falling off the rails
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1537552329016283142

quote:

The lead Republican negotiator in US Senate dialogue toward a bipartisan gun safety bill walked out of the talks on Thursday, dimming the likelihood of a vote on the legislation before senators leave for a two-week July 4 recess.

Senator John Cornyn told reporters that he had not abandoned the negotiations, but he was returning to Texas amid difficulty reaching agreement.

quote:

But in the days since, the talks have become bogged down in disagreements over two main provisions: how to provide incentives to states to create so-called red flag laws, in which guns can be temporarily taken away from people deemed dangerous, and the �boyfriend loophole,� allowing authorities to block abusive spouses from buying firearms, but does not cover people who aren�t married.

Cornyn, whose home state of Texas does not have a red-flag law and is considered unlikely to enact one, wants the funding for that provision to cover other efforts towards tackling mental illness issues, such as �crisis intervention programs.�

Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jun 17, 2022

# ¿ Jun 17, 2022 00:53

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

PeterCat posted:

I've been assured that a legally armed citizen can't stop a shooting, but there it is.

https://mynews4.com/news/nation-wor...jTkI4XyUetrBC6A

Who has claimed that this can never happen? I don't recall anyone ITT making that claim....

# ¿ Jun 28, 2022 03:26

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Groovelord Neato posted:

There are probably more times the cops shot the good guy with a gun than a good guy with a gun stopped anything and lived. And also yeah it's a numbers game it's vanishingly rare not never ever happens ever. Though I still see people repeating the laughable hundreds of thousands or millions for defensive gun uses a year.

Oh yea, especially when that Harvard study found that most self-reported defensive gun use cases were invalid and/or the guns were used to intimidate/escalate arguments

Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jun 28, 2022

# ¿ Jun 28, 2022 13:03

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Liquid Communism posted:

Ah yes, because we cannot trust agents of the state not to brutalize the public, we must immediately... make that easier for them to do?

That seems like a strange logic.

How does the public not having firearms make it easier for agents of the states to abuse them?

If anything, the public being armed gives the agents of the state a convenient excuse to commit murders at a higher rate.

E:VVVV

Cease to Hope posted:

the police can clearly just lie

Yea, I figured this is the stock response. But there's a tiny chance that the lie will be exposed. This way, the agents of the states (unsure of Liquid Communism's specific definition/if it includes police) don't even need to lie.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jun 30, 2022

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 04:00

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Xarn posted:

I have a hard time seeing how arguing that Americans are uniquely lovely in their relationship with guns isn't also an argument for much stricter gun control than the rest of the world.

It sounds like Mulva is trying to make the case for something along the lines of "unless you ban all guns, no gun control works because Americans are uniquely horrible"?

But even though I've read and re-read all of the recent posts, the points being made seem very obfuscated. So I could be completely wrong about that. And if I am, Mulva/others, please correct me on that.

But, if nothing else, this is the correct take

Koos Group posted:

I'm finding it a bit hard to understand what points are being made here.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2022 06:51

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Mulva posted:

It is an argument. Now you only have to......convince Americans and their state to do it.

Which is the argument. Maybe keeping it short will make that clearer.

I'm still confused. If this is your argument, why have you stated multiple times, or at least inferred, that passing gun control legislation doesn't matter because of SCOTUS (bolded parts mine)?

Mulva posted:

Why are you asking me like you didn't do it yourself? If you think it's a bad idea you also could have...not done it. I've said why I did it, it's part of the post you didn't respond to. I think policy itself is irrelevant if it doesn't talk about how it's going to enact change, and that the most important part of that process is the people and systems that would have to enact that change. Their character is the point. On the 12th I was mildly shocked that it seemed like the smallest bit of positive gun control would happen with that boyfriend loophole. I was quickly reminded of why I had the views I had when less than 2 weeks later the Supreme Court just went "lol naw" to some entirely straightforward gun legislation from New York, and did so in a way that can challenge a whole lot of state laws across the entire country.

1 step forward, NINE loving MILLION back. This is the reality of the world that any gun control has to exist in. You can't just say "It would be a social good to do this" like that means anything in a world where your social systems will actively criminalize a miscarriage if you happen to be in the wrong state. But that's my viewpoint, and I never got yours. Which I asked for.

Do you or do you not think that the actual people and systems you will have to deal with to enact change are important when formulating an idea of what to do?

Mulva posted:

It's not futile, there were a ton of things that could have happened along the way to ensure this situation never happened. It never had to be this way. And at some point things will probably change again. Possible not in my lifetime, but neither this situation nor this country are eternal. Conversely it is what it is, and pretending it isn't isn't actually talking about the issue. Guns in America aren't just "There are a lot of guns and there's a lot of gun violence and we should have less guns to have less gun violence. Maybe no guns!". Because even if you say "Even if we can't just get all the guns in one move we can pass common sense legislation to mitigate the harm they cause." we are right back to "The Supreme Court just struck down legislation like that with loving nothing.". Like it's the most vague and meaningless precedent that is now legally important because it came from 6 random assholes, and it's vagueness will be used to challenge a bunch of other poo poo that will in turn be decided by these assholes.

So other than just arbitrarily not talking about reality at certain point it's going to be a bit of a downer conversation, because we aren't in a good place as a country. Like I said it was less than 2 weeks from "Oh a tiny bit of good news!" to "Open season on a lot of existing laws.". There was an entire week and change of a nice thing happening before we were back to kick to ribs. That is what we are dealing with, and pretending isn't going to make it go away.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Jul 1, 2022

# ¿ Jul 1, 2022 13:52

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Harold Fjord posted:

What's confusing about this? In addition to getting laws passed we have to deal with a corrupted system and unaccountable wizards. These are not contradictory arguments, these are barriers that exist.

Edit- were you actually confused by the rhetorical use of "you only have to"? I think that was meant not so much as a statement that there was only one barrier but a rhetorical statement on the unlikelihood of overcoming that barrier and reaching the next.

While they might not be 100% contradictory things, if that's Mulva's position, then the order these two things occur absolutely matters*. So why bother stating passing laws is the issue in that summarized statement I responded to? Especially when they were handwaving away gun legislation that was passed!

*Just to explicitly spell it out, if SCOTUS is the issue, those laws will just get struck down again. Then, if these "unaccountable wizards" ever change to whatever criteria you (and/or Mulva, if they agree with your response here) deem necessary, those laws will still need to be passed again.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Jul 1, 2022

# ¿ Jul 1, 2022 14:11

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Mulva posted:

....and their state didn't cover it for you?

See my above posted response to Harold Fjord. Why bother bringing up citizens' views (who 100% do not impact SCOTUS rulings) and the legislative/executive branches?

# ¿ Jul 1, 2022 14:52

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Liquid Communism posted:

Funny how when you teach boys the only acceptable emotional outlet is anger and violence, that's how they act out when dealing with emotional problems endemic to being a teenager.

If you're suggesting that addressing toxic masculinity is a good way to address gun violence (since we are in the gun control thread), it doesn't seem like a feasible/optimal way to go about that to me. Toxic masculinity/bullying is still a massive problem in .... probably every country? Mass shootings are not.

This makes it seem like one issue is much easier to solve than the other to me.....

E:

Cpt_Obvious posted:

The problem is that there are other countries with plenty of access to firearms, and yet America remains basically the only one with a mass shooting problem. Sure, getting rid of the guns would solve the problem purely because it destroys the medium by which the violence is expressed, but the violence remains under the surface and finds other ways to come out. Even if the civilian population were to have those guns taken away, lot of those would-be psychos will simply seek positions of power where they can be violent assholes without fear of reprisal.

I suggest you look at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada to look at the difference of our gun control laws vs other countries. Even though Switzerland is one of the less restrictive countries for guns outside of the US, they still have requirements such as (for handguns):

quote:

Private gun ownership generally requires a license, for which an applicant "must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger himself or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes," according to the Library of Congress's review of Swiss gun laws. The license is valid for six to nine months, and it's usually valid only for one weapon.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jul 2, 2022

# ¿ Jul 2, 2022 16:47

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Harold Fjord posted:

It's not a matter of easier it's that they are inextricably entangled

But you can [mostly] mitigate one threat even if you haven't solved the other. So why wouldn't you want to focus on the concrete solution for one that's been solved by other countries in the mean time while you try to find the unknown solution to the other one?

Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jul 2, 2022

# ¿ Jul 2, 2022 16:57

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

IMO none of these regulations would have prevented Uvalde. He didnt use a handgun, and if the restrictions were similar for rifles then the kid would have just grabbed his fathers guns and done the same thing.

Which raises the important question of "why isn't any other country having a similar epidemic?" which i think that video does a good job trying to explain.

You still need a license for semiautomatic rifles in Switzerland: https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/ (that's giving the benefit of the doubt these rifles do not count as "large magazines", which I'm unsure of). And in Canada. The UK has banned them completely. The Uvalde shooter bought an AR rifle days after his 18th birthday. So, no, it's far from a fact to claim that it would have still happened

And why are you trying to make an incredibly false claim, such as "would have just grabbed his fathers guns"? His father hadn't even seen him for at least a month before this occurred. The shooter lived with his grandparents, who didn't have any guns in their house.

Stop trying to make wild claims that directly contradict what happened.

E: Beaten, but yea, what Cease to Hope said

Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 2, 2022

# ¿ Jul 2, 2022 18:22

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Harold Fjord posted:

Where is that fear coming from? Capitalist infotainment media driving up coverage of scary events for clicks and views even as the world is getting safer is a good place to start. The fact that the world itself is genuinely being destroyed by humans and we are doing nothing to address it is another. While violent crime is down overall relative to the past, there are risks of increases as material conditions degrade.

Do you think that the media should not report on gun violence (or whatever fits your criteria of "scary events") at all? Or to what extent/type of coverage would be responsible, in your opinion?

Additionally, do you think that anything would be different if the gun lobby, especially the NRA since their shift in the 70s, didn't exist and/or was much weaker? That maybe people would be less likely to correlate owning a gun with self-protection?

Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 22, 2022

# ¿ Jul 22, 2022 17:08

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

E: nevermind

Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jul 22, 2022

# ¿ Jul 22, 2022 19:37

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:

a significant contributor to this mindset is media which caters to people's fears, usually blaring from a never turned off screen, driving compulsive use to "stay informed" while also magnifying the worst examples. this media also provides commentary on those examples from pundits and the public alike, biased and catering to the tastes of the audience, which serves to just make this artificially boosted problem look even more dire and ever present. ultimately this leads to a fear that society is on an inevitable downward spiral into collapse and violence, from which the only possible recourse is to be armed for when the dangerous people come to claim you

why yes, of course i'm talking about local television news. what else could i possibly be talking about?

Blaming the media seems like an excuse in my eyes. Media in our country doesn't seem to act much differently than they do in similar countries. But here, after a high profile mass shooting, that fear seems to have people running after guns. This doesn't seem to happen much in those other countries*. So, to me, that implies that this has more to do with how people in the US views guns (i.e. is effective in using them for safety/self-defense), in addition to our lack of gun control laws, and less to do with the media coverage itself.

*For anecdotal evidence, I briefly looked at guns trend by year in the UK versus high profile massacres. In 2017, there were 3 massacres in England listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Great_Britain. One of those was the largest massacre since 2005. Those were covered in depth/obsessively by news in England.

I cannot find a total gun purchases by year, but I did find gun certificates on issue by year. This isn't a 1:1 on gun purchases, obviously, but they have to renew every 5 years, so I assume panic buying due to media covering these massacres would be reflected in these numbers at some point. However, if we look at this, we can see it remains fairly steady since then.

# ¿ Jul 22, 2022 21:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:07

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Liquid Communism posted:

Being armed in these cases is, as is well recognized by most of us, not necessarily going to save your life. Rather grimly the hope is it'll at least make taking your life expensive enough that the fuckers are more hesitant to go after others.

When, in the history of the US, has the left arming up more (or killing someone on the right in self-defense) ever resulted in the right being more timid/scared/whatever and thinking twice about arming up? They double down and use these examples to say "this is why we need more guns". Then you get an arms race.

If that happens, who do you think has a better chance? The individuals with more money to buy guns/time for training/resources in general (i.e. the right/white supremacists/etc) or the side with less of those things (i.e. the left/minorities/etc)? Especially when the side with more resources will also have more sympathy by the police on their side as well.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jul 23, 2022

# ¿ Jul 23, 2022 16:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Control: apologies, i'm on desktop and didn't notice the corpse