|
I mean the reality is that political will to enact gun control never meaningfully developed in this country. What's the big win people point to, the AWB? It's the single greatest loss the gun control platform ever took, because it radically encouraged the gun community to come together and fight for their rights. With the AWB everyone pat themselves on the back and moved on, but the other side of the argument turned into a loving monster. People talk about poo poo like ghost guns and bump stocks, but they never actually consider them as physical things that people have. Do you know how stupid and useless a bump stock is? People sometimes call the full auto setting on a gun the giggle switch, because it's fun to just go brrrrr and dump a magazine......once or twice. Then you realize it's actually kind of expensive to be constantly spending money dumping mags for no real purpose, and a lot of folks don't have that much money to go around. So why the hell did so many people buy a bump stock when they were a thing? Because gently caress the ATF. That's why. The government made it tedious to get a full auto gun, so people do whatever they can to legally get something like fully automatic fire. Will most people that got one have used it once and never again, or maybe twice a year with friends? Yep. Still got one, gently caress the ATF. Most 'ghost guns' are just lovely frames you put completely generic Glock slides or AR-15 uppers on, entirely unworthy of time and money spent getting one. Why do it? gently caress the ATF. There are people who couldn't give less of a poo poo about guns that taught themselves electrochemical rifling to 100% make a gun on their own, just to say gently caress you to the government. To make the point you will literally never stop me from having a gun if I want one, because I can make one by myself. gently caress anyone that tries to constrain my rights, real or imagined. And that is a minority of gun owners, but it's the most dedicated and motivated section. And frankly there isn't an equivalent in the gun control side. And not only is the energy level wildly unbalanced between the two positions, one side is running on nothing. There's been no real meaningful gun control since the AWB, but the level of fervor on the more pro-gun side of the argument still goes strong. They are still pushing the limits, fighting any vague law that could constrain them. Conversely a mass grave of dead children hasn't meaningfully pushed the needle in favor of gun control actually happening. I imagine in 7 years nothing will have been done by the gun control community, but someone will have made a package on how to spend 3k on various 3D printers and chemical tools on how to make literally every single part of a gun, including bullets and primers, at your home completely automated. Maybe 2K, depending on how prices fall. You can kind of do it now but it's not entirely automated, so it's not available to anyone. Just anyone willing to put in the effort. The elimination of "Put in the effort" is coming, and will really crack that open. That's when I'm calling the death of gun control in America, when the gun community has so lapped the gun control side that it's actively made getting a gun as easy as pushing a button, and has done so purely out of spite. Even though they will have never faced meaningful legislation or push back, even though they'll have won most every meaningful fight they ever got in, they will push the limits as far as is possible to make sure that gun control never, ever, ever has a chance. No matter what.
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It would be good for you to take a bit and read the BATF rule I linked above, Mulva. This has already been addressed. ......literally nothing about defining a PMF or how it needs to be marked or registered has the slightest bit of impact on how easy it is to make one, and will continue to get to make one, or the ATF having any loving idea you did it. Moreover the point isn't the item, the point is that one side is pushing it's ability to the degree where you can get a gun as easily as possible, and the other side is doing nothing. At all. Not even the slightest bit. Not one thing. Nor is there any sign a single thing, at all, on any level, will be done. The ATF legislation doesn't even say you can't print a gun, it just has to be in the system. Your FFL can absolutely sell you a PMF and the ATF is fine with that. The ATF did nothing in it's clarifications to impact the practical reality of home gun making in the 21st century. It is a wild and increasing disparity in power. Charliegrs posted:If we lived in the time of a theoretical new assault weapons ban, how many people do you really think are going to go through the hassle of actually building a gun from scratch? Even with how easy it would be with 3D printers. How many 18 year olds that want to shoot up a school will have the money to buy all that 3D printing poo poo to build a gun? Yes of course there's going to be some people doing it, but if the only way to get an assault weapon is literally build it (illegally I might add) versus just going to the neighborhood gun store down the street that alone is going to stop 99% from getting a gun. There's a reason I said 7 years from now. Today if you wanted to make a semi-automatic [Pistol or rifle doesn't particularly matter much, it's slightly easier to make a pistol due to printing space but it's not a deal breaker] it's like.....maybe 3K in the US? You can go up or down as much as a thousand dollars depending on sales or your own technical ability, but that'll get you everything. Including making your own rifled barrel. If you wanted to do that 10 years ago, it'd have been a lot more money and lot less reliable. And 7 years from now it'll be a lot cheaper and a lot more reliable. It will be as simple as pushing a button at some point to do the entire process. And it's not that far away in the grand scheme of things. And again, it's not a question of it defeating the law. It's that it's not going to have to and people will push for it anyway. Nobody needs to come up with some new laws to start pushing in light of the latest mass shooting [Which isn't the latest mass shooting, there's been more since then]. They can push all the other laws we already came up with and didn't enact. They can push one of the thousands of things people have already said they would do. That Biden ran on doing. They could pick any given issue and start fighting for it. Have they? Do you think they will? That they are waiting on something? One side of this fight is doing nothing, and the other is doing everything they can. That's the thing about fights, they are generally against something. You are not having an ideological discussion in a white room, there are people that oppose you that are fighting much harder. And objectively it'd seem that they are a tiny minority, and most people support in the abstract "Gun control", "More regulations", "Stricter background checks", all sorts of things....that they've supported for years and years and years. Nothing happens though, does it? More people die, nothing happens, nobody changes their strategy beyond screaming "Do something!". And nothing gets done. Crosby B. Alfred posted:Democrats have been trying to pass Gun Control legislations for decades but have been defeated constantly because the "core" of the Republican Party refuses budge in any meaningful way. There's plenty of will. Democrats haven't been able to get enough leverage in Congress but with the imbalance in the Senate, Gerrymandering, etc. it's not exactly a surprise either. Within your lifetime the Democrats had all the power they needed to do anything they really wanted. Obama had a stacked deck and they could have loving ran with all sorts of things. They didn't because they didn't care. That's it, nobody held them back but themselves. Party leaders in the Democratic party don't consider it a pressing issue, and the majority don't care enough to fight for it. And the general public doesn't feel it's an important enough issue to hold them to task for it. Whereas a lot of people will absolutely single issue go "But guns though!" on the other side. "They would if they had more power" is a lie, because when they had the power they didn't act. They will never act. They don't want to. Mulva fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jun 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
I do love how you have to go to 2013. No, the point is 2008, when the Democrats had a super-majority and couldn't be stopped from doing anything they wanted for a few months. That was prime time to pass their most important, most pressing issues. Nobody could stop them, they were at the height of all possible power in this government. Why didn't they? Because they didn't want to. Not like gun violence wasn't an issue then, not like we didn't have mass shootings, not like there wasn't talk by people about doing things. They just....didn't. They don't care. This latest shooting doesn't make them care any more. Nobody you can vote for cares. And the demographic breakdown of the country and gerrymandering means you are always going to have so many Republicans that you are fighting a massive uphill battle. The best possible chance to do something was 14 years ago, and they didn't. And now you are left hoping that the stars align and enough of the right type of Democrats win against the odds and have the will to do something. Which might be quite literally impossible. It's certainly improbable. This is the one fight in all of American politics that I think is closest to unwinnable, and even if not nobody has shown any signs that they can win it. Too much is stacked against change, and nobody is rising to the occasion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
That's all very interesting, but I've found over the decades I don't loving care about the excuses people trot out for why they failed. I don't even care if they are true. It doesn't make them less of a failure, and I remember a bunch of those 2008 guys making bones in 2007 in the run up to their elections about what they'd do to make sure another Virginia Tech didn't happen. And I have 14 years of seeing the result of that big talk, and the answer is nothing. They did literally nothing to prevent the next Virginia Tech. Most of them wouldn't even try to pretend they wanted to do anything about it. Tell me what's changed to make it more likely to get gun control passed in the years since. When you, rational and logical being that you are, admit the answer is "Nothing" we can circle back to the more important question: Why the gently caress did you take time out of your day to go to bat for people that literally could not care less if you live or die? Decorum? Boredom?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:managing what is achievable given current priorities among the electorate is an important part of a democracy, turns out. What's that gotten you? Because the hilarious chart that just got brought up to defend the Democrats as "Gun control not even being an issue in 2008." also has those 2008 numbers being remarkably similar to....the current 2022 trend. Which has been trending downward for like 5 years at this point. So I guess what, the thing that is achievable given current priorities among the electorate as far as gun control goes is "Nothing", and threads over and we all go home?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:But how do you type something like "I don't care if it's true" and not just cancel the post and go take a walk or jerk off or something? Because I'm stuck at this computer for the next 3 hours and I don't have slightest twinge over being unfair to politicians in the United States, who have universally earned far more than some rando on the internet being mean about them doing a bad job. Not even think twice about it in fact. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:What direction do you imagine that poll would be going right now? As far as I'm concerned it's always been Calvinball with little relation to reality. Like it's trended down when we've had some massive shootings in the past, and trended up when the level of shootings we've had is....well slightly less terrible I guess? What I'm more concerned with is this: If 2008 is showing acceptance for stronger laws that rates it as "Not on the radar" and makes it entirely rational that the Democrats didn't take up that fight, why would a 2022 where they have less power and it's polling about the same be different? That's a nice objective and rationality based question, yes?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Last I checked, both of these groups literally lost, being arrested by the FBI and driven off by the National Guard (and then also arrested by the FBI), respectively. Neither actually achieved the goal of their confrontation with the US government. That's because they are entitled white people that weren't really trying very hard. The response to them rambling around was so anemic that any given level of school shooter level intensity from like....3 people at the insurrection? And we have a lot of dead senators. It was that close for awhile there. And there is literally no way for the authorities to know it was going to go that way. With the level of response they put forth there was no way for them to instantly put themselves on a more aggressive footing. If that bunch of entitled dipshits really decided they wanted things to get violent, they wouldn't have been stopped. How does that factor into your metric? The fact that entitled white people can literally get away with treason if it's framed the right way? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Once again, these arguments that an insurgency against the US government could definitely be successful all seem to rely on complete fantasy. "Oh it would have worked if they really tried". There was literally gunfire through a door, on one side of which was a mob of angry people and on the other was a bunch of senators. The thing that stops them from being dead senators is nobody shot back the other way through that door. That's it. Had as I said 3 people done so? Yeah that's probably more than the authorities on scene could have handled. That's not "Complete fantasy", that's talking about the events that happened and adding something very common in our country, angry people shooting folks they don't like. You know, the reason someone made a gun control thread? And the government wasn't going to magically put a loving tank in front of that door the second the angry boomers started popping off. You have a completely irrational level of esteem for the United States government and it's competence, and also a complete misunderstanding of how things like tanks and jets and nukes work. For instance, the US government had guns and jets and tanks and nukes when the insurrection happened. And even though the distance between people nominally calling for the death of senators and the senators themselves was at one point like.....20 feet? None of that sort of thing really showed up in force. Nothing actually showed up in force for quite awhile. What do you imagine is the practical difference you can easily spot between a "For real coming to kill people" insurrection and the out of shape white people version we got? What magic pig signal do you think goes into the air to summon the real response team, and not the limp dick one that was there? How fast do you think they can respond at any given point? Or, bottom line, if 3 people had started firing back through that door what is the difference in response you imagine that the government could have taken to immediately shut down their efforts?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Xombie posted:You can't come up with an example where the US government actually lost. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Xombie posted:This is demonstrably untrue. Autonomous, breakaway, and secessionist regions exist the world over with governments that continued to exist after capitulating or brokering ceasefires. Free Derry, MAREZ, etc. ....there aren't successful examples of it in your sentence. The Free Derrys, of which there were a few, all ended bloody. The Zapatistas have their own shitshow going on, but it's not exactly been a banner.....like 30 loving years in Chiapas.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The frustrating thing about all this is no gun ownership arguments apart from hunting stand up to scrutiny yet nothing will ever be done on a national level. .....what made you think rational arguments meant anything in any level of life, at all? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 13:12
|
|
|
And some rear end in a top hat would talk about a magic box that could carry you from point A to point B and bring up similar fatality numbers and go IT'S CARS THE MAGIC BOX IS CARS. Or they'd say "My being responsible a responsible owner is all I can control, and irresponsible owners are outside my ability to influence.", or one of a thousand other arguments that have been hashed out before or since. We go long enough and someone will talk about outdoor pools. If you want the real question it's this: How do you convince someone that doesn't care what you think or what happens to you when you are in a position of helplessness and require their intervention? Because that's what it comes down to at this stage. It's either that or election reform. Talking about the merits of gun themselves isn't moving the dial for anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
Xombie posted:You mean the magic box that requires classes and a continually renewed license to operate, which has to be registered with the state and inspected upon being re-registered across state lines? The box where your safe operation of it is under constant, direct, strict police observation and enforcement? You do know that plenty of states do require licenses and renewals both to own a gun, right? Like say....Massachusetts is just that. You need to talk to your local police department, you need to take a firearms course, and you need to get it renewed every....I wanna say six years? There's also strict rules for transport. Like did you think that was a gotcha?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
Xombie posted:You think it's a counterpoint to bring up that a handful of states have strict firearm laws? What exactly is your point with this response? Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the country, tying New York and only beat by Hawaii. What's yours? Driver's licenses are also state based, and states that think it matters put the same level of restrictions on guns. Others didn't because they didn't care. It's not some massive impossibility that is never done, roughly 1/5th the country is required to do it. And no, Massachusetts isn't surrounded by other permit states. Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York are all far more lax. So again: What is your point?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Car licensing and registration is effectively uniform throughout the entire country. There's a variation of 2 years for full license throughout vast swaths of the country, and those are the especially stupid teenage years. So not quite uniform. Nor are the requirements in testing for the various licenses all the same. But I guess it's all 'basically' the same to you. quote:New York has an assault weapons ban and the permit requirements for handguns. That is not "far more lax". New York City has different laws than the entire state, and a whole lot of guns in New York in general require no license to speak of. So yeah, less strict. But again, what is your point beyond random trivia?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Xombie posted:The two I just mentioned are New York state laws. And I didn't mention them! I mentioned the others. Funny how that works right? quote:If you don't want to discuss gun control, you're welcome to go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to be in the thread. ....someone is forcing you to be in this thread? No but serious, what's the conclusion or argument here? It's just a series of disparate facts that amount to nothing. That's not a discussion, it's a loving pub quiz.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I'm not quite sure how you aren't able to connect different facets of "guns should, at the minimum, be regulated at the same level of cars", when "guns should, at the minimum, be regulated at the same level of cars" is what started this thread of discussion. But again, if you're upset that you're discussing it, no one is making you respond. I don't like putting words in people's mouths, it's better people just say they mean straight up. Also, you know, how the whole debate and discussion thing works. You debate and have a discussion, you don't drop random thoughts and then go "GOD JUST INTUIT WHAT I MEANT GEEZ!". Now that you've actually said something that is a point: None of that matters at all to any real problem facing the country. None of the mass shooters would have been caught up by that requirement, nor would any randos buying illegal guns. Fine, go ask your local government to get on that if they aren't already, all seems fairly straightforward and non-objectionable. It like literally any gun control is never going to happen at a federal level, but we've already established all change doesn't have to be federal. It all kind of seems like the most pointless sort of rules lawyering masturbation that follows all gun control conversations. Nothing that matters, but it makes someone feel like they are being the adult in the room...which is all they cared about in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
I mean you can get as aggro as you want, it's not going to change anything. Which is the point unless you are using this as a circle jerk chamber. If everything remains equal and nobody changes their mind "Anti-gun control" wins. For gun control to win you actually have to change minds. You seem a charismatic and persuasive group, I'm sure you have that winning argument right in your pocket. I mean you haven't made it yet but I'm sure it's there. Maybe it's throwing about the word "Gun nut" some more. No? Well poo poo. Plan B?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1536013602846560256?s=20&t=HgBgshsmuVIQxFCSPiEuQw There's no practicalities on the 'Actually getting a gun' side of things. Even at the most extreme it wouldn't have stopped....any mass shooting. Still a lot of good things in there, hope it gets passed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:"6/ The bill clarifies who needs to register as a federal firearms dealer, to make sure that every true commercial gun seller is conducting background checks. This provision could get thousands of additional guns sales into the background check system." It doesn't. Just like the "stop straw purchases" thing doesn't meaningfully impact straw purchases, which of course would require some magic pre-crime technology. Buying a gun is buying a gun, and passing a background check is passing a background check. What you do once you have that gun is beyond the scope of rational policing. Even if you required monthly checks of all registered firearms to prove they are still in your possession someone just goes "It got stolen" and makes a police report. Prove they knowingly trafficked it. You might, but that still doesn't stop the trafficking. It just punishes the crime that happened. The only real gun control in the bill is the boyfriend thing, which is entirely rational poo poo we should have had years ago and may help some people out. It's not perfect, and you can always throw out 'Here's how easily it can fail examples, but at least it's an actual thing done to keep dangerous people with clear intent to harm from having a gun. The rest is meaningless to gun control, but is still real nice to have. e: The gunshow loophole is also less relevant than most people think, as vast swaths of the country require background checks on all firearms purchases, or all handgun purchases in a wider number of states. It'd be nice if it was universal, but it's not really impacting much. Universal acceptance of standards still makes this poo poo easier to parse and deal with. Mulva fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You seem to be doing the futility schtick again. The boyfriend thing is great and I said so? The rest is literally changing nothing about getting a gun. There is no step of any part of the process that is altered in the slightest. e: I'll go one step forward and say I never would have bet on the boyfriend aspect getting dealt with, and it's a legitimate achievement if it makes it into law. Mulva fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The other provisions also address and set up infrastructure to further address gun violence. You know that counts. I talked about that too when I said "The rest is meaningless to gun control, but is still real nice to have.". Like I'm sorry my language isn't glowing enough? This is a good bill as far as things go, and I hope it makes it. I'll throw some emojis in or whatever if that's not enough for you.   
Mulva fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Let me be more specific, since you're doubling down on disingenuousness. If the argument that a given provision is futile is "people will just break the law", then you're making a bullshit argument about whether it will have an impact. "Just" filing a false police report, and, by your own acknowledgement, punishing the related crimes, has an impact on subsequent trafficking practices. .....did you really just say "If you are doing this thing that I invented that's bullshit"? Like my brother in Christ you can just argue against all the stuff I actually say, you do not have to invent an argument nobody made to get mad about. It's a simple point I made, nothing that was illegal is now legal, and nothing that was legal is now illegal. Other than the boyfriend thing it's mostly clarifying language and enumerating punishments for crimes that already existed. And to me the practical changes seem largely impactless. Straw purchasing is exactly as illegal as it was before. People that were straw purchasing are under roughly the same level of threat as they always were. Because hey, if you can prove the crime at all it universally involves a two party [At least] interaction. The person that got the gun and the person they trafficked it to. That's what the crime is. And in pretty much every case of it I've ever heard it also involves more crimes. It's not like "Hey this guy tripped and emptied his duffel bag of illegal guns!". It's "They were involved in a violent altercation related to drug trafficking and had an illegal gun" or something. So you are already on the hook for more poo poo than trafficking itself. It's always been high risk. And you are blowing up over....loving what? The idea that zero increased relative money or jail time added to a crime, that most of the criminals involved have never know the exact details of in the first place, is going to somehow meaningful impact gun control in some way? Ok. How in practical terms will a thing that nobody will ever know in detail impact the risk/reward of committing a crime? Like you must have strong, detailed thoughts considering how hard you came at me on this. I'd like to hear them. e: One big post or two smaller posts, the eternal quandry Cease to Hope posted:It's not just (meaninglessly?) fiddling around with the definition of "for profit". And that means what? Because lets say it's murder or drug trafficking or literally any crime. There are already crimes related to assisting those acts, and the default straw purchase could already be 10 years. At a certain point the potential penalty is "Multiple life sentences". Adding more multiple life sentences is practically meaningless. You are in jail forever, or you are in jail for DOUBLE forever. Who is like "One forever was fine, but I'm not risking double forever!"? Hence practically meaningless, rather than meaningless. It does something, I just don't know who that something impacts. And thus I don't see what it's going to change. Which is the point. To change something. The boyfriend thing is simple. You smack your partner, you can't get a gun and go aggro and shoot them. Guns you have are taken away. That changes something. This straw gun thing? Doesn't change anything I can see. quote:The bill also expands the definition of a gun dealer to include people who sell guns for criminal purposes regardless of whether it's for profit or not. I don't know how meaningful that is in practice. It's not. Again selling a gun for criminal purposes ties you up in a bunch of other poo poo, and we are getting into double super forever life sentences. There's only so many crimes you can throw at people before it's just numbers, and certain crimes like trafficking inherently come with ties to other crimes and other charges. Mulva fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
I had a big post but it's a simple point, so I'll just say it: Name one actual crime where only this law would prosecute a real person who was previously getting away free. Or, barring that, name any given evidence that there is a criminal trend of dealers that are selling to people who they think are sketchy who are not also sure the person is sketchy because they have first hand knowledge of that person's crimes. As a bonus, say how you'd go about proving that that doesn't involve proving another crime that already exists. It's masturbation fodder for law nerds, and specifically law nerds who have never bought a gun and are not envisioning what the process actually is. Buying a gun, getting a background check, they are not massive long term projects that are having you spend hours having a deep conversation with your firearms dealer. If you say more than 20 words to the guy about your personal life you are on the higher end, just like any other consumer purchase. How are you actually collecting evidence that the dealer had knowledge of ill intent? "I HATE ABORTION CLINICS!" and a few bottles of Everyclear in a bag as they walk in? A guy shadowing the person constantly going "No not that one, THAT one, also I hate the Jewish conspiracy to steal our children and destroy our democracy!"? Because considering the amount of time the process involves it'd have to be that clear to prove anything. Who is the dealer that had any idea that a person was a threat that also wasn't personally connected to the purchaser? Where was that hole in our legal system coming from, psychic dealers all over the country? What do you imagine IN REALITY this law will do that couldn't be done before? quote:Also, I think you're exaggerating "double super forever life sentences" here. Armed robbery or aggravated assault are not life sentence crimes. One, armed robbery absolutely can get you life in some places. Two, the entire point of this conversation has you on the hook for multiple crimes. It's not aggravated assault, it's aggravated assault and possession of an illegal firearm. Which top of my head is like 30 years if they really decide to nail you. And then there's whatever nonsense they want to hit you with, and whatever other crimes you may have committed. There wasn't a lack of crimes you could throw at someone in this situation that was holding back law enforcement. And you could make it sixteen life sentences and still give someone 5 years, out in 1 and a half, if you want to them to flip on someone else and get an easy conviction. So I say, again, what was the hole this law is filling and what do you think it will change? Because as I've made clear I think those answers are "It's not covering any new acts" and "I don't imagine anyone is going to change their behavior over it.". What do you imagine it will do, and how? There are good things in this bill. This isn't one of them. It's not bad either, it's just fiddling. Mostly to say they did something I'd imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I mean I just laid out for you why straw purchasing is so hard to prosecute and a bunch of situations where it's now easier to make a case. Yeah, but rephrased that's saying "Here's a bunch of made up examples where this law could be good!". So once again quote:because you only need to show that the gun is knowingly or recklessly sold down a line of traffic to a crime How do you do that? When the average interaction is measured in what can be a handful of minutes, how do you prove any form of malfeasance by a dealer? What, specifically, would you look for? As I said I think the only thing it could be is the type of RADICALLY over the top poo poo I talked about. Like a guy just flat out walking in and saying "I'M GOING TO MURDER EVERY PERSON I SEE WITH THAT GUN, THAT ONE THERE, SELL ME THAT ONE!". The actual interactions between buyer and seller are just as banal as those for a washing machine or car. What, they seemed shady and had needle marks? These are not investigators, these are not psychiatrists, and even if they were they do not have a great deal of time spent with any buyer. Unless there is a preexisting relationship, how are you proving anything?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The main difference is that right now you can have a preexisting relationship and even know for a fact that the next seller is selling it down the line and it's not illegal unless you are (a party to) lying on a 4437 or the actual specific final gun crime itself. ......yes, and that's still true. 12004 isn't particularly wordy, no part of it penalizes you for just selling to someone you know is going to resell. It specifically only delineates drug trafficking, terrorism, and felonies. Technically any crime of less than a year punishment isn't even a problem, if you know someone is going to take it and fire it off wildly in their neighborhood to piss people off you'd have to hope someone gets super aggro in charging the guy if they want to go after the dealer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 10:58
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's a violation if you know someone is going to sell it to down the line to someone who will commit an at-the-time-of-the-sale unspecified crime or to an unspecified prohibited seller, whereas right now they need to prove you are a party to a specific crime or else a specific lie on a 4437. It's lowering the mens rea requirement, like I said. And I said "There is no reality in which you would catch someone for this new law that you wouldn't catch them for nine other things before this.". Circles are fun, lets keep going in this one. quote:Also, right now if a dealer sells to someone they know to be a straw buyer, it's not a crime unless they know this specific gun is being bought for resale, because that's the standard for a lie on 4437. Under the bill, simply knowingly selling to someone you know to be a straw buyer in general is a violation. This is something dealers skate on all the time ATM. Of course it's a crime. It's probably a bunch of crimes depending on circumstances, but even base it's a crime. Straw buying is illegal, and accessory isn't a thing that just started existing with this bill. Knowingly procuring a firearm for a felony isn't magically a thing that people were just flying on because of some gotcha exception, you know that right? There is no exception to being an accessory to a crime because you have an FFL. Where the gently caress are you getting your statistics on this mass of FFL dealers that are just handing out guns to people they know to be illegally purchasing them and just walking away from it because gosh darn it, there just isn't a law against that? Mulva fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I like the sleight of hand here. You're specifically limiting "the rest of the world" to a group that is mainly composed of significantly poorer countries, many of which the US has flooded with guns one way or another. Then the counterpoint would be somewhere like Finland, that has 1/5th the level of gun penetration but *far* less gun deaths. We had a bit over 14,000 gun homicides in the US in 2019. Finland had 5. 1 gun every 4 to 5 people is certainly no US 1 gun to every .9th of a person, but it's not rare either. And yet they don't have a few thousand gun homicides. They had 5. Guns aren't magic death totems that drive people to take life. The problem with America is it's filled with Americans. World would probably be an overall safer place if you disarmed Americans, so good luck with that, but they'd still be Americans when all is said and done. You could take away all their guns and it wouldn't be a massive shock if they passed a law making it legal to own black people again in 5 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
I could walk the steps fairly easily, it's an extension from our current de facto slavery in the monetization of the prison work system and the existing restitution laws. A few rulings is all it'd take to say that forcing someone to work to pay off their debt to the community after incarceration is fine and a racist leaning justice system and you too could have your own black servant again! The only real argument against it is "We've moved past that and it'd never happen.". It's not a particularly tricky legal loophole if you wanted to do it. You just need to be kind of evil and willing to throw out the law. A lot of Republicans want to do it. That's who we are as a culture. "But I'm not!" you might say, and be right, but that's not a what a culture is. It's all of us in aggregate. What happens in spite of those that oppose it defines us as a people. Not you *as a person*, but as a culture. You can be opposed to the standards of your culture, but it does not stop being your culture simply because of that. Relatedly Cease to Hope posted:Yes yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns turn fights into murders and suicidal impulses into deaths much more efficiently than any other options. And American gun policy isn't just the availability of guns, but laws shaping self-defense increasingly into a weapon of offense. That's not some sort of unspecified failing of the American heart, but a policy decision to cater to the fantasy of righteously gunning down a deserving victim. Yes, that we made because we suck. It didn't come down from space wholly formed and overwhelm the minds of Americans. We made these laws and these standards and these aspirations because we wanted to. That's who we are. Again, you miss the point. "Guns turn fights into murders" you say, except we are so loving WILDLY inflated from some others with moderately comparable gun penetration that there has to be more to it. 14k to 5. Don't roll past that number like it didn't happen. Acknowledge it. Internalize it. And actually loving address it. You can have a bunch of guns and it's not going to magically make things worse. At all. If you were a stable and relatively grounded society that is. Which we aren't. Just say that we aren't a well developed or mature society and we aren't equipped to handle guns. That's the truth. Don't pretend guns are the problem. They aren't. Responsible societies absolutely can handle gun ownership. *We* can't. When you pretend that guns are the problem you just leave yourself open to people that will math at you all the places that don't have a problem but do have guns. And then it's just another pointless masturbation break between two groups that aren't doing anything. e: Groovelord Neato posted:Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but I bet Finland's laws are far more restrictive in other ways. As regards to small arms, yes, but others no. And you can still have small arms. And they only got much stricter relatively recently for small arms. The dynamic has always been the same. Strong hunting culture, lots of guns, not even vaguely comparable gun homicides. And it was one country, there's a few more in that 1/5th 1/6th 1/4th gun ownership range that are no-where near us in firearm deaths. The problem isn't the guns. It's us. Wider small arms ownership certainly is one thing that sets us apart from a lot of places. Mulva fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:you've written a bizarre mini-essay about the failings of the american heart and you're demanding that people concede the inherent moral decadence of americans and it doesn't have anything to do with anything I mean if you want to wildly miss the point the most striking firearms laws we've changed for the better in the past like 20 years is to make it slightly harder to kill your partner if you aren't actively married to them but *are* beating the poo poo out of them. It's loving atrocious that was a thing for as long as it was, and that's the best we've gotten. Conversely? The Supreme Court just ruled that the 2nd Amendment trumps New York law and it's desire to put restrictions on public carry, leaving a precedent that could strike down decades of regulation in all sorts of states. What exactly does that ruling mean? Well we'll find out, when largely conservative judges subordinate to ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justices are called on to define the law for you. Culture is all that matters. People are all that matter. America ended up where it is because of who Americans are, and the thing you want could only happen by magical fiat because Americans as is do not want it to happen. And your argument, everyone's argument, for changing that is.....nothing. Just do it. Guns are a problem and deal with them. And the society that would have to actually do that continues to look at you and say "Lol no" and sign a bill that enforces arming fetuses against radical abortionists.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:To resurrect the practice, the states would need to repeal those laws. Or they'd just have to rule that <blank> overrules state law. Like they just did. With guns. And the argument wasn't that "If you take away guns they'd do this". It's that this is who we are, with or without guns.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:What do you know! I was right! And other than universality lots of states have safe requirements, or license requirements, or transportation requirements, and....still blow other nations out of the water in the level of their firearms violence. Yeah, it'd be nice to have universality in our gun requirements. It's not a practical limit to any particular act though. The fact you think it is.....is somewhere between baffling and naive. Like it's illegal to carry a gun loaded. It's also illegal to shoot children in the face. What about the law stops you from putting the bullets in the gun and shooting a child in the face? Do you think if those nations allowed you to legally carry a gun loaded they'd suddenly start killing more children? What did you think you were 'gatcha'ing with that statement?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If the states want to resume convict leasing, they'd repeal the laws. If the states don't want to resume convict leasing, then a judge can't force them to. They can absolutely force them to allow it to happen on a federal level inside their state, and rule that their laws on the books are illegal. They can't physically force everyone to take part, but they could absolutely universalize it's legality in the country on some level. And I defy you to tell me that it's not the sort of thing this Supreme Court would do with a Republican majority and a Republican in the White House. Because I don't think anyone can tell me a limit to what they would do that they are absolutely sure of. We are in the stage of chaos, where we won't know what the limits are until they are hit. *If* they are hit. quote:And all this stuff about the nature of the American soul seems like pure conjecture. ....K. I don't. Good talk? I mean I think the "Wanting to do something" naturally leads to "How you would do it". And the tool to enact change in America is Americans and their social systems. I think the large scale beliefs of Americans, and perhaps more importantly those that control the law, are the most important thing to deal with. Which naturally begs the question of "What are Americans really willing to do about this issue, and what do their law enforcement systems want to do about this issue?". What you want to do is constrained by the reality of what you can do, which is informed by what people will let you do. Do you disagree?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:But why bother getting into the details of it if it doesn't really have anything to do with guns or gun policy in the first place? 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?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's American politics in general. It's hardly limited to guns. If you find discussing American politics futile, I'm not sure what this discussion has for you. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
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 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 13:10
|
|
|
Kalit posted: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)? ....and their state didn't cover it for you?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
Kalit posted:See my above posted response Harold Fjord. Why bother bringing up citizens' views (who 100% do not impact SCOTUS rulings) and congress/the executive branch? Because everything matters. It's not a one part problem. People need to support gun control, their representatives need to support gun control, the courts need to support gun control. If any part of that process fails, you get nothing. The people and their representatives can support gun control, but if the courts say "Lol nah" it's done. Now you need their representatives to support gun control and holding the courts to task. The representatives of the people and the courts can support gun control, and if the people don't? They elect representatives that don't and will pack the courts. The people and the courts could support it, but if their representatives don't they can make it impossible to do anything. e: Why is that throwing you? Mulva fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
I'm sure the people trying to get sick owns off on the person they need to convince will one day change something. I mean hopefully it's actually being good at delivering sick owns, because it's sure as gently caress not going to be changing gun laws in America. Like you can't say "Man how do I change this fantasy?", follow it up with "Yeah but you hold that fantasy, why would I listen to you?", and then act baffled at why things are the way they are. I don't know, maybe it's because you are poo poo at talking to people? e: Like this in particular is a very personal and specific argument. You are asking how to change minds, and when given a perfect example of a mind you want to change, your first instinct is....attack? That's not going to work on anyone. Mulva fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jul 20, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i hate to inform you, but people arguing on the something awful forums has zero impact on public policy. in fact, this is much more likely to be a defensive and childish reaction to being publicly mocked on a discussion forum - "how dare you make fun of me?! your political policies will never be enacted so long as you continue to post like this" and whatnot And if you were the person talking about changing minds, that'd be be relevant. You don't want to, and that's fine. Someone did talk about changing minds, and if that's their approach, they are a wildly incompetent at it. You are just venting, which is cool, the reality that you impact nothing and dead children are meaningless to the majority of Americans is depressing and people need an outlet. Go off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2022 17:31
|
|