|
Liquid Communism posted:Not like leftists want to hear about it either. We're mostly pretty aware that the right hates us and the centrists are more worried about decorum than who the right is killing as long as it's not their donors, while there is a distinct difference of outcome when it comes to how the police treat their ideological allies. I'm always a little suspicious of any would-be leftist who insists that this particular form of conspicuous consumption is actually praxis.
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
PeterCat posted:There are no inspections or license or insurance requirements to own a car. This is verging on hardcore ancap arguments. Bullets don't stop at property lines, and people get (lawfully!) killed by trigger-happy property owners for coming onto their property for innocent reasons all the time. And these killings are disproportionately done by killers who tend to be white and victims who tend to be non-white.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:My point is comparing car ownership to gun ownership is not the clever comparison people think it is. It absolutely is an appropriate comparison, because like cars, guns are a dangerous possession and a leading cause of death. Little stupid logic puzzle games premised on the straw argument of regulating guns exactly like cars, down to the tiniest detail, don't change that. If you charge in here with, "Ah ha, so you want to require people to wear seatbelts to use a gun? How ridiculous!" you're going to get rightly mocked. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Personally, I find my thoughts about guns based on a handful of core premises that end up leading to incompatible conclusions. First, guns are a hazardous good. Owning a gun makes you a danger, chiefly to yourself but also to everyone around you. If you ever feel suicidal, you're more likely to be dead (as opposed to merely hospitalized or the feeling passing), because guns are more immediately lethal. If you're ever afraid of anyone, having a gun means it's more likely someone's going to die rather than you fleeing or hiding or ending up in a fight that everyone survives. They turn impulse into deadly action, and they do this for everyone, even "responsible" gun owners. Everyone is a responsible owner until they aren't, and a significant portion of gun death is people who are by all visible measures responsible. Guns being a hazardous good means that it's obvious to me that they should be heavily regulated (if not abolished). Cars are a good comparison, as are hazardous workplaces. Second, law enforcement is systemically racist. This has two impacts on guns in general, pointing in opposite directions. Law enforcement is going to do most of the enforcing of any given law regarding personal gun ownership, and, like everything else they do, it's going to be done in a lazy, racist way. But also, right now, police can also execute you because they think or know you have a gun, and are disproportionately more likely to do this to people who aren't white or are visibly not cis/straight. What good is a constitutional right if the de facto state is that police can execute you just because they fear you might be exercising it? Third, gun ownership in the US is largely driven by fantasies. Fantasies that it makes you safer from personal assault, and that it makes you safer from government oppression. These fantasies are both the product of decades of marketing, and I don't feel like they're more realistic when refigured for leftist goals. I do not think personal gun ownership makes you safer if you're black or trans. I do not think guns make you any safer from actual nazis than feminazis, even if actual nazis are more real. Even if you're getting in streetfights against far-right thugs on the regular, Kyle Rittenhouse and Kyle Chapman get to be protected but Michael Reinoehl and Edward Crawford do not. And, finally, conservatives get final say on gun laws in the US right now anyway. From the local level to the Supreme Court, there is no level where gun laws can be passed that won't be struck down or neutered by people who like the racist status quo or subscribe fully to the fantasies. I'm not sure there's any "reasonable" scheme of gun control that can thread that needle. I don't know what can be done to change that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Nope. So long as you never drive it on a public road, it can go untitled forever. Thousands of farm vehicles out in the Midwest and great plains like that, haven't had a title or licence plate in decades but nobody says poo poo when the 14 year old takes the work truck over to feed the horses at 6am . Cool. Who cares? Cars are regulated at the point that is most convenient, which is when they are manufactured, when they are sold and in their main form of use. Guns would need to be regulated somewhat differently, but the need remains the same, as they are a significant danger to the wider community. That remains true on homesteads, where suicide is no less common and shooting innocent "trespassers" still happens with alarming regularity. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:This push for gun control is going to be exactly what gets the gun industry out of the slump, you realize. Nah, this is "this is good for Bitcoin!" magical thinking. If gun control is so great for gun manufacturers, why do they fight it tooth and nail?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Effective gun control would be bad for them. If AWB laws are good for Bitcoin, why did gun manufacturers fight those bans so strenuously? You're dancing around what "effective" means here. Effective at reducing AR sales? Yeah, those laws definitely did that until they ended. Effective at helping people? I'm skeptical. But you're not gonna distract from the vagueness of your argument by grumbling about "the libs". Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Assault rifle bans are chiefly a product of Democratic strategist thinking that they need to be seen to do something, but any gun regulation that would actually reduce gun crime or gun death would be more intrusive and thus more politically untenable. So they just try to ban some really noxiously unpopular guns that are marketed with thinly veiled "own the libs" marketing and are popularly associated with murdering random people outside of gun enthusiast circles. AWB laws are not especially useful laws from a public policy standpoint, but the fact that even very unpopular guns can't be banned shows how completely captured American politics are. The US gun industry and the minority of gun enthusiasts don't have to make even token concessions, even in the face of showy massacres. The cool thing about that "own the libs" marketing is that it dual-codes very nicely for the sort of leftist who falls for this particular conspicuous-consumption-as-praxis narrative. Both John Brown Gun Clubs and the fudds can own the libs together! Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
Vox you seem really optimistic that the NRA collapsing means the tables are about to turn, but it hasn't led to any actual legislation so far as I know. And New York State Rifle is almost certainly about to significantly limit any possible gun licensing laws. I feel like the chilling effect of Heller far outweighs any supposed momentum from one lobbying org falling apart.
Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 04:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Obama's actual policies and actual campaign platform didn't matter. What he said on the campaign trail didn't matter. Whether or not he was going to propose anti-gun legislation didn't matter. What did matter was that the NRA was in bed with the GOP, and they were willing to say whatever it took to make sure the GOP won - even if it meant making poo poo up. Ironically this paralysis for fear of RW backlash that Liquid Communism is pushing is a common liberal failure, one Obama in particular suffered from badly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
I read the thread, yeah. What I don't see is any bill with 50 votes in the Senate to remove the filibuster or 60 votes to overcome one, nor any state legislature willing to waste time on a law that could be used as a test case for another Heller-esque ruling guaranteeing a constitutional right to large-cap magazines or open carry in schools or some horrendous poo poo. The ATF reshuffling the deck on some technical points seems minor, since admin law is temporary at best and the Supreme Court also seems poised to gut admin law in general with the EPA case. You need to be optimistic because nothing good has happened yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The entire status of "cop" entails "above the law". True, but it would still be a real get if that law disqualified people convicted of domestic abuse from being cops. It would be a pleasant surprise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:As far as the "too crazy to own a gun list," considering that homosexuality was listed as a mental illness until fairly recently, such a law could be used to keep LGBTQ people from owning a firearm. Consider also that gun suicide generally outnumbers gun homicide 2:1, and that people with MH issues are disproportionately more likely to be the victims of assault with a gun than the perpetrators. All of the discourse about whether mass shooters are mentally ill (they generally are not) obscures everyday suicide and homicide, which are much larger concerns even if they are less flashy ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Seems like a good argument for a functioning mental health system. It is indeed. But the suggestion that we must fix literally everything about society before discussing guns is a common distraction argument against gun control. Suicidality, mental illness, and the urge to violence will still exist, and guns make all of them worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 05:19
|
|
|
Part of the problem with red flag MH laws is that they discourage people from seeing help for MH issues, for fear of losing access to their guns. But, conversely, the best intervention for someone at risk of suicide is to get guns out of their house immediately. But as long as gun culture is preaching the fantasy that owning a gun gives you a measure of control and safety, you have this trap, where people feel less in control and thus feel more need for something putting them in greater danger. Even left-leaning gun forums have people cheering each other on at "I'd never tell a doctor I have a gun in the house" and "I'd never tell a doctor I'm depressed." The ubiquity of guns is an obstacle to doing anything systemic about mental health. Ultimately, people care more about having guns than they care about their life, or the lives of their neighbors, or the lives of their children. What do you do in the face of that? Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 06:26
|
|
|
Didn't see this posted. Here's a list of things that didn't pass muster in negotiations with Republicans: https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1536450216722944005 (Cornyn is the seniormost Republican Senator.) Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 08:40
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Why is safe storage "unconstitutional" lol. Bearing in mind that I think Heller's wrongly decided: He's correct that it's currently unconstitutional. This is specifically what the US Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in DC v Heller. In addition to broadly deciding that owning a gun for the purpose of defending your home is a constitutional right, it specifically struck down a DC law that guns in the home had to be kept unloaded and locked up. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 09:27
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:This is pretty much a litmus test for how alien the gun control issue is in the US compared to the rest of the world, as those points would be pretty baffling for anyone in any other country that's not some kind of Somalian anarchy state. Those points are broadly popular among Americans in general. I don't know of any polling on the subject, but I don't even think most people know handgun bans and "you must keep your guns locked up" laws are unconstitutional, despite Heller being 14 years old now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 10:14
|
|
|
Suspicion of having a weapon is already probable cause.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Tell that to Amadou Diallo. who was famously unarmed and dead? i don't take your meaning. i already said i think the supposed right to bear arms is fake because anything the police can execute you for isn't a right.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2022 04:30
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:There ya go, you think it's alright that the police use "Suspicion of having a weapon" as probable cause. stating a fact is not endorsement of that fact. all gun control exists in a context where the de facto law of the land is that police can execute people for the suspicion of being armed, and do so in a racist way. (also bigoted along other lines: ableist and cissexist in particular.) guns-at-will and the increasing trend towards stand-and-fight self defense upholds white supremacy as a result. to suggest that gun control is racist requires you to at least consider the ways the existing guns-at-will status quo is racist. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Jun 15, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2022 09:43
|
|
|
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. This includes the current guns-at-will regime that you've been arguing cannot be changed for fear of racism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
tl;dr: existing DV red flag laws only cover someone convicted of stalking or domestic violence against a partner they cohabit(ed) with, have a child with, or (once) married. the hope is that this bill will extend those laws to cover people stalking victims that they never had a relationship with and people in less permanently linked romantic relationships. it's not guaranteed that this will happen, chiefly because of republican opposition.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
well, nevermind then i guess https://twitter.com/marianne_levine/status/1537576468297011201
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
I am still reading through this bill but a lot of it is sunsetting funding for programs to be implemented at the state level. Meanwhile, at the state level, you have legislative efforts like Missouri attempting to nullify all federal gun laws within state boundaries. (Last I heard, a challenge was working its way through Missouri courts, with a separate federal challenge happening in parallel.) e: Since nobody linked it, here is the draft bill. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
The federal red flag laws are being expanded to add people convicted of domestic abuse who are in "a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature," specifically excluding "a casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in a business or social context". Looks like covering stalkers or people under ROs is out. States have temporary funding to set up their own programs. There's also a massive overhaul to how FFLs work and idk if I'm really qualified to explain what's changed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
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." Oh, that part I can tell you. It's not getting closed, although the definition of gun dealer is getting a little more specific. The "gun show loophole" is that personal sales have a much smaller set of regulations, chief among them no background check, and sales at gun shows are frequently private sales. The existing loophole of FFL dealers transferring guns to their nominal private collection to sell them privately still exists (except in the states where this does not bypass FFL background checks or where such private sales are not allowed). The new wording for who is a dealer is: "the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection" or "a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism" (with a definition of "terrorism" that, among other things, specifically excludes American nationals and permanent residents).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
Mulva posted: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. It's not just (meaninglessly?) fiddling around with the definition of "for profit". It also creates a new, consolidated crime of knowingly selling a gun to someone who intends to commit a felony, knowingly selling to another straw purchaser (which is AFAICT new), or knowingly sell or receive (the latter is new) a gun if that sale or receipt is a felony. This is a lot clearer than the previous laws on the subject, and AFAICT covers some of the corner cases. It's not "pre-crime" to have a new definition of a crime that includes proof of intent. It doesn't and can't possibly cover accidental straw purchasing (or intentional straw purchasing that can't be proven to be intentional), but... that's just how mens rea works. 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. Discendo Vox posted:The other provisions also address and set up infrastructure to further address gun violence. You know that counts. The other provisions involve a lot of time-limited grants with objectives but not plans or mandates AFAICT. It's right to be skeptical of those. 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. It's also fair to be skeptical of the ATF when it comes to enforcing gun trafficking laws. This new one is stronger I think but there's history here, and pointing it out isn't "disingenuous" or a "futility thing". Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
Mulva posted: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. Hold up, hold up. You're just factually wrong on the law on this one. The main difference is that it makes it easier to charge people, and adds a new crime of selling a gun to someone who you know is going to commit an unspecified felony. The main change is that every knowing link in a trafficking chain is now individually culpable for a crime, rather than needing to prove that they were all conspiring together or that someone is part of a conspiracy to lie on a FFL check (ATF Form 4473). Picture a trafficking chain. The dealer Adam is selling to the straw purchaser Barbara, who is selling to the additional straw purchaser Charlie, who is selling to the prohibited possessor Donna. Right now, the crimes are Adam, for aiding and abetting Barbara in lying on her FFL form if he knows that Barbara intends to give or sell the gun to a prohibited possessor, or intends at the time of the A-B sale to immediately resell the gun. (Since Charlie is not a prohibited possessor, this is nearly impossible to charge in practice unless Adam can be shown to be party to a conspiracy with Charlie or Donna.) The A-B sale is legal even if he knows Barbara intends to immediately dispose of the gun, since that isn't considered lying on ATF Form 4473 question 21a. (Otherwise, buying a gun from a dealer with the intent to give it as a gift would be a crime.) Barbara is committing a crime by lying on her FFL (assuming she is lying and didn't just change her mind the moment she walked out the door), but isn't committing a crime by selling to Charlie unless she knows specifically that Charlie intends to sell to Donna (which would be aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)). Charlie is committing a crime under 18 U.S. Code § 922(d) and Donna is committing a crime under 18 USC § 922(g) or (n), and nothing changes for Charlie or Donna unless Donna is beating her non-cohabiting partner. Under the bill, Adam is now culpable if he has reason to believe Barbara is going to change her mind, rather than snapshotting Barbara's intent at the time of the sale. This makes it a lot easier to go after dealers. It also makes it easier to go after intervening links in a chain of straw purchases: Barbara is now culpable if she has reason to believe that Charlie is going to traffic the gun to a prohibited possessor. Previously the B-C sale was legal even if she knew C intended to resell it. Previously, you had to tie Barbara to Donna in a conspiracy; now Barbara is culpable for selling guns down the line. Additionally, let's say Donna is a legal possessor but intends to commit a crime. Right now, that's not a crime for anyone unless they can be shown to be Donna's accomplice. Under the bill, that's a crime for everyone, and a serious one, a felony with up to 25 years imprisonment. Right now, selling a gun recklessly to a legal possessor who's clearly about to commit a crime is very hard to charge; this new bill's standard is "knowing or with reasonable cause to believe". This is a big new change, and, again, making this a separate crime rather than needing to include someone in a conspiracy makes it easier to charge traffickers. It also beefs up the penalties for everyone, going from 10 years up to 15 years, plus the new rider for selling/trafficking to someone about to commit a crime. It also adds a new uncapped fine of up to twice the gross profits from trafficking. These are very fiddly changes, and most of the improvements are cutting out corner cases and requiring more responsibility to know your buyer. This is good. It's not revolutionary, but it is good. Mulva posted: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. I think the main effect is that it makes you culpable in the ways dealers are culpable even if you're a private citizen. I'm not sure that does anything with the new trafficking law that applies as much to private sales as dealer sales, though. It's also possible I'm misunderstanding this part. Also, I think you're exaggerating "double super forever life sentences" here. Armed robbery or aggravated assault are not life sentence crimes. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
Mulva posted: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. 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. You're saying that there's something that people could be charged with, but the fact that the mens rea requirement is now much lower is a significant change. The closed hole is that it was very difficult to charge people with gun trafficking or straw purchasing before and now it will be easier, because you only need to show that the gun is knowingly or recklessly sold down a line of traffic to a crime, not that the seller was specifically aware that the next possessor was lying on 4437 or is a prohibited possessor. This is on top of expanding prohibited possessors to include more cases of DV. That's a clear-cut new case. It's not enough. But "enough" is a line on the far side of Heller.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
Mulva posted: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? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 10:26
|
|
|
Mulva posted:......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. 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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 11:40
|
|
|
Mulva posted: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? For one, yes. People were skating on it all the time because of that gotcha exception. You are arguing that someone could, conceivably, be charged for a crime. You're not wrong, but it doesn't reflect the actual reality. In practice current law makes it extremely difficult to make a case, so charges are relatively rare even when the relationship is really blatant. (Admittedly, a lot of this is due to the fact that the ATF is generally incompetent, plus political/cultural pressures that discourage investigation. That part won't change. ACAB and usually lazy to boot, ofc.) For another, you're fixated on a strict A-B sale when the change is that it's easier to prosecute each link in the chain of A-B-C-D-etc. Right now, it becomes increasingly more difficult to charge someone as an accomplice as the relationship becomes more diffuse, making it harder to argue someone is involved in a crime in a second-, third-, fourth-order way. (The fact that you're talking about being an accessory kinda gives me the impression you don't have any idea what you're talking about, too.) We're going in circles because you're refusing to meaningfully engage with what changed, in pursuit of an argument that nothing changed. That's on you. It's not hard to compare numbers of rejected 4473 (not 4437, whoops) applications (a half million annually) to actual prosecutions for those violations (hundreds). And these are all clear-cut cases of people attempting to buy guns illegally. It's a reasonable extrapolation to look at that and assume that the anecdotes of the ATF letting people skate are part of an unmeasurable systemic problem. I am not exactly making a big claim here, either. This is cutting back the corner cases on a small part of the larger problem. Making it a little bit harder for prohibited possessors to get guns isn't dealing with first-time crimes or crimes of passion, which are common, or suicide, which dwarfs homicide by two to one. Tackling the real cause of the problem, that guns are everywhere and outnumber people at this point, lies on the far side of Heller. It's nice that blatantly shady dealers and straw purchasers are a little easier to go after but the practical impact is going to be small.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Do you have any data on the basis of rejection? There's all sorts of room for confounding factors here, it seems like quite a leap from "government rejected a form" to "hundreds of thousands of crimes just being ignored apparently." The ATF doesn't collect it. The tracking on this is horrible, in large part because the current laws are so indirect and require so much charging people with conspiracy to do thus-and-such or as accomplices for this-or-that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
the tl;dr is that "may issue" CC permits are now "shall issue" effective immediately, and there's now a calvinball historical basis test that a literally century-old law does not meet. not the worst possible ruling because it left most of new york's gun licensing law intact, but it's open season for federal appeals courts to legislate from the bench, and basically guarantees SCOTUS will be ruling on guns again in the next few years.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I've been assured that a legally armed citizen can't stop a shooting, but there it is. No, you've convinced yourself to accept an ocean of blood to offer you this opportunity to indulge in the fantasy of being one of the vanishingly rare "good guys with a gun". Why was there a shooting that needed stopping in the first place? It's the ubiquitous guns.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This implies a level of control that I don't think exists for any of us. I don't think anyone's implying that PeterCat is secretly a legislator, just that it's reasonable to criticize the consequences of his argument that ubiquitous guns keep anyone safe. It's also a crosspost that isn't particularly responsive to anything anyone has said, and motte-and-bailey nonsense where he refutes an exaggerated argument that nobody is making to boot. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jun 28, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
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? having a gun doesn't make you safer from the cops
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
the police can clearly just lie
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It absolutely does include them. Police are given power over other members of the public by the state, and act as its agents. Who is "we" here? People changing the subject, to imply that gun control can't possibly happen until the police are no longer racist, poverty no longer exists, and people with mental illness are all treated with compassion. But the rest of the world has racist police, and poverty, and mental illness, and yet does not have widespread gun death for some reason. The guns are the gun problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 12:17
|
|