|
Freakazoid_ posted:We will never have adequate gun control until we can change or eliminate the second amendment. There's actually a pretty good short documentary about the second amendment and its relevance to private gun ownership: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-e46xdcUo The interpretation that folks cling to was a fringe legal theory bandied around in the seventies which was then popularized slowly over the next few decades. You almost certainly have been alive longer than this has been a mainstream political position. Baronash fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Jun 2, 2022 |
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:At a certain point talking about gun control in the United States feels a bit masturbatory. It's been almost 25 years since columbine and it's only getting worse. I'm not saying it's hopeless, but I think the question of "what" to regulate is far less important than the "how". For example, there is a large bipartisan consensus for universal background checks and yet there doesn't seem to be a way to get it passed. What mechanisms can feasibly be used to curb gun violence and how can more be created or exploited? Obviously, outright banning the ownership of all guns with the possible exception of bolt action rifles and break-action shotguns would be the most effective solution. I don't particularly see one solution as any more tenable than the next, but if we're pretending there might be solutions that aren't directly restrictions on what you can own, I'm partial to requiring active membership in a gun club in order to purchase and own firearms. That way, you're enforcing some sort of regular interaction with others before anyone can purchase a firearm, and hopefully that can act as a barrier to folks who are actively noxious to those around them. Clubs would be required to report membership information on attendance and sales, and you'd run them through an auditing process aimed at drumming out straw purchasers. Obviously it creates some of its own problems, not the least of which being a potential for becoming its own radicalization path. However, you stand a much greater chance of holding those enablers to account when one of their members is involved in a mass shooting than you do some discord server.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
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.Liquid Communism posted:I'm a big fan of prohibited purchasers actually being prohibited, but don't want to get another 'what's due process precious' situation like the no-fly list.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You probably start by trying to do a better job defining the problem because while the bolded may look accurate from your perspective, it is not and framing it that way does you no favors among the crowd you allegedly wish to persuade. What part of that do you take issue with? It’s pretty well established at this point that gun ownership increases your risk of dying in a gun-related incident, and does not turn you into the protagonist of a Clint Eastwood movie. Baronash fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Jul 20, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Yes. The current discussion is not what is the best public policy or way to make it, but how to ever move towards implementation via changing the other side. What was the goal behind this unbelievably tedious chain of posts? You've engineered this tired "debate me, you cowards" routine where you alone are the arbiter of what is acceptable discourse. What positive outcome do you expect from pulling this Steven Crowder-esque "I don't care about your logic, facts, or the caskets of dead schoolchildren dumped at my front door. Change my mind." bit you're doing? Here you go: You win. We are all incapable of convincing you. The world isn't written by Aaron Sorkin, and your mind isn't going to be changed by some great piece of oratory. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Mulva posted:If nothing happens to you because of it, how are you less safe? You having that option makes your neighborhood and country less safe. Which obviously doesn't matter, as you've decided that the potential positive effect of saving your own life or that of someone close to you (however slim to non-existent that effect may be) outweighs the negative externalities of legal gun ownership that mostly kills or maims people you don't give a poo poo about. That's not some consequence exclusive to guns, it's just far more clear cut with guns than it is with tax policy or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Mulva posted:Not really, because I had to read this post like five times just to be sure I wasn't missing something, because even if I were parodying my interlocutor I still wouldn't write something this mind-bendingly dumb and bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2022 00:31
|
|