|
Pass a federal gun law that says that weapons can only be sold to a well-regulated militia, with a set of requirements for what a militia is.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
"We need guns to protect ourselves from government overreach and tyranny!" says the country with the most prisoners, disenfranchised citizens and police killings. "We need guns to hold the government accountable!" even as the corruption index gets worse every year. "We need good guys with guns to protect us from the bad guys with guns!" says the country with the most mass shootings, where any violent crime is way more likely to be deadly than anywhere else in the industrialized world.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
I sure wish the gun nuts would make up their mind on if a AR-15 and other military style semi-auto rifles are a lethal necessity that will let them stand up to the full weight of the entire army, or absolutely no different than a hand-gun and we're only banning it 'cause it looks scary. Because it can't be both.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:I sure wish liberals would stop trying to empower the government right before it tips into the GOP's hands forever. You guys should move out to idaho and form a commune or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Stating "there are tanks" doesn't create tanks. The tanks are there whether you admit them or not. It isn't Schroedinger's cat. No, the point is that hundreds of children must die every year so that leftists can have zero-friction access to military style semi-automatic weapons, it's actually the lesser of two evils. Ignore the fact that the fascists are actually way more likely to have them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You're confusing correlation with causation and somehow that has you attacking people with the least power to do any of the things you want. No, you're right, zero-friction access to weapons that only exists in america can't possibly be related to our several orders of magnitude higher levels of gun violence and deaths both here and in all the countries that our guns end up being smuggled into, it's just a coincidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Correlation is in fact a relationship. You may notice some etymological similarity if you examine the words closely. And masterbation ends with the same suffix, you might be on to something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:yes, europe is also happy to jail people for their ideas. why would you feel opressed? you've never experienced freedom The most important freedom is the freedom to literally be a nazi, i suppose? Nah man, I'm totally good with that level of oppression. Liquid Communism posted:You should tell that to SCOTUS. They seem to have stated repeatedly that self defense stands up to their level of scrutiny. Not that they're universally correct, but trying to pretend the argument you personally believe 'reasonable' is the only one isn't going to get far in discussion. There's legal scrutiny and logical/statistical scrutiny. If I invented a magic box that you could put in your house and told you that it would protect your property from bad people, but for every time it protected your property from a bad person, 11 good people were killed, you wouldn't buy the loving box. Dietrich fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
Mulva posted: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. People are always talking about how you should buy outdoor pools to make your family safe. Harold Fjord posted:Is this how you think owning a gun works in practice at the individual level? This isn't how statistics apply to reality at all so it's a really super ineffective argument at the individual level. Of course not or I wouldn't own my gun, but the fact remains that owning one makes you and all your loved ones less safe than not owning one. The self defense argument does not hold up to scrutiny.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 14:12
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You should sell your gun. I don't know how you can make these bad statistical arguments with a straight face while owning one. I need it to join the glorious people's revolution and defend myself from the roving hordes of fascist kill squads that will spontaneously appear in 6 months if I don't have it, remember? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Okay sure funny haha but can you actually reconcile gun ownership with the various bad arguments you've made? Because it's pretty glaring what a massive hypocrite you are. I have a pump action 12 gauge shotgun, not a military-style semi-automatic rifle or a handgun. It is stored safely and securely. It still is more dangerous than not having it, but I'm not the one arguing that having this weapon makes me safer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
I think this is the point where we're supposed to talk about how the state borders aren't mile high impenetrable walls and state/local gun control measures can only do so much.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Yes, people with a history of severe depression shouldn't own a gun. But the other statistics are complete rubbish. Statistically some people are careless with their firearms so that must mean you will be too! Statistically some people keep a gun in the house for criminal reasons, so having a gun increases the likelihood that you'll commit a crime with it! This is exactly why we everyone should be permitted to drink and drive. Just because some people get into accidents doesn't mean that I will get into an accident. If we tried to make it illegal to do things just because some people doing those things killed themselves or others then we wouldn't be able to do anything!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:We've already discovered that you're arguing from a position of hypocrisy but now this bad faith garbage? Make sure you tear down that straw man real good for everyone to see, gun ownership is exactly the same as drunk driving you see. You're literally arguing that gun death statistics don't apply to you because you're real safe and careful-like. No public policy should ever be passed to reduce the danger that guns pose to the public because you're special.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
Xombie posted:That isn't bad faith or a straw man. The same poster thinks owning a shotgun while saying that it should be harder to buy semi-auto handguns and rifles is hypocrisy, so I don't think logic is their strong point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Wrong. The hypocrisy is posts like this: I didn't buy a magicbox to make my house safer, I bought a dangerbox to shoot birds for fun. I hope this helps?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:I'm glad the line in the sand is being drawn based on the thoughts in your head prior to purchase. By the way, murdering animals for fun is absolutely psychotic. Seek help. The argument was about if guns make you safer. They do not. Owning a gun doesn't mean you are unable to make this argument or risk hypocrisy, so long as you did not buy it for the purposes of being safer. Just like logic 101 here pal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Again: if you don't want to discuss gun control, maybe you shouldn't be in thread whose title is "Gun Control." You don't get to just amble into the conversation and declare it moot and everyone has to move on. One of the favorite approaches of gun-nuts is to point out how policy a wouldn't help with gun suicides, so we shouldn't do it, policy b wouldn't help with mass shootings, so we shouldn't do it, and policy c wouldn't help with violent crime, so we shouldn't do it. Never mind that policy a was supposed to address mass shootings, while b was for violent crime and c was for suicides. Their stance is that you must address ALL PROBLEMS that guns pose with a single policy change or do nothing! Since any given policy is incapable of addressing everything at the same time, then the only thing that will work is forced buybacks and police going door to door shooting people who have guns.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
I think the approach of the anti-choice crowd (which itself, was modeled off of the civil rights crowd) should be taken. While passing "do nothing" bills seems like putting an eye-dropper on a fire, the fact of the matter is we just need to get the republicans to agree that yes, gun control is something that should exist, and yes, gun control is constitutional, the same way that republicans got democrats to agree with their fetal protection laws that fetuses should have rights. From there you can take the next step towards getting them to agree that it would be constitutional to have universal background checks or a federal gun database with mandatory registration, and so on. This approach is slow and methodical but is proven to work eventually. What we need is for the gun control crowd to understand that progress is progress and you're not going to find one weird trick to suddenly convince all of the GOP to do an about face on gun control or to give up their structural advantages in the legislature, instead of making GBS threads all over and trying to remove the politicians that advance these policies as do-nothing democrats because they didn't waste political capital advocating for laws that will never pass in the current climate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 13:44
|
|