|Marlon Brawndo |
dairyqueenlatifah, you really must disagree with her!
It's long been their stance. They won't say, but they feel that these tragedies are worth it for them to have their manlyness extenders.
wtf? how could anyone 1 star? shaved head the problem? "what do kids know anyway"?? fuck sake.. i mean fuck sake... how many child bodies need to be ripped apart by bullets? 100? 100000? the fuck needs to happen before the SO FUCKIN OBVIOUS solution is applied?
wait.. what's the "so fucking obvious" solution? please don't tell me it's "gun laws"
attack causes not symptoms.
gun laws. when kids are being shot, in their schools, in critical numbers then you apply the method that's been shown to be the most effective to stem the violence. i don't see why this is at all controversial.
Gmork: I think you're mislead by your 'attack causes not symptoms' belief. The cause of traffic fatalities is insufficient reaction driving conditions (broadly construed) such that accidents happen. But clearly reducing the speed limit does have an effect on fatalities since accidents at greater speeds tend towards more fatalities. That's sensible.
What's your alternative? More restrictive driver training and licensing requirements? (That's akin to gun control!)
Let people drive as fast as they want and just wait for airbag/seat belt/roll cage technology to catch up? (The gun equivalent is that we all walk around in built proof vests and safe cages and have highly armed security everywhere?)
it hasn't been the most effective, so I'm not sure why you said that.
I've said my piece a few times on here, so I won't start a shitstorm, but basically I just think:
(A) Some tragedies are unavoidable. An unpopular opinion, I know, and certainly not the foundation of my perspective, but I feel it's a factor you can't ignore. The treatment (not solution) is to be more aware of those around you, and make it an awareness issue in general. Shitty, hard to follow advice that real life will inevitably show you doesn't always work, and doesn't feel "actiony" enough. Leading to the temptation to legislate. Which brings me to:
(B) Due to the proliferation and quantity of firearms, I don't agree with you that legislation is going to have any real impact on the ability of anyone, kids or adults, to gain access to firearms. There are a plethora of ways for anyone to gain access to a firearm without going through legal means. A would-be school shooter's parents might own guns, or a parents friends might, or otherwise someone they know. Then it becomes a mental health/awareness/use a fucking gun locker issue. You can try to do something about the number of guns in circulation, but I think we all know how well that would turn out if "gun grabbing" actually became a semi-legitimate concern for the right/gun rights advocates. That actually might be a real potential catalyst for some kind of horrible civil upheaval. There's a lot of sabre-rattling over stuff like this on the right, but this is something I think is so intrinsic to their perspective that going after guns so overtly might actually cause something to happen.
Hopefully we're right and they're all just cowards at heart who would never dare jeopardize their actual lives, and reveal that this was just another hill for them to defend blindly but they actually may abandon it.
But you never know.
I'm getting all ranty. Oops. Anyways, I think it's a complex problem with no clear solution other than awareness and striving for a society which causes people to snap less often, whatever that entails.
I am all for common-sense gun laws, but I don't include arbitrary denial of certain weapon types sensible. I'm sorry if that makes me unreasonable here.
I'd like the gun show loophole closed. I'd be all-for some kind of trust-based system that takes years to reach some kind of level where you have legal access to an automatic. Perhaps coupled with mandatory and routine firearm safety training, that if you fail gets your gun license revoked. I dunno, I'm spitballing here.
In California you basically already have that because to get access to that level of hardware you need to technically be a licensed "dealer", and the amount of hoops you need to jump through to get there and the number of lists you get on makes you pretty conspicuous. Which is how you should be if you've got access to such things.
Alright I'm done talking. Bash away.
what factors do you think cause american students to start killing their classmates at a rate higher than any other nation with a similar educational system gmork
|Binro the Heretic |
Eat shit, DQL.
From what I've heard, now is not the time to discuss gun control.
Fuck republicans. Fuck all of them until they die.
This young woman gives me a tiny sliver of hope. That's saying a lot.
dql is the new orcs
We should have metal detectors and armed security in schools to stop the next problem as soon as it starts (and it will).
Binro the Heretic
Or we could just do what every sane country in the world did: Get rid of assault weapons & tightly regulate all other firearms.
The problem with that approach is that criminals will break the law to get guns. That is because they are criminals and don't follow the law. Look at what happened in Chicago - over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes despite their tough gun laws. Schools are already supposed to be gun-free zones but the lunatics and criminals who attack them don't follow the law. That's why we need armed security there to confront the next attacker when the next attack occurs.
The answer is not going to be found in reflexive and impossible bans on guns.
The best approach is to provide security at the final point of threat.
"It's against the law to rob gas stations but people keep doing it so let's just make it legal."
"The answer is never going to be the very same thing that has worked everywhere else in the civilized world"
Nikon, the issue is an ought. Ought we rearrange our entire public lives and what it means to go out in public in society (school, shopping, sports games, the store, etc) so that we're safe from a minority of gun owners who can cause a lot of damage? Or ought we do what requires less effort and change and restrict the kinds of guns one has access to? Why should we change what it means to go out in public, to school, to the movies, just so some people can have guns that are semi-automatic?
The "unfettered individual right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which has only held sway since DC v. Heller (2008), has to go, or the entire amendment will be repealed.
Other countries have fairly high rates of gun ownership, and low rates of gun violence. In New Zealand, for example one applies for a 10-year license for gun ownership, and to obtain it one must decline the right to privacy, permitting a check of health records, and one's house is visited by a state employee, who conducts a questionaire and checks the gun safes on site.
Gun ownership in other countries is a privilege, not a right. This is the sane approach to the advances in firearm technology of the last 200 years.
Wonder why this winded up as a reply, here.
Meerkat and betamaxed with the false equivalencies. Also beta - it hasn't worked everywhere else. Ignoring Nikon's very poignant example about Chicago seems beneath you. Why not show up for this discussion instead of spout rhetoric? We're all friends at the end of the day. I'm sure neither of us wants anyone to be murdered. Let's start there. We clearly have different ideas about what will or wont work. Why not just talk civilly about why/why not?
gmork the problem with chicago is that laws aren't universal across state lines. The guns are getting smuggled in from wisconsin and indiana. A simple google search will show this regular right wing talking point about chicago's gun laws is easily refuted with some basic facts. For example:
"And there's good evidence that being next-door to those states keeps Chicago criminals well-supplied with guns. A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than _60 percent_ of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns."
This article is especially telling:
"With no permit or license required to purchase a gun in Indiana, it is incredibly easy for a trafficker to drive across the state line, obtain a gun and use it to commit a homicide on the streets of Chicago.
Those with felony convictions commonly use straw purchases, in which they enlist someone with a clean record to purchase multiple guns and bring them into the city.
Law enforcement officials say 60 percent of the guns confiscated on the streets of Chicago come from Indiana, Wisconsin and Mississippi. _The other 40 percent come from suburban Cook County and nearby suburbs._"
BTW the "Chicago is proof that gun laws don't work" nonsense was spouted by Trump well over a year ago in response to the mass shooting where 26 people were murdered in a church in texas. If someone is willingly parroting the talking points of a man that once sold vacuum sealed overpriced steaks with his name on it through the sharper image then I doubt it's possible to have any sort of reasonable discussion about effective gun policies with them.
The problem with arguing with "debating" someone on the internet is half the time, you're not dealing with a person, you're dealing with a semi-sentient personality disorder.
She's got 500 times the amount of actual edge than you do dql, monkey napoleon, f3ar, et al. And we know it scares you.
|Mr. Purple Cat Esq. |
From an outside perspective the 'issues' which are hotly debated in the US can be hilarious.
Whether poor people should just be left to die in the street.
Whether corporations should be regulated in *any* meaningful way, or shall we just embrace anarchy.
Whether *everyone* should or should'nt have access to deadly military grade weaponry
Seriously, its like watching whimsical comedy of errors. I only wish the US didnt have so much influence globally.
Mr. Purple Cat Esq.
Its precisely like ye are hotly debating whether pants or shoes go on first.
Mr. Purple Cat Esq.
Statement on Visit to the USA, by Professor Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.
Who would like to volunteer to go around taking all the guns away? You might want to bring a gun when you go.
Also automatic weapons are not easy to get. Why do people keep saying this?
Binro the Heretic
The vast majority of the "cold dead hands" crowd will give up their weapons if the authorities so much as go "boo" at them. heir fantasies of rising up to fight the man are just that: fantasies.
There will certainly be a few hardcore cases who might hole up in a compound and get their stupid asses shot, but I'm less concerned about them than I am about the kids who never came home from school.
And of course automatic weapons aren't easy to get. Automatic weapons aren't the problem. The problem is semi-automatic weapons that can easily be converted to full auto. The NRA & gun industry have fought every attempt to make these weapons harder to modify and laws that would punish people for modifying them in such a manner because they know the conversion to full auto is their biggest selling point.
True enough about semis being capable of full auto cyclic rates, but guns are not easy to modify to full auto. Do you mean bump-fire? This is where I think the conversation breaks down. Go to any gun show or store and ask a dealer for a full auto mod and they will politely tell you to go fuck yourself. If you're going to try to have a discussion with gun folks (just pretend you are) you should know that they will catch you slipping every single time you fuck up the language. Language is huge for gunnuts because a difference in one tiny detail is the difference between a legal gun and a gun that will send you to jail. You need to know what a bullet is and isn't. Stick with"assault rifle", steer away from tricky stuff like pump-action, full auto vs. semi, magazine vs. clip. Show you know your shit if you care so much about this!
I think some of you people need to reevaluate your idea of what a gun owner is. It's not just the poor knuckle dragging redneck you've been trying to shame and punish since at least bush II, it's a huge diverse group of people. It's the kind of diversity people on the left bend themselves into pretzels to make you think they care about. All religions, races, genders and economic classes are represented in the millions of people that own guns. You're trying to pull away the last thing in this world that makes some 50ish loser who's made every terrible decision in his life feel somewhat powerful and in control. You're trying to take something away from someone who has millions of dollars invested in a personal collection. Sad but true, but who doesn't fight to keep power and money? They and everyone in between has a huge influential club. If they're not willing to spill blood, they're willing to spend fuckloads of money and time fighting gun laws. You need equal money and organization and while listening to this girl speak about her dead friends is heartbreaking (to me and everyone), I'll bet right now most people who saw this and felt compelled to do something to help can't remember even her first name or the name of her school.
tldr: Learn to talk right if you're gonna talk guns. I think you underestimate what will happen if you try to take people's property away. Shit is hard, organize.
|Space Odin |
Also, did anyone remember when the NRA was openly fucking around in Brazil? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/magazine/17wwln_essay.html
| Register or login To Post a Comment|