US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2048

On June 19 2015 21:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


The right to have a gun, but not the right to have a bullet? I like your semantics

On June 19 2015 22:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
well taxes are more a soft barrier. those tend to be much more effective than a hard barrier like an outright ban. alcohol is a pretty good case study of that.

On June 19 2015 23:11 YoureFired wrote:
Just to add my 2 cents on the guns issue:

Look at the example of Switzerland. Almost as many guns per capita as the US. However, these guns are used by ex-military, i.e. they have been trained in how to operate and store them safely and understand the damage they can cause. I agree with previous posters that simply banning guns in the U.S. is kinda untenable right now, barring some massive gun round-up which might even start another civil war. The adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is pretty true - so let's make our people less likely to mishandle their weapons.

Then again, most gun deaths are a result of suicide, and the predominant rest are domestic/civil violence (ie between friends) and those guns are probably legal. Gang members will continue to shoot each other and while that's obv a problem too, I think its a tougher one to fix than reducing access to guns in your average household.

On June 19 2015 23:39 JinDesu wrote:
I am also under the impression that to own a gun in Switzerland, you must be registered and given a permit.

On June 19 2015 23:49 ZasZ. wrote:


Well the argument is that in a culture where guns are as prevalent as they are here, registration and permitting requirements are not going to stop a person from getting one if they are planning to use the gun to commit a crime. It may make it harder for people like Dylann Roof to be given a gun by their family members, which is a start. I wouldn't be opposed to making the sale or gift of a firearm outside of a licensed seller and with an associated permit a felony.

On June 19 2015 23:31 ZasZ. wrote:


Yes, there are too many guns in circulation for restrictive gun control to have much effect on violent crime, unfortunately. In countries with less of a supply, banning or severely restricting guns makes them go way up in price, even on the black market, making it more difficult for potential criminals to get one on a whim. The adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is only true because it's unbelievably basic. Yes, it is technically true that a gun sitting on a table is not capable of killing someone, that adage is specifically used to alter people's perception of deadly weapons. The adage should be "guns make it extraordinarily easy to kill people," which tells more of the story.

Teaching people how to handle their weapons safely is obviously important, but gun safety is not the cause of the numerous mass shootings that are occurring in America every year. I wish gun control were the answer, but I think conservatives have a point that given the sheer amount of guns in circulation, restricting or banning guns will just result in criminals having guns and law-abiding citizens being left in the cold.

On June 19 2015 23:57 QuanticHawk wrote:


yeah gun safety is important but it's pretty clear that americans understand the damage they can cause. Access to guns (legal and otherwise) is a problem, but imo it's pretty obvious that there's something else too. Look at non-gun crime. If someone robs you in europe, it's more likely to be a pick pocketing. In the states, we threaten violence, or whack you over the head. I think that says a lot about our culture and why gun crimes stats are what they are.

On June 20 2015 00:05 RCMDVA wrote:
The story now is that they gave him money for his birthday, and he bought the gun himself.

So (if true) he lied on his ATF form, from what I can tell. Not sure if an arrest will show up on the NICS check. Conviction yes, that would. But not sure about an arrest. He hadn't gone to trial yet.

On June 20 2015 00:14 Gorsameth wrote:

That would be kind of an oversight, someone awaiting trial shouldn't be able to freely buy a gun imo because of "better get my shooting spree in before i got to jail" kinda deals. Obviously once someone is found innocent that restriction would go away again.

On June 20 2015 00:02 Gorsameth wrote:

Part of this is because of the availability of guns tho. If I rob a man in the US I have to account for him having a gun so the need to be assertive is greater to prevent harm to yourself. If I rob someone in Europe it's unlikely they have any form of weapon on them so a simple knife can be enough to deter them protecting their possessions.

On June 19 2015 23:11 YoureFired wrote:
Just to add my 2 cents on the guns issue:

Look at the example of Switzerland. Almost as many guns per capita as the US. However, these guns are used by ex-military, i.e. they have been trained in how to operate and store them safely and understand the damage they can cause. I agree with previous posters that simply banning guns in the U.S. is kinda untenable right now, barring some massive gun round-up which might even start another civil war. The adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is pretty true - so let's make our people less likely to mishandle their weapons.

Then again, most gun deaths are a result of suicide, and the predominant rest are domestic/civil violence (ie between friends) and those guns are probably legal. Gang members will continue to shoot each other and while that's obv a problem too, I think its a tougher one to fix than reducing access to guns in your average household.

DES MOINES — Iowa’s ban on using telemedicine to issue abortion pills is unconstitutional, The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday morning.

The Iowa Board of Medicine banned the practice of using a webcam and remote to administer the abortion-inducing pills to patients in 2013.

Planned Parenthood of Iowa argued that it had used the technology to provide needed services in areas where access to medical services was an issue. The group sued the board, arguing the ban places an undue burden on women wanting an abortion by requiring a doctor’s physical presence for the procedure.

Iowa Supreme Court agreed unanimously Friday morning, overturning an appeals court ruling that upheld the ban.

On June 20 2015 01:58 Velr wrote:



Some things about Switzerland (i hate that it is brought up again and again):

You get issued a Military Rifle if you do the mandatory service (in some cases also a handgun) and store it at home BUT you don't get Ammo.
There is also no big gun culture or anything like it in the US. There are not many people that privately buy/own guns and most people i know would love to just trash their military rifle, let alone think of it as a self defense tool.

We got tons of guns per capita, but we do not really have this whole "selfdefense/gunculture" mumbojumbo going on. You can't compare our two countries, despite both having very high guns per capita. We just look at guns very diffrently. For us a gun is something you get because you have to serve in the military (something MANY people hate or learn to hate during the 21 weeks of mandatory service), the gun is not a sign of armed populance, its a sign of the state having you do stupid shit for it.

Even the diehard military enthusiasts i know just see their rifles as tool against outside military forces NOT against our own state or burglars.

On June 20 2015 03:17 JinDesu wrote:
In other news:

http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/telemed-abortion-ban-ruled-unconstitutional-by-iowa-supreme-court-20150620



Iowa law was passed requiring a doctor to be present when administering abortion pills. Planned Parenthood instituted telemedicine at their clinics where a hospital/doctor would be difficult to reach. Iowa board of med (a state panel) banned the use of telemedicine in 2013 - and now it has been overturned by the Iowa Supreme court.

On June 20 2015 03:45 YoureFired wrote:


I mean... I'm 100% pro reproductive-justice, and this decision is likely motivated by a desire to restrict those rights rather than any legitimate concern for the women (that's just me hypothesizing) but at the same time, most medical procedures do require you to be near a doctor in case complications occur. From a quick search, it seems like 2-3% have complications; I don't know what the complication rate of other procedures are, but I don't think that's low enough to justify not having a medical professional nearby.

On June 20 2015 03:42 YoureFired wrote:


thanks for the insight. I wasn't trying to compare per se, just see where other countries have similar levels of gun ownership without the massive gun deaths. So you would say gun culture/violent culture is the main issue here? Interesting.