|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 14 2016 04:47 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 04:19 SolaR- wrote:
With that being said, it seems there is minimal difference. Banning assault rifles wouldn't prevent the same massacre from happening. In this case, wouldn't you either be completely against guns or completely for them. Not much room for any grey area it seems. The harder you make it to commit a crime, the less crime there will be. Sure some determined people with access to resources will still do bad things, but implementing restrictions deters some and makes catching others easier.
Yeah, I would imagine there is a somewhat Gaussian curve regarding probability of the potential criminal being compelled enough to take the action necessary. If you increase the ionization energy of some molecule, you will still see ionization. But the # of total ionization events will of course be lower, given same conditions. I imagine the same thing is seen with crime.
There's also the idea of risk that is taken. When something becomes more difficult, it is harder to hide too. Someone bending this and bending that creates some non-ideality that I would imagine opens up potential for error or intelligence leakage or many other sorts of things. People are prone to failure. Making people more prone to failure should...increase failure, right?
And let's even just consider instances where the dude is clearly insane, like the Colorado guy. Making this guy jump through another hoop gives people another opportunity to see something is clearly wrong.
|
Yeah equilibrium constants and whatnot
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
here's a somewhat coherent policy framework hillary could try on the gun issue, with two components basically.
1. have a background check system that is based on licenses that is maintained by the government.
2. integrate terrorism monitoring intelligence with that system.
1 is necessary to faciliate 2 and also can make process simpler for safe owners, place burden of background check on buyer instead of seller, a far more efficient arrangement.
politically there has to be some genuine pro-regulation push so that the NRA would see the need for some kind of regulation to forestall bigger bans, but this is unliekly.
here's a pretty shocking GAO report that basically says terrorism links isn't disqualifying for gun purchases lol.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10703t.pdf
Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or
explosives under current federal law
From February 2004 through February 2010, FBI data show that individuals on the terrorist watchlist were involved in firearm or explosives background checks 1,228 times; 1,119 (about 91 percent) of these transactions were allowed to proceed because no prohibiting information was found—such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other disqualifying factors
|
On June 14 2016 04:47 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 04:19 SolaR- wrote:
With that being said, it seems there is minimal difference. Banning assault rifles wouldn't prevent the same massacre from happening. In this case, wouldn't you either be completely against guns or completely for them. Not much room for any grey area it seems. The harder you make it to commit a crime, the less crime there will be. Sure some determined people with access to resources will still do bad things, but implementing restrictions deters some and makes catching others easier.
This is true both in homicide and suicide, and I have no idea why this isn't obvious to everyone.
|
On June 14 2016 04:35 Godwrath wrote:About the AR15 and 5.56 in general, that's a myth, one that it's perpetuated due to the ammo the military uses not being very effective at killing on one shot in real life scenarios. Which incidently makes your second point right more or less, depending on the ammo, Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 04:19 SolaR- wrote:
With that being said, it seems there is minimal difference. Banning assault rifles wouldn't prevent the same massacre from happening. In this case, wouldn't you either be completely against guns or completely for them. Not much room for any grey area it seems. No, the difference is not minimal.
The perpetrators at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook,* and Luby's all just had pistols. The Orlando terrorist had a pistol along with his rifle. Even if it were true that killing 50 people as opposed to 33 were something you could only do with a certain length gun (in other words, assuming the method is guns and not a bombing, which we know can be more deadly), it's only happened once and it's rash to think we know that it would merit signing rights away.
*My mistake.
|
Sandy Hook had a rifle. I don't know about Luby's.
|
Canada11509 Posts
Okay this entire thread had been enveloped into a gun control discussion. Please use this thread: Gun Thread to continue this discussion. We don't need two (or three, if you count the initial Orlando thread.)
edit
*sigh. This new red is so weak.
|
Thank heavens gun owners have enough pull with most of their representatives that these ideas can't be implemented. At least it will just take longer as the courts dismantle our rights one by one.
On anther note, this goes back to something I was saying before, Trump is a media phenomenon, and coverage of him wasn't as negative as people thought. You can quibble about the way these authors work with some of this (and I'm inherently suspicious of lefties), but to me the overall idea seems reasonable.
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
shorensteincenter.org
|
Reacting to the mass shooting in a gay nightclub in Orlando, allegedly by a self-proclaimed ISIS sympathizer, Senate Democrats plan to push legislation once again to keep people on the federal government's terrorist watch list from buying guns.
In a conference call with reporters Monday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other Democratic senators said the Orlando attack had motivated Democrats to bring back the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015," a bill Democrats had tried and failed to pass in December after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.
"We will find a way to bring this to a vote," Schumer said Monday. "This is the first thing we are going to attempt because it is the most relevant."
According to the bill's sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the legislation would allow the attorney general to block individuals suspected of having terrorist ties from buying a gun. The legislation also includes an appeals process for those individuals who may argue they were wrongly targeted.
"Our priority this week should be this terrorist gap measure because it is linked so directly to the issue of terrorism and extremist violence in this nation and abroad," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said during the call.
According to reports, the alleged gunman in Orlando, Omar Mateen, purchased an AR-type rifle and a 9mm semiautomatic pistol legally despite the fact he had been questioned twice by the FBI. There was no open investigation at the time he bought the guns. Mateen was not on the watch list at the time and it is not clear that this bill would have prevented him from purchasing guns.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^they need to come up with better names. maybe hire trump for it.
"Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015"
No Guns for Terrorists
or
Stop Terror Weapons
|
|
|
On June 14 2016 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 03:26 farvacola wrote:
Pistols are generally significantly less accurate than long guns. Of minimal importance in the setting of a nightclub with a moderately trained user. Mag capacity could be the same, you can find 100 rd magazine for a glock for example. AR-15 are actually "designed to injure/maim" not kill per say *actually not designed that way on purpose but a byproduct of being portable, so depending on the ammo chosen it's possible pistols could have been more or less deadly. The catch for the AR-15 in such close range, is that it's rounds could pass through their target into another target still at a deadly velocity. Personally I'm more concerned with prescription heroin manufactured by drug lords, peddled by drug dealers in white coats, killing more people than car accidents or gun violence (especially against others), and then leveraged against the poor to imprison them indefinitely.
That's quite the assumption.
There's a reason the Sandy Hook, movie theater and Orlando shootings were all done with assault rifles.
We can address both "prescription heroin" and guns.
|
|
|
On June 14 2016 06:36 ticklishmusic wrote:Trump just revoked press credentials for WaPo lol Trump's Facebook
His events, his choice. Not going to stop them from reporting on him either.
|
A 140ish year old paper and he revokes their ability for access because he doesn't like their reporting on him. Just a preview of what he will do when he is in the White House, where they can revoke anyone's access. There is no rule requiring the press be allowed into the White House or the press briefing room be there.
The man is a thin skinned baby.
|
Canada11509 Posts
On June 14 2016 06:36 ticklishmusic wrote:Trump just revoked press credentials for WaPo lol Trump's Facebook
Neat when he's in power and can decide who is and is not press. Reminds me of when the NDP in Alberta tried to do a similar thing to the hyper partisan and deliberately provocative The Rebel Media- the owner of which could rightly be called a political gadfly (and yet he does fight for important freedoms, even if it is in all the wrong ways). The NDP rightly retracted after much outcry. Trump isn't government yet, but I'm not sure you want government deciding who is and is not legitimate press.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
pretty surprised trump's attack on the press hasn't been a big issue. this is like, literally (early) hitler
|
I really don’t like the idea of a US where we need rules to require the press have access to the White House. It has been handled with a good faith and an understanding that is best for America that the press have direct access to government. I really dislike that I have to worry about it because Trump ego is so fragile.
|
How in the world does he decide the solution is to just forbid the washington post. my god.
|
On June 14 2016 06:44 Gorsameth wrote:His events, his choice. Not going to stop them from reporting on him either.
yeah I don't see it as a problem until he has any actual responsibilities in government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xkOI4s4.jpg0)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N9NcMhK.jpg)
