|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 20 2018 00:55 Sero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 23:31 Excludos wrote:On December 19 2018 23:21 Sero wrote:
I see this thread all the time thanks to its needlessly long title, and never once has it been accurate. Seeing it constantly gets really tiresome.
No, there was not another mass shooting. There’s just the same 3 people having a circular argument for years without persuading anyone. Maybe you’ll change their minds next post though. There's like a new mass shooting every week dude, what are you on about? The fact that you see this thread consistently popping up should be alarming (And no, there's loads more than just "3 people having a circular argument" going on here. There's 9 different people on the last page alone). The last mass shooting that I’m aware of took place in Thousand Oaks, California on November 7. Today is December 19. That was, like, 6 weeks ago dude.
There is, on average, one every day. There have been over 400 this year.
The last one was yesterday.
The second-to-last one was two days ago.
The last ten occurred over the last ten days.
There is likely to be one today, and another one tomorrow.
https://massshootingtracker.org/data
Mass shootings are currently defined as 4+ casualties (injured or dead).
|
|
|
On December 21 2018 00:01 JimmiC wrote:
I was having a discussion with a few people yesterday about WHEN or IF something major federally will be done instead of what. And what we sort of agreed on is that it probably won't happen until the government becomes more financially responsible for healthcare and then the costs of all the gun violence/injuries far out strips the revenue from the taxes paid through the sales of all the weapons. And a marketing effort is made to talk about the dangers and so on. Also, probably some rules on what sort of marketing can be done by gun manufacturers and the NRA.
Also, I'd imagine that all three branches of government would have to be controlled by progressives/ Democrats, and we'd need to jump ahead a solid generation or two.
|
|
|
On December 21 2018 00:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2018 00:01 JimmiC wrote:
I was having a discussion with a few people yesterday about WHEN or IF something major federally will be done instead of what. And what we sort of agreed on is that it probably won't happen until the government becomes more financially responsible for healthcare and then the costs of all the gun violence/injuries far out strips the revenue from the taxes paid through the sales of all the weapons. And a marketing effort is made to talk about the dangers and so on. Also, probably some rules on what sort of marketing can be done by gun manufacturers and the NRA. Also, I'd imagine that all three branches of government would have to be controlled by progressives/ Democrats, and we'd need to jump ahead a solid generation or two. Maybe, I think with the right business case a bunch of Reps would jump on board. Like they had the most famous brothel owner as their candidate in Vegas and the religious right was not upset and still voted for him. I think the right spin it could happen. But I am talking like 10-20 years of a marketing push to talk to people about the dangers and the costs of guns. The best example I can think of is Cigarettes from 1980 compared to 2000. Like it was not very long ago when ashtrays were a standard feature in cars and they had cartoons ad's directed to kids about cool it was.
I agree with you that there are some parallels, but I think the existence of the second amendment is a pretty big caveat. I think that makes it a harder agenda to push than if we wanted to simply draw an analogy between secondhand smoke/ kids smoking and being around guns/ kids shooting. I think a more progressive Supreme Court is more likely to interpret the Constitution in such a way that recognizes that an armed militia/ right to bear arms hundreds of years ago had far different context than our current understanding and practice of home defense, self defense, and a tyrannical government.
|
On December 20 2018 20:50 micronesia wrote:
2) Regarding the Pittsburgh law banning assault weapons, here is what the article specifically says:
"Among the weapons that would be banned are any rifles with a pistol grip, folding stock and detachable magazine. The legislation specifically bans several AR-15 style weapons by name. The weapons — semi-automatic variants of the M-4 and M-16 type weapons issued to US troops — have been used in a plethora of shootings in the past few years, including the October 27 attack on the Tree of Life synagogue. "
Essentially the law seems to be banning Ryder trucks because truck bombers always use Ryder trucks even though U-Haul or Penske trucks are equally viable for use by truck bombers, yet they remain unbanned. It does indeed seem to be a "well let's do something" effort. 10 Seems like a reasonable magazine size limit though, and I support bump stock bans so long as the devices are properly capture by the words.
Just what America didn't need: regulators in a major city showing they don't understand how to regulate and another tally in the column of "well let's do something" victories that lose the war. I guess cheers to people that really want those magazine size limits, though.
|
On December 21 2018 01:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 20:50 micronesia wrote:
2) Regarding the Pittsburgh law banning assault weapons, here is what the article specifically says:
"Among the weapons that would be banned are any rifles with a pistol grip, folding stock and detachable magazine. The legislation specifically bans several AR-15 style weapons by name. The weapons — semi-automatic variants of the M-4 and M-16 type weapons issued to US troops — have been used in a plethora of shootings in the past few years, including the October 27 attack on the Tree of Life synagogue. "
Essentially the law seems to be banning Ryder trucks because truck bombers always use Ryder trucks even though U-Haul or Penske trucks are equally viable for use by truck bombers, yet they remain unbanned. It does indeed seem to be a "well let's do something" effort. 10 Seems like a reasonable magazine size limit though, and I support bump stock bans so long as the devices are properly capture by the words. Just what America didn't need: regulators in a major city showing they don't understand how to regulate and another tally in the column of "well let's do something" victories that lose the war. I guess cheers to people that really want those magazine size limits, though.
Mag limits are a reasonable regulation, it's a shame they'll get thrown out with the dirty water.
|
I wonder what exactly is Danglar's problem is, with legislating the banning of guns with pistol grips, or with folding stocks or with detachable magazines?
Because rather curiously his position is as elucidated over several years is that any gun regulation should not be passed, yet he seems rather disatisfied that this one is not going far enough. How do you explain this discrepancy in your normal thought processes Danglars?
|
The good guys with guns theory strikes again. It can no longer be doubted that more guns = more safety. Put another way, The more good guys with guns there are in a given place, the more safe that place is, because the bad guys can be neutralized. This chain of logic is unbreakable:
|
On December 21 2018 02:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I wonder what exactly is Danglar's problem is, with legislating the banning of guns with pistol grips, or with folding stocks or with detachable magazines?
Because rather curiously his position is as elucidated over several years is that any gun regulation should not be passed, yet he seems rather disatisfied that this one is not going far enough. How do you explain this discrepancy in your normal thought processes Danglars?
I wonder what Dangermousecatdog’s problem is with assuming everything must be banned, and that the real issue is finding out why anyone would have a problem with the bans.
I also wonder if his investigation into my position ever revealed the gun measures I recently supported, and posted about supporting also several months ago? I should think such a discrepancy means he really has no clue nor sincerely desires to know more, since further speech might indeed be as little comprehended as the last.
|
|
|
On December 21 2018 00:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2018 00:01 JimmiC wrote:
I was having a discussion with a few people yesterday about WHEN or IF something major federally will be done instead of what. And what we sort of agreed on is that it probably won't happen until the government becomes more financially responsible for healthcare and then the costs of all the gun violence/injuries far out strips the revenue from the taxes paid through the sales of all the weapons. And a marketing effort is made to talk about the dangers and so on. Also, probably some rules on what sort of marketing can be done by gun manufacturers and the NRA. Also, I'd imagine that all three branches of government would have to be controlled by progressives/ Democrats, and we'd need to jump ahead a solid generation or two. Maybe, I think with the right business case a bunch of Reps would jump on board. Like they had the most famous brothel owner as their candidate in Vegas and the religious right was not upset and still voted for him. I think the right spin it could happen. But I am talking like 10-20 years of a marketing push to talk to people about the dangers and the costs of guns. The best example I can think of is Cigarettes from 1980 compared to 2000. Like it was not very long ago when ashtrays were a standard feature in cars and they had cartoons ad's directed to kids about cool it was.
But the problem of the guns in circulation isn't just going to go away even if you have all the legislation banning the purchase of them. You're never going to find people dumb enough to seriously advocate for trying to take peoples guns away that they already have which means that they'll always be available to some degree. Especially as rural areas get poorer and are less represented as time goes on.
|
|
|
|
|
(Reason writeup)
Things are going swimmingly over in New Jersey. Gun magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds are illegal, punishable by 18 months in jail and/or a $10,000 fine. Residents had until last week to surrender their currently owned magazines.
This was the conclusion of the 180 day grace period after the law to surrender them. There are likely a million or more residents currently in violation of this law and guilty of a fourth degree crime, since 12 and 13 round handgun magazines are incredibly common, and 15+ magazines are not so rare as well.
Additionally, normally carried police handguns typically have magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This means that your average police officer is guilty of a fourth degree crime if they keep their magazines while off duty. (Some legislators are trying to carve an exemption for off duty police officers).
This is something to keep in mind for those of you that support confiscation laws for "high capacity" magazines. Zero turnins to state police. With a law requiring them to be turned in within 180 days, punishable by 18months/$10,000.
Merry Christmas to New Jersey politicians and the peace officers tasked to enforcing this law.
|
On December 21 2018 06:38 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/jacobsullum/status/1075851444379639808( Reason writeup) Things are going swimmingly over in New Jersey. Gun magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds are illegal, punishable by 18 months in jail and/or a $10,000 fine. Residents had until last week to surrender their currently owned magazines. This was the conclusion of the 180 day grace period after the law to surrender them. There are likely a million or more residents currently in violation of this law and guilty of a fourth degree crime, since 12 and 13 round handgun magazines are incredibly common, and 15+ magazines are not so rare as well. Additionally, normally carried police handguns typically have magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This means that your average police officer is guilty of a fourth degree crime if they keep their magazines while off duty. (Some legislators are trying to carve an exemption for off duty police officers). This is something to keep in mind for those of you that support confiscation laws for "high capacity" magazines. Zero turnins to state police. With a law requiring them to be turned in within 180 days, punishable by 18months/$10,000. Merry Christmas to New Jersey politicians and the peace officers tasked to enforcing this law.
Sounds like those one million+ people are breaking the law and don't respect the rule of law.
|
On December 21 2018 10:44 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 06:38 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/jacobsullum/status/1075851444379639808( Reason writeup) Things are going swimmingly over in New Jersey. Gun magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds are illegal, punishable by 18 months in jail and/or a $10,000 fine. Residents had until last week to surrender their currently owned magazines. This was the conclusion of the 180 day grace period after the law to surrender them. There are likely a million or more residents currently in violation of this law and guilty of a fourth degree crime, since 12 and 13 round handgun magazines are incredibly common, and 15+ magazines are not so rare as well. Additionally, normally carried police handguns typically have magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This means that your average police officer is guilty of a fourth degree crime if they keep their magazines while off duty. (Some legislators are trying to carve an exemption for off duty police officers). This is something to keep in mind for those of you that support confiscation laws for "high capacity" magazines. Zero turnins to state police. With a law requiring them to be turned in within 180 days, punishable by 18months/$10,000. Merry Christmas to New Jersey politicians and the peace officers tasked to enforcing this law. Sounds like those one million+ people are breaking the law and don't respect the rule of law.
Assuming they even know about it, but yeah obviously they should be held accountable for breaking the law if they're found to have those larger magazines.
|
On December 20 2018 18:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 15:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2018 00:55 Sero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 23:31 Excludos wrote:On December 19 2018 23:21 Sero wrote:
I see this thread all the time thanks to its needlessly long title, and never once has it been accurate. Seeing it constantly gets really tiresome.
No, there was not another mass shooting. There’s just the same 3 people having a circular argument for years without persuading anyone. Maybe you’ll change their minds next post though. There's like a new mass shooting every week dude, what are you on about? The fact that you see this thread consistently popping up should be alarming (And no, there's loads more than just "3 people having a circular argument" going on here. There's 9 different people on the last page alone). The last mass shooting that I’m aware of took place in Thousand Oaks, California on November 7. Today is December 19. That was, like, 6 weeks ago dude. Why should I be alarmed? Because you enjoy arguing about another country’s gun control policy endlessly? No, you mean that I should be alarmed and hysterical about mass shootings and hurry to enact gun control laws, right? You must have misunderstood my post. I’m not taking a side in your little debate here, so you can save it for Danglars. Yeah, there’s more than 3 posters in this thread. Good job spotting that hyperbole. My point is that the majority of posts are made by the same few people and it’s as close as you can get to a circle jerk without getting wet. Such a weird post. On another note... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/pittsburgh-assault-weapon-ban/index.htmlLove this, hope we see more of it. Also love the bump stock ban. It was honestly insane that Obama didn't do anything about it... go figure it was Trump. I'll never figure it out. What exactly are you hoping to see more of?
Action taken in response to the gun violence problem in the US.
People actually passing laws that ban things like bump stocks, high capacity mags, etc... Anything that is completely unreasonable, basically things that are only really ever used for mass shootings.
The only reason for a bump stock is killing a room full of people in seconds.
Edit: and for all the people getting hung up on the suicide thing in the article, you are literally getting hung up on half a sentence quote that was likely taken out of context.
The law is doing something about gun violence... That is more than our senate is doing, more than the house, more than most are doing...
I hope more gets banned/regulated, I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country.
Since the gun culture will never actually get things changed on their own side, it will be other people that need to make the changes.
|
On December 22 2018 13:22 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 18:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 15:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2018 00:55 Sero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 23:31 Excludos wrote:On December 19 2018 23:21 Sero wrote:
I see this thread all the time thanks to its needlessly long title, and never once has it been accurate. Seeing it constantly gets really tiresome.
No, there was not another mass shooting. There’s just the same 3 people having a circular argument for years without persuading anyone. Maybe you’ll change their minds next post though. There's like a new mass shooting every week dude, what are you on about? The fact that you see this thread consistently popping up should be alarming (And no, there's loads more than just "3 people having a circular argument" going on here. There's 9 different people on the last page alone). The last mass shooting that I’m aware of took place in Thousand Oaks, California on November 7. Today is December 19. That was, like, 6 weeks ago dude. Why should I be alarmed? Because you enjoy arguing about another country’s gun control policy endlessly? No, you mean that I should be alarmed and hysterical about mass shootings and hurry to enact gun control laws, right? You must have misunderstood my post. I’m not taking a side in your little debate here, so you can save it for Danglars. Yeah, there’s more than 3 posters in this thread. Good job spotting that hyperbole. My point is that the majority of posts are made by the same few people and it’s as close as you can get to a circle jerk without getting wet. Such a weird post. On another note... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/pittsburgh-assault-weapon-ban/index.htmlLove this, hope we see more of it. Also love the bump stock ban. It was honestly insane that Obama didn't do anything about it... go figure it was Trump. I'll never figure it out. What exactly are you hoping to see more of? Action taken in response to the gun violence problem in the US. People actually passing laws that ban things like bump stocks, high capacity mags, etc... Anything that is completely unreasonable, basically things that are only really ever used for mass shootings. The only reason for a bump stock is killing a room full of people in seconds. Edit: and for all the people getting hung up on the suicide thing in the article, you are literally getting hung up on half a sentence quote that was likely taken out of context. The law is doing something about gun violence... That is more than our senate is doing, more than the house, more than most are doing... I hope more gets banned/regulated, I'll be out in the street supporting those bans or any legislation around regulation/bans. I'll support laws that have less people getting killed randomly by guns in my country. Since the gun culture will never actually get things changed on their own side, it will be other people that need to make the changes.
Here's a proposal on gun regulation from NY, would you be supporting something like this?
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s9191
|
On December 21 2018 04:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 02:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I wonder what exactly is Danglar's problem is, with legislating the banning of guns with pistol grips, or with folding stocks or with detachable magazines?
Because rather curiously his position is as elucidated over several years is that any gun regulation should not be passed, yet he seems rather disatisfied that this one is not going far enough. How do you explain this discrepancy in your normal thought processes Danglars?
I wonder what Dangermousecatdog’s problem is with assuming everything must be banned, and that the real issue is finding out why anyone would have a problem with the bans. I also wonder if his investigation into my position ever revealed the gun measures I recently supported, and posted about supporting also several months ago? I should think such a discrepancy means he really has no clue nor sincerely desires to know more, since further speech might indeed be as little comprehended as the last.
So...let me ask again. What exactly is your problem with the legislation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
