|
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. |
Right, let’s draft gun bans for ones which can quickly fire a lot of bullets.
Put a gun owner on the stand, and the prosecutor shows the jury just how fast we can fire a lot of bullets. Case closed.
Do you see how organically the conversation turns to details? I think even the biggest gun control nut can admit to that.
|
And now you see why no one wants to discuss details. Because of that shit that Danglars is starting right now.
|
|
|
On March 27 2019 05:39 Simberto wrote:
And now you see why no one wants to discuss details. Because of that shit that Danglars is starting right now.
You say the principle is shooting a lot of bullets. Without details, I say Great News, Simberto! Automatic weapon bans have been hugely successful in the US! Next?
|
If i give you any details, you are gonna lawyer that this up majorly. And i have no interest in that discussion.
If i say something like "Can shoot 20 bullets or more a minute", there is gonna be some bad argument why that is silly and that i don't know anything about guns and thus should not be listed. Regardless of whatever number i put in there.
If i say something like "Anything automatic or semi-automatic", you are gonna find some guy that trained for 30 years who shoots a lever action rifle at 80 rounds a minute. Or some very specific gun type that is by some definition very slightly not exactly automatic or semi-auto, but which can shoot faster than any of those. Or any other similar shit.
I know you really love lawyering, but not everyone else does. Reasonable people can easily have discussion about stuff like "the spirit of the law" without having to constantly debate the exact letters necessary to achieve that spirit.
And it is not like you actually care about these details, or are interested in figuring out a way to formulate reasonable gun control measures. You just want no gun control, and will fight in any way you can figure out to dissuade people from even the slightest bit of gun control. If this were a productive debate, and you would actually propose ways to make something better, this might be different. But we both know that you don't want any good proposal or good gun control laws. You want no gun control laws.
|
If you don't know enough about guns, then you don't have the competence required to know what should be done. You can absolutely have a goal ("I want less mass murders plz fix!"), but the second you try to add any kind of idea on how that is suppose to be done, you're indeed going to get "lawyered up" by people who have thought about it more than you, and for good reasons. You're not adding anything to the discussion, but is instead muddying up and fuelling the opposition. Your best bet is to keep to the principle, it's completely reasonable after all. It's not like you're asking for all boats to be amphibious within the year.
edit: I read wrong, Danglars isn't right. Phu. I nearly had a heart attack there. My statement here is still correct
|
On March 27 2019 01:07 Danglars wrote:
Hunting community gun people are some of the nicest people around. I don’t know how they breed good humor, but it’s there. The stories of who hunted what with what gun where go back four generations sometimes.
I’ve only gone target shooting and gun ranges with them so far. Maybe in a summer or two I can head out to their neck of the woods and go hunting.
Funny that I don't recall anyone saying otherwise. But hey walking community people are some of the nicest people around. I don’t know how they breed good humour, but it’s there. Except they don't inbreed together. They are from all areas of a very massive world walking around. Sometimes they swim and climb mountains too. The stories of who walked what with what footwear go back four generations sometimes.
|
On March 27 2019 06:02 Simberto wrote:
If i give you any details, you are gonna lawyer that this up majorly. And i have no interest in that discussion.
If i say something like "Can shoot 20 bullets or more a minute", there is gonna be some bad argument why that is silly and that i don't know anything about guns and thus should not be listed. Regardless of whatever number i put in there.
If i say something like "Anything automatic or semi-automatic", you are gonna find some guy that trained for 30 years who shoots a lever action rifle at 80 rounds a minute. Or some very specific gun type that is by some definition very slightly not exactly automatic or semi-auto, but which can shoot faster than any of those. Or any other similar shit.
I know you really love lawyering, but not everyone else does. Reasonable people can easily have discussion about stuff like "the spirit of the law" without having to constantly debate the exact letters necessary to achieve that spirit.
And it is not like you actually care about these details, or are interested in figuring out a way to formulate reasonable gun control measures. You just want no gun control, and will fight in any way you can figure out to dissuade people from even the slightest bit of gun control. If this were a productive debate, and you would actually propose ways to make something better, this might be different. But we both know that you don't want any good proposal or good gun control laws. You want no gun control laws.
It’s fun when you open up with details, decide they don’t matter to me, and end on accusations of bad faith. Tell me what I think, why I think about it, and why you aren’t wasting time.
Yes, you’re pretty stereotypical gun control. Talk details you then reject, accuse other side of not caring and lawyering, and storm off. If you want to debate shit, don’t open with this garbage.
|
Ok Danglars lets talk details. As opposed to irrelevant stories that no one asked for. Simple questions:
IS there any additional gun control measures you would support in USA?
If yes, which ones?
If not, why not?
And no, "I already post this before" doesn't actually count as an answer.
|
On March 27 2019 04:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 00:57 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 13:29 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal. Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ? Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do. Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need. Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it. Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that. Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons. + Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities) is "Fuck off, I like guns" which is not a great argument but its the only one youve got and thats fine, keep the guns that you can have fun with and maybe stay away from the mass murder weapons. Sticking to the former might save a few lives. And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos. Please don't attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. I'm not going to address them but I'm just saying its really rude and insulting. Hunting in America is a completely different world than what you're talking about. Its most definitely, from the nations birth, an activity that the poor and middle rual class has embraced. Sons and daughters are taken into the woods in their early or pre-teen years, given a gun, left alone in the cold and told to kill something. You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Birds, for example, are incredibly hard to hit and shooting at them while they're still on the ground is a huge no no but pumps are almost as fast and common. I give AZ shit but the 5 round marker they set is actually fairly accurate for when it becomes more then what you should need. A bolt action is good (my uncle still uses his dads moisin nagant from the war) and my lever action is pretty reliable. But you're still talking about millions and millions of guns that are nowhere near capable of a mass shooting we see in the media. The recoil from the type of guns would make it impossible. If you wanted to sheer off the hunting community from the gun control debate you'd see arguments for how large the calibler of a gun (how big the bullets it shoots) or how small (so .22 rifles are okay). Bolts are already removable and all weapons are military style murder weapons, thats an argument that makes you look bad and boils down to "scary weapons bad". I didnt attribute it, I asked for clarification. Because you mentioned the hunting community without really specifiying what the hunting community actually employs or doesnt. And at the end of the day, it doesnt matter whether its a rich people or a poor people activity. The bottom line on what kind of guns you need for hunting remains the same. I strongly disagree that all weapons have the same mass kill potential, yes with someone that has a high degree of skill they could get the same result but looking at the kind of people commiting murder acts where they get a high kill count I dont see them as having been particularly skilled and still doing a pretty good job. Which means scary weapons are bad. You have no need for them. Well other than and ill say it again "Hey I like scary weapons, they cool". And mind you, I didnt say just removable bolts. I said removable bolts without having to pull the trigger to remove them. I know all bolts are removable, its insulting that you didnt bother to respect the comment enough to pay attention to that comment. Its a small nuanced example of something that could go a long way and not hard to do. You said that I needed mass murder weapons and that my only argument was "fuck off I like guns" Thats not asking for clarification thats making someones argument for them so they look like shit.
I was asking for clarification in my early post to understand what "confiscation" you were afraid would happen with guns if there was a registry.
I'm still hoping to get some clarification.
I thought I made some really good points about how we could make small changes that would keep pretty much all parties happy.
[+ Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On March 25 2019 12:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 25 2019 01:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:
I mean what your getting at has nothing to do with what were talking about. And you have had to move the goal posts pretty far. Or please feel free to show how the "evil car loan" business would take over the gun market and take peoples guns who need them for work and blah blah. But sure I'm all for regulating high interest loans on anything... and guns of course because they are even more dangerous.
You are getting ridiculous.
You are the one who keeps moving the conversation away from what we're talking about. Complaining now that we've gotten there is whats ridiculous. And I have no confidence that shambala understood my post in the slightest so I'm not going to respond to that on grounds of it not being worth either of our efforts. And catdog I didn't mean that literally. I was being facetious in turning a phrase into another phrase for my point. Your post mentioned that you have permits for guns, and that you have a sheriff that urges people to get firearm training. Those are both factual statements that don't explicitly get at a a point. So what is your point? I get you don't want a registry because of confiscation... but what confiscation are you worried about? I've known plenty of gun owners, I've never heard of a gun being taken from someone who didn't do something illegal with it or was mentally unstable. The only situation in which I could imagine a gun being confiscated was if someone took out a loan to buy a gun and couldn't finish paying the loan (much like a car get's repossessed). That is one reason I made my comparison to cars. If you buy a car (or gun) and don't pay for it with the expectation you get to keep it, that's stealing. The way in which a car/gun comparison is very legitimate in regard to gun violence is in the way that both things can be very dangerous and lethal when use inappropriately. The way we reconcile that danger in American culture is to require training, age limits, a registry, insurance, and getting a license. This way if an individual is irresponsible with their car they are held to account for it, and if they cause damage insurance pays for the cost of that damage. People are required to demonstrate responsibility in order for the privilege to own and drive a car. Why should this be different for a gun?My point is that by making the same true for guns we would probably have less gun deaths, accidents or otherwise. This is one very legitimate way we could address gun violence in America.
|
United States24680 Posts
I posit the following two statements:
- When creating new gun laws, often, the devil really is in the details.
- Taking advantage of statement #1 to avoid discussing, in good faith, potential ways to improve gun laws is disappointing.
I have some ideas for ways to group firearms according to their lethality, or other measures of how dangerous they are. As I've discussed previously in this thread, I think the barriers to acquiring and using firearms should be more substantial for firearms that belong in more dangerous groups. For example, acquiring fully-automatic firearms is very difficult but possible for those who are dedicated and, probably, can be trusted not to abuse those firearms. Perhaps the government should develop some tests/criteria to evaluate all new guns before they go on the market, kind of like how cars go through crash testing and get ratings. Some vehicles require a higher license (e.g., commercial driver's license) to operate in public, and perhaps the same principle could be extended to firearms with the adjustment that ownership, not just operation in public, needs to be controlled according to the grouping of how dangerous the firearms are. Some exceptions to allow people to get some experience in groups slightly above what they are qualified for when under the proper supervision may be warranted.
As great as that idea sounds to me, I know the first problem I'm going to run into is coming up with effective criteria for evaluating firearms, and details on how to handle the hundreds of thousands of firearms of varying degrees of "dangerous-ness" that are already in the hands of those who may lack adequate qualification by the new/proposed standards.
|
On March 27 2019 06:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 06:02 Simberto wrote:
If i give you any details, you are gonna lawyer that this up majorly. And i have no interest in that discussion.
If i say something like "Can shoot 20 bullets or more a minute", there is gonna be some bad argument why that is silly and that i don't know anything about guns and thus should not be listed. Regardless of whatever number i put in there.
If i say something like "Anything automatic or semi-automatic", you are gonna find some guy that trained for 30 years who shoots a lever action rifle at 80 rounds a minute. Or some very specific gun type that is by some definition very slightly not exactly automatic or semi-auto, but which can shoot faster than any of those. Or any other similar shit.
I know you really love lawyering, but not everyone else does. Reasonable people can easily have discussion about stuff like "the spirit of the law" without having to constantly debate the exact letters necessary to achieve that spirit.
And it is not like you actually care about these details, or are interested in figuring out a way to formulate reasonable gun control measures. You just want no gun control, and will fight in any way you can figure out to dissuade people from even the slightest bit of gun control. If this were a productive debate, and you would actually propose ways to make something better, this might be different. But we both know that you don't want any good proposal or good gun control laws. You want no gun control laws. It’s fun when you open up with details, decide they don’t matter to me, and end on accusations of bad faith. Tell me what I think, why I think about it, and why you aren’t wasting time. Yes, you’re pretty stereotypical gun control. Talk details you then reject, accuse other side of not caring and lawyering, and storm off. If you want to debate shit, don’t open with this garbage.
That would be far more convincing if we didn't have this discussion multiple times already.
|
This is so frustrating, simberte made the most sensible explanation ever and you stil go back to bullshit.
What part about: "no one cares about the details, ban stuff that easily lets you kill plenty of people from a distance in a short timeframe, just regulate that shit!" don't you understand?
|
On March 27 2019 07:37 micronesia wrote:I posit the following two statements: - When creating new gun laws, often, the devil really is in the details.
- Taking advantage of statement #1 to avoid discussing, in good faith, potential ways to improve gun laws is disappointing.
I have some ideas for ways to group firearms according to their lethality, or other measures of how dangerous they are. As I've discussed previously in this thread, I think the barriers to acquiring and using firearms should be more substantial for firearms that belong in more dangerous groups. For example, acquiring fully-automatic firearms is very difficult but possible for those who are dedicated and, probably, can be trusted not to abuse those firearms. Perhaps the government should develop some tests/criteria to evaluate all new guns before they go on the market, kind of like how cars go through crash testing and get ratings. Some vehicles require a higher license (e.g., commercial driver's license) to operate in public, and perhaps the same principle could be extended to firearms with the adjustment that ownership, not just operation in public, needs to be controlled according to the grouping of how dangerous the firearms are. Some exceptions to allow people to get some experience in groups slightly above what they are qualified for when under the proper supervision may be warranted. As great as that idea sounds to me, I know the first problem I'm going to run into is coming up with effective criteria for evaluating firearms, and details on how to handle the hundreds of thousands of firearms of varying degrees of "dangerous-ness" that are already in the hands of those who may lack adequate qualification by the new/proposed standards.
This is basically what we do. Except that instead of making a blacklist on the guns that are deemed too dangerous, they make a white list of the ones that aren't (at least for hunting. For sports they're a bit more relaxed, but you need a buttload of other qualifications instead first).
There are loads of valid ideas for implementing gun regulations, but none of them get anywhere when the only response from the right is "nah, 2nd amendment".
|
On March 27 2019 08:00 Velr wrote:
This is so frustrating, simberte made the most sensible explanation ever and you stil go back to bullshit.
What part about: "no one cares about the details, ban stuff that easily lets you kill plenty of people from a distance in a short timeframe, just regulate that shit!" don't you understand?
I can’t argue with his mental image of what I would say or his own prejudices. It’s folly.
If I take away all the bad faith accusations and putting words in my mouth, he basically admitted that the details mattered and weren’t just gotchas as he originally alleged with Sermo. That’s a fine conclusion in my book. It was reinforced by Micronesia.
|
You can't truly think people believe that that is not exactly how you would argue, considering that you already did argue exactly like that multiple times before.
Details matter once the broad strokes are agreed upon. You use details to combat broad strokes that you do not like. And you want everyone to talk about details instead of talking broad strokes because you think that you can win there more easily.
|
On March 27 2019 07:11 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 27 2019 00:57 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 13:29 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal. Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ? Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do. Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need. Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it. Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that. Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons. + Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities) is "Fuck off, I like guns" which is not a great argument but its the only one youve got and thats fine, keep the guns that you can have fun with and maybe stay away from the mass murder weapons. Sticking to the former might save a few lives. And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos. Please don't attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. I'm not going to address them but I'm just saying its really rude and insulting. Hunting in America is a completely different world than what you're talking about. Its most definitely, from the nations birth, an activity that the poor and middle rual class has embraced. Sons and daughters are taken into the woods in their early or pre-teen years, given a gun, left alone in the cold and told to kill something. You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Birds, for example, are incredibly hard to hit and shooting at them while they're still on the ground is a huge no no but pumps are almost as fast and common. I give AZ shit but the 5 round marker they set is actually fairly accurate for when it becomes more then what you should need. A bolt action is good (my uncle still uses his dads moisin nagant from the war) and my lever action is pretty reliable. But you're still talking about millions and millions of guns that are nowhere near capable of a mass shooting we see in the media. The recoil from the type of guns would make it impossible. If you wanted to sheer off the hunting community from the gun control debate you'd see arguments for how large the calibler of a gun (how big the bullets it shoots) or how small (so .22 rifles are okay). Bolts are already removable and all weapons are military style murder weapons, thats an argument that makes you look bad and boils down to "scary weapons bad". I didnt attribute it, I asked for clarification. Because you mentioned the hunting community without really specifiying what the hunting community actually employs or doesnt. And at the end of the day, it doesnt matter whether its a rich people or a poor people activity. The bottom line on what kind of guns you need for hunting remains the same. I strongly disagree that all weapons have the same mass kill potential, yes with someone that has a high degree of skill they could get the same result but looking at the kind of people commiting murder acts where they get a high kill count I dont see them as having been particularly skilled and still doing a pretty good job. Which means scary weapons are bad. You have no need for them. Well other than and ill say it again "Hey I like scary weapons, they cool". And mind you, I didnt say just removable bolts. I said removable bolts without having to pull the trigger to remove them. I know all bolts are removable, its insulting that you didnt bother to respect the comment enough to pay attention to that comment. Its a small nuanced example of something that could go a long way and not hard to do. You said that I needed mass murder weapons and that my only argument was "fuck off I like guns" Thats not asking for clarification thats making someones argument for them so they look like shit. I was asking for clarification in my early post to understand what "confiscation" you were afraid would happen with guns if there was a registry. I'm still hoping to get some clarification. I thought I made some really good points about how we could make small changes that would keep pretty much all parties happy. [ + Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On March 25 2019 12:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 25 2019 01:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:
I mean what your getting at has nothing to do with what were talking about. And you have had to move the goal posts pretty far. Or please feel free to show how the "evil car loan" business would take over the gun market and take peoples guns who need them for work and blah blah. But sure I'm all for regulating high interest loans on anything... and guns of course because they are even more dangerous.
You are getting ridiculous.
You are the one who keeps moving the conversation away from what we're talking about. Complaining now that we've gotten there is whats ridiculous. And I have no confidence that shambala understood my post in the slightest so I'm not going to respond to that on grounds of it not being worth either of our efforts. And catdog I didn't mean that literally. I was being facetious in turning a phrase into another phrase for my point. Your post mentioned that you have permits for guns, and that you have a sheriff that urges people to get firearm training. Those are both factual statements that don't explicitly get at a a point. So what is your point? I get you don't want a registry because of confiscation... but what confiscation are you worried about? I've known plenty of gun owners, I've never heard of a gun being taken from someone who didn't do something illegal with it or was mentally unstable. The only situation in which I could imagine a gun being confiscated was if someone took out a loan to buy a gun and couldn't finish paying the loan (much like a car get's repossessed). That is one reason I made my comparison to cars. If you buy a car (or gun) and don't pay for it with the expectation you get to keep it, that's stealing. The way in which a car/gun comparison is very legitimate in regard to gun violence is in the way that both things can be very dangerous and lethal when use inappropriately. The way we reconcile that danger in American culture is to require training, age limits, a registry, insurance, and getting a license. This way if an individual is irresponsible with their car they are held to account for it, and if they cause damage insurance pays for the cost of that damage. People are required to demonstrate responsibility in order for the privilege to own and drive a car. Why should this be different for a gun?My point is that by making the same true for guns we would probably have less gun deaths, accidents or otherwise. This is one very legitimate way we could address gun violence in America. [/QUOTE]
I assumed the question was in bad faith and/or facious.
I'm not going to go "herp derp government gona just come and take my guns they don't want me to have no mo" just so you can smugly point to me and call me a paranoid hillbilly. Its a painfully obvious leading question that I don't think anyone seriously expects to me answered.
But if you're serious I would be afraid of the government confiscating automatic weapons from people for having automatic weapons. That sounds like the dumbest move ever that would most certainly lead to a standoff with a mentally disturbed guy that just happens to have an automatic rifle. That's what I'm afraid of.
I'm going to line out point by point on your suggestion in that paragraph starting with "the way we reconcile"
1. training as in gun safety that they already require for a hunting license?
2. age limits like an age limit to take the gun safety class said above or to purchase a gun or get a hunting license?
3. A registry, I'm going to spend my goodwill for making this post by legitimately asking you what you think a registry means. Are people expected to register all their guns? Are people just going to have the guns they buy registered? How is this registry going to be enforced?
4. Insurance so connected to above how are you going to enforce insurance? Are people going to be expected to get liability insurance like cars? Are criminals going to be expected to get insurance for the guns they arn't suppose to have to commit the crimes that they use their guns on?
5. A license So people are expected to have a license to buy guns or carry guns. How is this not a CC license or a license to purchase that I said in my post that I already have?
like I say that I've never seen a serious gun registry proposal or a universal background check proposal because they either fall under the above or fall into issues with peoples medical history.
|
On March 27 2019 08:03 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 07:37 micronesia wrote:I posit the following two statements: - When creating new gun laws, often, the devil really is in the details.
- Taking advantage of statement #1 to avoid discussing, in good faith, potential ways to improve gun laws is disappointing.
I have some ideas for ways to group firearms according to their lethality, or other measures of how dangerous they are. As I've discussed previously in this thread, I think the barriers to acquiring and using firearms should be more substantial for firearms that belong in more dangerous groups. For example, acquiring fully-automatic firearms is very difficult but possible for those who are dedicated and, probably, can be trusted not to abuse those firearms. Perhaps the government should develop some tests/criteria to evaluate all new guns before they go on the market, kind of like how cars go through crash testing and get ratings. Some vehicles require a higher license (e.g., commercial driver's license) to operate in public, and perhaps the same principle could be extended to firearms with the adjustment that ownership, not just operation in public, needs to be controlled according to the grouping of how dangerous the firearms are. Some exceptions to allow people to get some experience in groups slightly above what they are qualified for when under the proper supervision may be warranted. As great as that idea sounds to me, I know the first problem I'm going to run into is coming up with effective criteria for evaluating firearms, and details on how to handle the hundreds of thousands of firearms of varying degrees of "dangerous-ness" that are already in the hands of those who may lack adequate qualification by the new/proposed standards. This is basically what we do. Except that instead of making a blacklist on the guns that are deemed too dangerous, they make a white list of the ones that aren't (at least for hunting. For sports they're a bit more relaxed, but you need a buttload of other qualifications instead first). There are loads of valid ideas for implementing gun regulations, but none of them get anywhere when the only response from the right is "nah, 2nd amendment".
I make this solemn Team liquid pledge that I will issue an official response from the right that isn't "nah, 2nd amendment" for any serious proposal. This is open to all posters
My conditions are
1. I will include the details presented if the details I respond with are to your opinion too technical I will reissue the response with a revised argument that is less technically based.
2. I will reserve the right to repeat myself
3. I will reserve the right to state responses that don't reflect on me personally or that I agree with personally but reflect "the rights" position without judgment from those that wish a response.
4.This will be separate from debates or more fluid arguments as I will be issuing responses and are not intended for further debate.
5. I drink sometimes so I reserve the right to break these rules. I like whiskey and sometimes my cousins bring me moonshine.
Requests for official responses will be accepted from posts that begin with " I would like a response from the left" followed by a comma and then no less then 3 page breaks (or whatever comes when you press enter). Responses to these requests will be formatted in " A response from the right would, in my opinion, be" followed my a comma and 3 page breaks.
|
I still think the most effective legislation for avoiding *certain types* of crime and tragedy would be a mandatory 28 day waiting period on all firearms purchases.
28 days is an awful long time for people suffering from a mental health crisis. It would certainly help minimize suicide risk from firearms, but also crimes of passion and mental health related murder/mass murder.
I've yet to hear a single good argument against this idea for law.
The devil in this case, is not in the details.
|
On March 27 2019 15:59 Jockmcplop wrote:
I still think the most effective legislation for avoiding *certain types* of crime and tragedy would be a mandatory 28 day waiting period on all firearms purchases.
28 days is an awful long time for people suffering from a mental health crisis. It would certainly help minimize suicide risk from firearms, but also crimes of passion and mental health related murder/mass murder.
I've yet to hear a single good argument against this idea for law.
The devil in this case, is not in the details.
there are good reasons for why this alone is no where near enough to properly reduce gun violence though. its a good place to start i guess but the amount of firearms already in circulation nullifies the need to purchase a lot. also some maniacs such as the christchurch shooter have the foresight to plan in advance anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
