Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:40 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
That's all HD and his ilk hear is "let's take away everyone's guns"
Not at all. As I mentioned in my post, I hear "variations on the theme" quite often. Sometimes it's "let's take away everyone's scary guns" or "let's take away everyone's black guns" (or big guns or little guns or plastic guns). Other times it's "let's take away all the guns from poor people" (or men or white people or Republicans). In their more lucid periods, it's sometimes "let's just take away some of the guns from some people". If liberals want a serious conversation about gun control, they might try proposing things other than various forms of "take away guns".
  #152  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:43 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Indeed, that was my reply. BA's post gave stats out of context which gave a incorrect conclusion. Actually, overall, the states with the lowest homicides rates also have very little gun control. CA actually has a homicide rate exactly in the middle, not low at all.
Does it or does it not make sense to you that even if one state has effective gun control that reduces deaths, it makes sense to have the same laws in neighboring states. IOW, that there is nothing magical about state lines, that gun control that works in one place will work another. That all one has to do if he lives in the most "gun controlled" state in the US but lives next to the least, is go across state lines for guns, thus rendering the laws in the first state less effective?

Quote:
So, you'd want to make a bunch of guns illegal , which could not possibly make a significant reduction in violent crime? Just because they look scary?
I'd like to make all guns illegal that allow, among other things, one to kill or maim 30 or more people in 30 seconds, yes. Absolutely. And not because they look scary. Because, see bold portion.

Quote:
2%? Well, that many people die from baseball bats, backyard pools, and bathtub accidents. Should we ban baseball, pools and bathtubs? Tens of thousands more than that die from alcohol or smoking.
That may be so, but this is a thread about guns. I don't think distractions and changing the subject is helpful. I simply ask because you are okay, then, with that 2% resulting in the number of deaths involved, correct?
  #153  
Old 08-06-2019, 03:04 AM
Rayks Marcial is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 90
I have a feeling pro-gunners are willing to negotiate only if they can be assured of the right to own several (or unlimited number) of firearms and ammunition, and the right to own military-type weapons, to some degree. Allowing them the ownership of an unlimited number of firearms, or semi-auto weapons with high magazine capacity should be gradational; to be enforced by municipal LE. Qualifications would include a confirmed competition shooter, a long-time recreational shooter cum hunter with a clean record, a certified gunsmith, a certified firearms dealer, a retired serviceman or policeman also with a clean record.

Here in my host country, the latest amendment to firearms ownership has cut the maximum number of weapons to 15 (licenses grade by number of allowable weapons, starting from one.) But sadly, qualifications for personal carry still follow the old argument of individuals who need protection; anything from certified public accountants, to businessmen, mediamen, etc. I find this crap.
  #154  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:28 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
Why would 'a common person' need a Category D gun?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
In the US they are used for hunting (pump action shotguns) sporting competitions (center-fire with detachable mags) etc. Plenty hunt with the AR-10. Just because you can't find a use for them doesn't mean there isn't one.
Dude, do you know what the word "need" means? It's a pretty basic word, and kambuckta even highlighted it for you.

Need - Verb 1. require (something) because it is essential or very important.

Every single thing you mentioned in your response is a fucking hobby. Nobody "needs" their hobby. Every single thing you listed can also be done with a gun that isn't in Category D, so nobody "needs" a Category D firearm, even to do those hobbies.

The only task a Category D gun can accomplish that the other categories can't is to pump a couple dozen bullets into a crowd without having to reload.
  #155  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:34 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, but until I search I hadnt heard about Antifa.
When I say that guns should be illegal, I mean that guns should be illegal for everyone, regardless of political ideology or mental state. I'm an equal opportunity anti-gun advocate.

It's unlikely to come to pass that Americans will give up their guns any time soon. But not because it can't be accomplished from a practical standpoint. It's because a very large proportion of Americans are cowardly, morally inferior and fundamentally ignorant.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #156  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:37 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
BTW, can we agree that local gun control is simply worthless nonsense? Our country has literally more guns than people, there are vast areas of the country with little gun control, and there are no areas of the country that perform searches when entering or leaving the area. It is trivially easy for a criminal to get a gun, even in a municipality with strict gun control laws. Local gun control does absolutely nothing to control guns. At most, it increases the penalty for a criminal who is found with a gun, but it's not like criminals really weigh how to commit their crimes against the penal code.
  #157  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:57 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,992
Want to stop mass shootings in the USA?

Nuke the USA from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #158  
Old 08-06-2019, 07:09 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
I thought Sandy Hook would start serious gun control debate in the US.
I mean - dozens of 6- and 7-year old kids! Surely that was the wake-up call?

I was wrong.

Then I thought the Orlando nightclub shooting would start serious debate.
49 people dead, 50+ injured - surely that had to put things over the edge?

I guess not.

And then I thought surely, Las Vegas, with 58 people dead and -hundreds- injured.
This has to be the mass shooting that finally gets people to wake up to the fact that 'thoughts and prayers' won't actually change anything.

Wrong again.

Now we've had two mass shootings within the same day. We're barely making sense of 20 dead in El Paso, and now we have dozens killed or injured in Ohio.

What's the over/under on how many Republicans will insist that 'now is not the time to politicize' the deaths with talk of gun control?

What will it take for there to be meaningful (i.e., Republicans actually on board) gun control debate in this country? Or are we stuck for another couple of decades waiting for the current old guard to die out?
Other than the gotta do somethingism and the politicization of any tragedy (which is always wrong), gun control can be had when the people who want it come up with a way to legislate control away from those who shouldn't have them without affecting those who are the responsible law abiding folks. Or get enough control of legislation to change the Constitution.

That really is the answer, the only answer. To date, there have been zero laws, ideas, and/or appeals that do this.
  #159  
Old 08-06-2019, 07:17 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
What other constitutional right is taxed like this? That's gonna be the argument.
You're not entitled to afford a gun; you're just entitled to possess one if you can afford it, no different from any other piece of property. Of course that doesn't mean that today's Supreme Court couldn't pull a rationale out of its ass to rule such a tax unconstitutional - there's that.
  #160  
Old 08-06-2019, 07:20 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Other than the gotta do somethingism and the politicization of any tragedy (which is always wrong), gun control can be had when the people who want it come up with a way to legislate control away from those who shouldn't have them without affecting those who are the responsible law abiding folks. Or get enough control of legislation to change the Constitution.

That really is the answer, the only answer. To date, there have been zero laws, ideas, and/or appeals that do this.
Historically, gun control becomes more popular when more people of color possess guns. Maybe that's what it will take: people of color so scared of, so fed up with, taking shit from white male racists that they make it clear they are not to be fucked with anymore. That will scare the shit out of whites, and even moderates will probably want some form of gun control then.

Last edited by asahi; 08-06-2019 at 07:21 AM.
  #161  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:05 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Make books expensive and illegal to make at home. It's not unconstitutional because you still have your books.
Is this really the argument you want to try and defend? Equating guns with books?

> It is trivially easy for a criminal to get a gun, ev

a) A gun buyback program would mean anyone wanting to sell a gun could do so legally, removing the need to sell to someone else.

b) Register every gun. And the gun's registered owner is required to pay an annual registration fee for each gun. If the gun owner or gun store / trade show etc. sells the gun to someone without transferring the gun's registration, they're still on the hook for the registration fee. If the gun is sold without transferring the registration - and registration requires proof of an address, utility bills in person's name, and proof of insurance - and the new owner commits a crime with the gun, the registered owner is subject to additional penalties. Add a 40%+ federal + state tax on gun sales.

Owning a gun should be significantly harder and more expensive than owning a car.

You need to get fingerprinted to work in some finance jobs, FFS.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...

Last edited by DragonAsh; 08-06-2019 at 08:09 AM.
  #162  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:17 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
gun control can be had when the people who want it come up with a way to legislate control away from those who shouldn't have them without affecting those who are the responsible law abiding folks.
This is impossible.
Quote:
That really is the answer, the only answer. To date, there have been zero laws, ideas, and/or appeals that do this.
Because it's impossible.

The people who want safety from guns shouldn't be required to invent an impossible way to control guns, just to satisfy your desire to continue owning guns.
  #163  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:25 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
gun control can be had when the people who want it come up with a way to legislate control away from those who shouldn't have them without affecting those who are the responsible law abiding folks.
Great. Now how do we tell the difference?

Quote:
That really is the answer, the only answer. To date, there have been zero laws, ideas, and/or appeals that do this.
Certainly not from the gun-clutchers.
  #164  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:44 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
If gun control means background checks only, as an example, then I am not especially for it for reducing gun deaths, because I don't think it will have much effect...
But I may have to rethink this if more findings are made. As of now, according to the RAND Corporation

Quote:
On the gun control front, there’s moderate evidence that background checks reduce suicide and violent crime...
More evidence is needed, and to that end it's good that even though the Dickey Amendment remains, the CDC can now conduct research into gun violence.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-06-2019 at 08:45 AM.
  #165  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:02 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
You're not entitled to afford a gun; you're just entitled to possess one if you can afford it, no different from any other piece of property. Of course that doesn't mean that today's Supreme Court couldn't pull a rationale out of its ass to rule such a tax unconstitutional - there's that.
So if Alabama puts a 1000% tax on abortions, you are going to be okay with that and think it is constitutional, right? Or would the Supreme Court just be pulling something out of its ass if it struck down that law?

It simply amazes me that so many people on this board would gladly give away a right protected by the Bill of Rights for some magical feeling of safety that somehow by banning guns these people will just stop doing this.

I think we should just outlaw the internet and TV news so they quit getting the idea to shoot up places.
  #166  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:36 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This is impossible.

Because it's impossible.

The people who want safety from guns shouldn't be required to invent an impossible way to control guns, just to satisfy your desire to continue owning guns.
"should" has got nothing to do with it. You don't have the votes to adopt your preferred policy and ignore the desires of pro-gun folks. You can accept that reality and work within it to achieve (some of) your goals, or you can stomp your feet and throw a fit and say 'we shouldn't have to', but only one of those courses of actions is likely to lead to the sort of progress you apparently want to see.
  #167  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:37 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
magical feeling of safety that somehow by banning guns these people will just stop doing this.
It's not magic if other people are already doing it successfully.
  #168  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:39 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Historically, gun control becomes more popular when more people of color possess guns. Maybe that's what it will take: people of color so scared of, so fed up with, taking shit from white male racists that they make it clear they are not to be fucked with anymore. That will scare the shit out of whites, and even moderates will probably want some form of gun control then.
I know this has been floated a few times but I don't know what to do with this thought other than to point and laugh at it.
It's a ridiculous notion.
  #169  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:41 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"should" has got nothing to do with it. You don't have the votes to adopt your preferred policy and ignore the desires of pro-gun folks. You can accept that reality and work within it to achieve (some of) your goals, or you can stomp your feet and throw a fit and say 'we shouldn't have to', but only one of those courses of actions is likely to lead to the sort of progress you apparently want to see.
Did you miss the part where I'm being asked to create an impossible thing? It is impossible to keep guns away from people who "shouldn't have them" and let everyone else have them. It is not possible to do. There is no "reality" to accept there, it cannot be done. The pro-gun folks want gun control that is impossible to implement, which means they don't want gun control at all.

Fine, but don't fucking pretend that you would accept the right kind of gun control, but the meanie gun grabbers won't propose it.
  #170  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:45 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This is impossible.Because it's impossible.

The people who want safety from guns shouldn't be required to invent an impossible way to control guns, just to satisfy your desire to continue owning guns.
Actually you should.

Any one with the desire to take away something (anything), especially a right enshrined in the Constitution, should be the one who has the burden put upon them to not only make it better, but to alleviate any potential problems without undue burden on the law abiding.

There have been (and still are) plenty of things for you to do in regards to them scary guns that you DO NOT DO, DO NOT PROPOSE, and DO NOT LEGISLATE.

Fix the crazy.
Fix the poor.

Guns are NOT the disease you seem to think they are. Hell, they aren't even a symptom.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 08-06-2019 at 09:46 AM.
  #171  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:51 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
There have been (and still are) plenty of things for you to do in regards to them scary guns that you DO NOT DO, DO NOT PROPOSE, and DO NOT LEGISLATE.

Fix the crazy.
Fix the poor.

Guns are NOT the disease you seem to think they are. Hell, they aren't even a symptom.
The crazy is currently occupying the White House and he's blasting his crazy out on a daily basis creating more of these monsters all the time. How do we fix that right now?

Republicans don't want to help the poor, so that's a non-starter.

Any other ideas? For some reason we are the only country that seems to have this problem. Every other country has mentally ill people, every other country has poor people, yet only we have this particular problem. Why do you suppose that is?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #172  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:53 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Actually you should.

Any one with the desire to take away something (anything), especially a right enshrined in the Constitution, should be the one who has the burden put upon them to not only make it better, but to alleviate any potential problems without undue burden on the law abiding.

There have been (and still are) plenty of things for you to do in regards to them scary guns that you DO NOT DO, DO NOT PROPOSE, and DO NOT LEGISLATE.

Fix the crazy.
Fix the poor.

Guns are NOT the disease you seem to think they are. Hell, they aren't even a symptom.
Why don't you give us the whole freakin' list of everything else in the world that has to be fixed before you are willing to discuss gun control...if you are willing to discuss it at all?
  #173  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:02 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Why don't you give us the whole freakin' list of everything else in the world that has to be fixed before you are willing to discuss gun control...if you are willing to discuss it at all?
No one has said they didn't want to discuss gun control. What isn't up for discussion is the banning of a Constitutional right.

If such gun control was well thought out, knowledgeable and didn't harm the law abiding (and usually do nothing to the criminal), I'd be on board.

Airbeck,
I can't speak for Republicans, but this conservative certainly wants to help the poor.
What I can't abide though is creating a reliance on momma government to feed, house and support an entire strata of people simply because.
If there is a need, let's fill it. Currently the way our safety net is structured, it creates reliance, and not on whom it should be on, the self.
  #174  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:05 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Actually you should.
I should invent an impossible way to control guns? That's what you think I should do? Invent something impossible?

And the OP wonders when we'll have a serious gun control debate....
  #175  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:08 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Airbeck,
I can't speak for Republicans, but this conservative certainly wants to help the poor.
What I can't abide though is creating a reliance on momma government to feed, house and support an entire strata of people simply because.
If there is a need, let's fill it. Currently the way our safety net is structured, it creates reliance, and not on whom it should be on, the self.
I don't think this is true. Show me numbers that this reliance is getting worse. I've asked for cites on this before without anything being offered. I think this is just GOP fear mongering and othering of poor people in an effort to slash the safety net just because they want more tax cuts. Where is the data that this is not only a big problem, but that its getting worse and is something we must address right now. I'm open to being convinced, but so far I've seen not a single piece of data that shows that this is actually a problem.

Also can you cite one piece of legislation that Republicans voted for with the purpose of helping the poor? Just one thing, and it doesn't have to be GOP initiated, it could be a Democratic bill that more than a couple Republicans voted for. It should be hard to find one example of the GOP actually doing something to help the poor. I know you said you can't speak for the Republicans, but it sure doesn't seem to me like anything conservatives are interested in actually doing anything about.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 08-06-2019 at 10:12 AM.
  #176  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:08 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Actually you should.

Any one with the desire to take away something (anything), especially a right enshrined in the Constitution, should be the one who has the burden put upon them to not only make it better, but to alleviate any potential problems without undue burden on the law abiding.

There have been (and still are) plenty of things for you to do in regards to them scary guns that you DO NOT DO, DO NOT PROPOSE, and DO NOT LEGISLATE.

Fix the crazy.
Fix the poor.

Guns are NOT the disease you seem to think they are. Hell, they aren't even a symptom.
Yeah, actually WE DO.

We propose mental health solutions, we propose programs to alleviate poverty, and those are fought against by the same people who fight to keep guns in the hands of crazy people.

So, how about this, either you get on board with helping us to help the poor and the mentally unwell, or you stop trying to claim that we are the ones holding those up.

Seems that your solution to those problems has just been MOAR GUNS as well.

Funny how you guys always deflect from guns, want to talk about anything but guns, but then also refuse to follow through on the proposals that you think would be effective.

The only one I ever see who actually stands behind his proposal is DrDeth, with his desire to turn any gun debate into a call to repeal the first amendment, the rest of you make proposals that you would never actually support.

It's more real now than it has been in the past - when people say they don't want guns banned, or they respect just the 2nd amendment, that pretense is no longer viable because it's quite obvious that gun advocates simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with.
  #177  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:08 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,516
Late to the thread, so apologies for repeating anything already said. My 2¢:

Neil deGrasse Tyson caught hell for pointing out that gun slaughters are statistically a very minor cause of death and for saying “Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.”

It does occur to me that gun deaths are different in one respect: they were on someone's part deliberate. People will accept an astonishingly high rate of death from accidental causes- automobiles are proof of that. But one anonymous asshole poisoning bottles of Tylenol led to an uproar that completely changed how products were packaged. When people say they want to be safe, they primarily mean "from other people".

"Gun Control" really means "gun ownership control". It unavoidably means forbidding people from owning weapons because of what they might do with them. And legally/constitutionally that mean "no one should own a gun, or some kinds of guns, unless lawmakers (and by passive acquiescence, the voters) agree it's OK to let them". Gun control debates should be honest about this.

Libertarians believe that yes guns are for everybody, including those "others". It demands that level of non-hypocrisy.
  #178  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:18 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
I thought Sandy Hook would start serious gun control debate in the US.
I mean - dozens of 6- and 7-year old kids! Surely that was the wake-up call?

I was wrong.

Then I thought the Orlando nightclub shooting would start serious debate.
49 people dead, 50+ injured - surely that had to put things over the edge?

I guess not.

And then I thought surely, Las Vegas, with 58 people dead and -hundreds- injured.
This has to be the mass shooting that finally gets people to wake up to the fact that 'thoughts and prayers' won't actually change anything.

Wrong again.

Now we've had two mass shootings within the same day. We're barely making sense of 20 dead in El Paso, and now we have dozens killed or injured in Ohio.

What's the over/under on how many Republicans will insist that 'now is not the time to politicize' the deaths with talk of gun control?

What will it take for there to be meaningful (i.e., Republicans actually on board) gun control debate in this country? Or are we stuck for another couple of decades waiting for the current old guard to die out?
You are looking at it the wrong way. The numbers of deaths are probably not going to be major factors, to be honest. Think about it for a minute. For decades, people smoked like chimneys. Literally hundreds of thousands of Americans died from this...every year. Year after year. Decade after decade. Despite being told it WOULD kill a lot of folks, they continued to do it because they wanted too. Same goes for alcohol. Basically, the public (any public, not just Americans) are tolerant of some level of avoidable deaths for something they really want, whatever that might be. Until they aren't. You see the change in attitude wrt tobacco today. It's been a long, slow progression, but society has changed it's collective stance on tobacco use over the past 4 decades. When I started work, people smoked in their offices, in their cubicles, at the water fountain, in conferences, in restaurants and on planes. Today, almost all of those are completely forbidden. You can't even smoke at most bars today. And I think we aren't at the end of that trend yet. I expect that, eventually, smokers will be down to only being able to smoke in their own homes...and maybe not even there.

What needs to happen is for a real shift in attitude of the majority of the American people and their view of guns and gun ownership to happen. Pointing out that X number of people die each year, either from regular murder or from these gun massacres isn't going to shift that attitude, IMHO. For one thing, it's been done to death. I've been hearing about how guns are bad and about the slaughter for as long as I can remember. The public is nearly as numb to this repeated and strident argument as they are to the gun violence itself. Pointing it on, yet again, and going through your list, yet again, will, IMHO, only reach the folks who already agree with you, not the folks who still think the right to keep and bear arms is worth the price we collectively pay wrt (possibly) avoidable deaths.

As I've said in the past and will continue to say in the future is what we need is a change in attitude towards gun ownership by the majority of the voting population. And I think it's already happening. It's just not happening fast enough for most of you. But the wheels of change grind very slowly...until they don't. If you actually look back at gun ownership in the US, I think that today we are at an all time low wrt percentage of households who have a gun. And that figure, at least from my own recollection, continues to fall...and would probably fall faster except for folks who are trying to snatch those guns up before the public is ready to give them up on their own. Without banning tobacco we have a huge reduction in it's use...and that's pretty much voluntarily by the public. That's what you need to have happen, attitude wise, for serious gun control to be a thing. Try and take something from someone and they will resist you and fight you. Get them to voluntarily give it up and you won't have to fight anyone.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 08-06-2019 at 10:19 AM.
  #179  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:18 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
...It's more real now than it has been in the past - when people say they don't want guns banned, or they respect just the 2nd amendment, that pretense is no longer viable because it's quite obvious that gun advocates simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with.
That's an ugly (and incorrect) smear, and one of the obstacles to a "serious gun control debate".
  #180  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:20 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Then show us how it's wrong.
  #181  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:21 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I should invent an impossible way to control guns? That's what you think I should do? Invent something impossible?

And the OP wonders when we'll have a serious gun control debate....

I guess fit throwing is ok as well. Good Luck
  #182  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:21 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It simply amazes me that so many people on this board would gladly give away a right protected by the Bill of Rights for some magical feeling of safety that somehow by banning guns these people will just stop doing this.
Okay. Does it also surprise you that some people on this board (me) would give away the individual right (erroneously decided by the Supreme Court, but that's another thread ) to own a gun because I don't give a fuck about owning a gun, that this does not give me a magical feeling of anything, that if enough people did the same I believe we all would be safer, and that by banning such guns as used in the mass shootings last weekend would greatly reduce the number of people killed in such shootings, and that this would be a wonderful thing? Because all of that makes pretty damn good sense to me.
  #183  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:22 AM
dhricenak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15

Gun Control Action


Maybe if someone brought an assault rifle to the Senate floor and opened fire.
  #184  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:28 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's an ugly (and incorrect) smear, and one of the obstacles to a "serious gun control debate".
But what isn't an obstacle to a serious gun control debate? There is always another excuse not to directly talk about the issue-it's either the way the question was asked, the assumption that we are all lying about our real intentions, our unwillingness to fulfill impossible demands, our inability to see that the problem is video games and/or reporting of all the shootings and/or immigrants, or the unwillingness to see that every other problem on earth is more important and must be solved first.
  #185  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:28 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Then show us how it's wrong.
Kind of hard to prove a negative, so it's sort of a ridiculous request. It would be on k9bfriender (and you if you are supporting that position) to demonstrate that a large number, if not a majority of gun advocates "simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with". Since this is such a ridiculous and over the top argument that can just logically be proven to be wrong (there are, IIRC, something like 10 million members in the NRA alone...which isn't the total of gun advocates in the US btw, just gives a number we could work with. If even half of them ACTUALLY were what k9b said we'd have millions of murders a year...not 12,000 or so) that it's kind of not worth bothering with. Basically, emotions are running high, as usual, in this thread, and k9b should probably just retract that ridiculous assertion and move on. But I expect he won't...and you won't either.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #186  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:29 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
As I've said in the past and will continue to say in the future is what we need is a change in attitude towards gun ownership by the majority of the voting population. And I think it's already happening. It's just not happening fast enough for most of you. But the wheels of change grind very slowly...until they don't. If you actually look back at gun ownership in the US, I think that today we are at an all time low wrt percentage of households who have a gun. And that figure, at least from my own recollection, continues to fall...and would probably fall faster except for folks who are trying to snatch those guns up before the public is ready to give them up on their own. Without banning tobacco we have a huge reduction in it's use...and that's pretty much voluntarily by the public. That's what you need to have happen, attitude wise, for serious gun control to be a thing. Try and take something from someone and they will resist you and fight you. Get them to voluntarily give it up and you won't have to fight anyone.
I don't feel guns and cigarettes can be compared in this way. Unlike cigarettes, guns are often used to harm other people. And the people who choose to harm other people with guns are not going to be part of the general movement of giving up guns. If the trend you described continues and ninety percent of current gun owners decided to voluntarily get rid of their guns, all of the potential killers would be in the remaining ten percent and still represent a serious problem.
  #187  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:29 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I guess fit throwing is ok as well. Good Luck
If you had a serious, responsible, realistic proposal to offer for discussion, you no doubt would have offered it.
  #188  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:31 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Okay. Does it also surprise you that some people on this board (me) would give away the individual right (erroneously decided by the Supreme Court, but that's another thread ) to own a gun because I don't give a fuck about owning a gun, that this does not give me a magical feeling of anything, that if enough people did the same I believe we all would be safer, and that by banning such guns as used in the mass shootings last weekend would greatly reduce the number of people killed in such shootings, and that this would be a wonderful thing? Because all of that makes pretty damn good sense to me.
Not at all. In fact, basically your attitude is what you would need the general population to feel in order to get serious gun control or outright bans in place. It's a shift such as yours that will do what the OP is asking, IMHO. People who just don't give a crap about or don't want to own a gun, and don't really care about having a protected right concerning gun ownership.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #189  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:31 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Kind of hard to prove a negative, so it's sort of a ridiculous request.
Not really. The request is to show behaviors or views that are not consistent with that description. If they existed, it would be easy enough.
  #190  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:33 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The reason this differs from the 737 Max software and sharp lawn darts examples you listed above is that there is absolutely no positive benefit to faulty aircraft software
No benefit? How about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the airlines are losing, not to mention the cost to Boeing?

The number of people killed by boeing 737 Maxs is less than the number of people killed by guns in 4 days. If plane safety were taken with the same lack of care as gun safety is, they would have not had any reason to take any action.
Quote:

or sharp lawn dart; no one benefits.
Have you been to a backyard BBQ where a group of adults have to pretend that cornhole is an actual game?
  #191  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:33 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Then show us how it's wrong.
I think it's wrong. Gun advocates don't want murder and terrorism. I think it's more accurate to say they feel that murder and terrorism directed at other people is a price they're willing to accept in order to own guns themselves.
  #192  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:36 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's an ugly (and incorrect) smear, and one of the obstacles to a "serious gun control debate".
As if you have any desire to have, rather than to distract from and derail a "serious gun control debate", but the reason that I phrased it so was specifically in response to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It's more real now than it has been in the past - when people say they don't want to ban guns, or they respect the 2nd amendment, that pretense is no longer viable because it's quite obvious that gun control advocates simply want bans, repeal of the 2nd, and every other thing they can get away with.
Do you also feel that that is an ugly smear, and one of the obstacles to a "serious gun control debate"?
  #193  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:37 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I don't feel guns and cigarettes can be compared in this way. Unlike cigarettes, guns are often used to harm other people. And the people who choose to harm other people with guns are not going to be part of the general movement of giving up guns. If the trend you described continues and ninety percent of current gun owners decided to voluntarily get rid of their guns, all of the potential killers would be in the remaining ten percent and still represent a serious problem.
Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. But they are comparable in that society allows them and they definitely have a non-zero affect on the number of deaths per year. Also, even today it's estimated that over 30,000 people die a year from 2nd hand smoke...which is more than are murdered by guns in the US annually. Alcohol is also comparable in this regard.

The key point, however, is that the public attitude towards tobacco (and alcohol to a degree) shifted, and people voluntarily started to give it up, to restrict when and where it could be used, and even how...and the deaths came down. Something similar has to happen wrt guns if you ever want to seriously restrict them for whatever reason. The public has to willing be in a place where they don't care or actively don't want to own a gun. It's got to be a lot like the lead up to Prohibition in the US, where a large group of people are wanting to give up alcohol...enough to actually change the Constitution and either vacate or amend the Amendment. I think the gun deaths, especially the mass ones DO have an effect on the public, but not enough (well, not fast enough for most of you) to create the sorts of change that are being advocated. It's going to take a shift in public opinion on this by a majority saying we don't want or need guns and we don't need an Amendment protecting our right to guns to meet what the OP is asking for. IMHO of course. Obviously, YMMV.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #194  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:39 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think it's wrong. Gun advocates don't want murder and terrorism. I think it's more accurate to say they feel that murder and terrorism directed at other people is a price they're willing to accept in order to own guns themselves.
There is no price so high that they are not willing to let others pay it.
  #195  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:39 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No benefit? How about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the airlines are losing, not to mention the cost to Boeing?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I said that faulty aircraft software doesn't benefit anyone.
  #196  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:39 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think it's wrong. Gun advocates don't want murder and terrorism. I think it's more accurate to say they feel that murder and terrorism directed at other people is a price they're willing to accept in order to own guns themselves.
Yes. It's a price society pays for allowing such things. We willingly pay that price for many things in our society. Guns are just one of them. When we aren't willing to pay that price anymore, when a majority think the price is too high, then we will get the change the OP is asking about.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #197  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:41 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
When we aren't willing to pay that price anymore, when a majority think the price is too high, then we will get the change the OP is asking about.
And, of course, you'll graciously accept it. Please.
  #198  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:42 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Then show us how it's wrong.
The "wrong" part is that most gun owners don't "want murder and terrorism;" that's an absurd straw man. They just are not willing to give up their guns (which they see as being irrelevant to the mass shootings since their guns are locked up safe or would never be used for nefarious purposes.)

I am no fan of gun ownership, but the notion (by the other poster above) that gun owners revel with joy in Sandy Hooks, El Pasos, Daytons and Pulses is ludicrous.
  #199  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:47 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The "wrong" part is that most gun owners don't "want murder and terrorism;" that's an absurd straw man.
They may not admit it, even to themselves, but that's still what not not wanting it means.

Quote:
I am no fan of gun ownership, but the notion (by the other poster above) that gun owners revel with joy in Sandy Hooks, El Pasos, Daytons and Pulses is ludicrous.
They call it recognizing and accepting the price society (IOW other people) must pay in order for them to keep their talismans. But isn't that what not not wanting that actually means?
  #200  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:48 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And, of course, you'll graciously accept it. Please.
If you don't think I will then you've never read my thoughts in one of these threads before. Not surprising, considering you probably haven't bothered to read and try and understand what my view on this even is.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017