Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[spacejunk]

In theory, yes. However, getting a license for one is an extremely difficult process. Despite this, there are some people who have them. Also, they are incredibly expensive, which is yet another reason why hardly anyone goes through the intensive background checks necessary to purchase one. It's also regulated differently in different states.

so, the regulatory mechanisms that make it hard to get a license for one; is that a violation of the constitution?


i don't pretend toi understand all the finer points of this debate, so forgive my ignorance - but i wonder if some of the talk about the constitution is equivocating is just meaningless hyperbole like this:

@zephyr

The consitution is still the law of the land and suggesting to change it is tyranny. Stop being a tyrannical communist.

I don?t want the communist gulags, the bread lines, and the inevitable mass killings when gun control is in place.

Look at all the other countries that implemented gun control and look how they ALL go to shit

you mean...like australia?
which, uh hasn't "gone to shit" and has a great deal less violent crime and murder than the USA?




we're interested in "serious debate" here, man - which for most of us, means attempting a calm, respectful exchange of ideas - rather than posting absolute nonsense like this:
"I don?t want the communist gulags, the bread lines, and the inevitable mass killings when gun control is in place"

it's a good idea to fact-check the claims of internet right wing ranters before reposting them elsewhere; most of them are extremely dishonest.

 

[undiminished689]

And you know let?s ignore ooo idk the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, all of Europe right now, communist China, because Australia hasn?t gone to sh*t YET

Wonder how communism/socialism pulled off mass genocide? O ya gun control

 

[JessFR]

That a serious question?

Lets say the American people, as a United people (so obviously not the real American people just a hypothetical one) actually decided they wanted to get rid of the 2nd amendment. How would you do it?

Congress can't do it on its own, the constitution provides a way to change itself as society changes. You gotta have a referendum. Congress proposes a change, the state governments all separately vote on it, the populations of that state also vote on it. If a substantial majority of both the state governments AND the people of those states AND the federal government, in other words, if America actually mostly agreed on it. Then we could pass an amendment saying the 2nd amendment is no longer in effect.

Its been done before, the 19th and 21st as I recall but don't quote me on the numbers. We made alcohol illegal in the constitution, then we realized that was a huge fuck up and passed another amendment undoing the previous amendment.

But don't worry, you'd never ever ever get that level of agreement to do ANYTHING with the 2nd amendment. And zyphers suggestion that congress illegally do it on their own authority most definitely IS tyrannical. So the short version is that the 2nd amendment, or any of the bill of rights really, are essentially unchangeable. Not legally, but in practice. You'd never get that much agreement to fuck with the bill of rights.

Like I said, the only time it's ever happened was when they tried to take our booze away, and we swiftly undid that.

 

[undiminished689]

@jess

See i didn?t claim to be smart I?m just not a communist sympathizer like most of these people and I know founding fathers and majority of the constitution was written in a time before communism and people held actual right wing beliefs.

I know the bill of rights very well but I didn?t honestly know that about the constitution. So thank you

 

[spacejunk]

Europe is literally a shell of its former self and it?s people are becoming minorities in their own country while having Muslim rape gangs and sharia law in their countries. Thanks government. Thanks gun control

how old are you?
no offence, but you write like a child.

 

[cduggles]

I find the NRA's purchase of politicians and propaganda to influence the American public (NRA TV!!) to be fascinating and sad.

It's interesting how after one meal with the NRA, Trump shut up about gun control.

Anything meaningful will have to come through state governments and smaller.

I don't see the Supreme Court tackling this issue at this time.

 

[JessFR]

so, the regulatory mechanisms that make it hard to get a license for one; is that a violation of the constitution?


i don't pretend toi understand all the finer points of this debate, so forgive my ignorance - but i wonder if some of the talk about the constitution is equivocating is just meaningless hyperbole like this:




you mean...like australia?
which, uh hasn't "gone to shit" and has a great deal less violent crime and murder than the USA?

we're interested in "serious debate" here, man - which for most of us, means attempting a calm, respectful exchange of ideas - rather than posting absolute nonsense like this:
"I don?t want the communist gulags, the bread lines, and the inevitable mass killings when gun control is in place"

Forget about him man. There are much more sensible Americans to have this discussion with.

Not naming any names here but we all know that a lot of Americans don't know much about.. Well.. Much. I'd argue this is the case of people generally wherever you go.

Back off this insane constitutional discussion and back onto the automatic weapons question, the important part about the legality of automatic weapons in American society is that they make up pretty much zero of the crime. The mass shootings are all done with semiautomatics. One with a bump stock which is still fundamentally a semiauto.

See my previous post on the other page for all the details of automatic weapon ownership in America, but the important part is that the current legal situation works. They can be bought and there's virtually no crime done with them.

If there's one area of gun control we by some crazy happenstance got perfect, it's automatics. We have a legal community of automatic gun owners yet none of them shoot up their local schools. It's entirely by luck and it's a little insane in how it works, but it works and I'll take that.

 

[undiminished689]

@spac junk

How in the world do you have an Anarchy symbol when ur advocating for gun control? In what world would an anarcho government be taking people?s guns?

<SNIP>

Before u answer there is no government lol

 

[zephyr]

Europe is literally a shell of its former self and it?s people are becoming minorities in their own country while having Muslim rape gangs and sharia law in their countries. Thanks government. Thanks gun control

You're welcome!

 

[JessFR]

I find the NRA's purchase of politicians and propaganda to influence the American public (NRA TV!!) to be fascinating and sad.

It's interesting how after one meal with the NRA, Trump shut up about gun control.

Anything meaningful will have to come through state governments and smaller.

I don't see the Supreme Court tackling this issue at this time.

Trump was never gonna do anything about gun control. There's a concealed carry permit in New York with his name on it. And just for some context here. New York state NEVER gives out concealed weapons permits to ordinary people. You gotta be someone important, like a politician, or trump.

The NRA didn't have a dinner with Trump. Trump had a dinner with the NRA.

 

[spacejunk]

Forget about him man. There are much more sensible Americans to have this discussion with.

Not naming any names here but we all know that a lot of Americans don't know much about.. Well.. Much. I'd argue this is the case of people generally wherever you go.

Back off this insane constitutional discussion and back onto the automatic weapons question, the important part about the legality of automatic weapons in American society is that they make up pretty much zero of the crime. The mass shootings are all done with semiautomatics. One with a bump stock which is still fundamentally a semiauto.

See my previous post on the other page for all the details of automatic weapon ownership in America, but the important part is that the current legal situation works. They can be bought and there's virtually no crime done with them.

If there's one area of gun control we by some crazy happenstance got perfect, it's automatics.

so....could a similar approach be workable with other guns? the ones which are used in killing sprees?

it seems like a massively glossed-over area of discussion; that fully automatics have been regulated?
just don't call it "gun control"?

 

[undiminished689]

so....could a similar approach be workable with other guns? the ones which are used in killing sprees?

it seems like a massively glossed-over area of discussion; that fully automatics have been regulated?
just don't call it "gun control"?

Ur asking the state to restrict guns.

That?s not Anarchy dude.

Anarachy would mean there wouldn?t be a state to begin with to restrict guns

 

[spacejunk]

i hadn't answered your question yet, and i should have taken the advice jess offered. i'm not really intersted in debating people that don't try to be polite or reasonable.

but i'll humour you this one last time;

@spacejunk

How in the world do you have an Anarchy symbol when ur advocating for gun control? In what world would an anarcho government be taking people?s guns?

<SNIP>

i believe that the only war worth fighting is class war and that guns are for cowards (and americans, i spose). i'm anti-war, anti-military, anti-gun.

 

[JessFR]

so....could a similar approach be workable with other guns? the ones which are used in killing sprees?

it seems like a massively glossed-over area of discussion; that fully automatics have been regulated?
just don't call it "gun control"?

Thing is they did call it gun control. One of the two laws that put this situation in place is actually called the gun control act.

But, society has changed. This might be hard to believe, for both sides here. But American society has actually gotten MORE pro 2nd amendment since the 60s and 80s.

If you tried to do it today, I don't think you'd get it through.

Take a look at the history of concealed carry. In those days odds are if you were an American, you couldn't get one. Today you can. Society has changed a lot since then.

And to be honest, I think part of the blame goes on the gun control types here. It was all these gun control laws, especially Clinton's assault weapons act, that I think made the pro gun types less willing to compromise. Throughout the 80s and 90s,fhe mid 90s especially, people were open to gun control. But I think they fucked up how they did it. And as a result, the laws of those days in America are now gone, and people are less willing to try again. Especially not with the same idea a 2nd time around with another assault weapon ban. There are a lot of Americans who were alive then and remember it.

But regardless, as a hypothetical scenario. Would it work? Restricting the total number I circulation. I'm not sure, maybe. It's not my preferred solution, that's a licensing system. But it's one I'd be open to.

One big issue is how many guns are in circulation. There are far more than the automatics at the time. And it only rises with every failed discussion about gun control. It might do very little for a long long time.

 

[undiminished689]

Ok that?s cool. But ur not an anarchist is what im saying.

Advocating for the state to restrict on ppls rights is anything but Anarchy

Anarchy=absence of a govenrment

Your logic=using the government to restrict guns. Prescense of a government

 

[cduggles]

I'm aware of NY's restrictions on carry permits and generally strict sentencing laws if you are even in possession of one.

I think tougher sentencing laws are a great way to deter illegal firearm possession.

Actually I don't like the whole process by which people can get carry permits.

Trump's personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, has a carry permit and apparently wears an ankle holster with a gun (idk what kind). He's not exactly the type of person who should have one and has reportedly threatened people with it.

 

[spacejunk]

michael cohen, the guy who had his house raided in connection with the mueller investgation yesterday? that's interesting...

Anarchy=absence of a govenrment

Your logic=using the government to restrict guns. Prescense of a government

uh no, that's not what anarchy means at all.
anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism is a strain of political theory with a long history. if you think it means simply "absence of government", you've been grossly misinformed.

but anyway, let's get back to the topic at hand - you are derailing the thread.

Thing is they did call it gun control. One of the two laws that put this situation in place is actually called the gun control act.

But, society has changed. This might be hard to believe, for both sides here. But American society has actually gotten MORE pro 2nd amendment since the 60s and 80s.

If you tried to do it today, I don't think you'd get it through.

Take a look at the history of concealed carry. In those days odds are if you were an American, you couldn't get one. Today you can. Society has changed a lot since then.

And to be honest, I think part of the blame goes on the gun control types here. It was all these gun control laws, especially Clinton's assault weapons act, that I think made the pro gun types less willing to compromise.

But regardless, as a hypothetical scenario. Would it work? I'm not sure, maybe. It's not my preferred solution, that's a licensing system. But it's one I'd be open to.

do you think it's american society that is "more pro 2nd amendment", or do you think the gun lobby's power and influence has increased?


it seems to me that the post-911 age has been dominated with the politics of fear, and all kinds of ridiculous forms of paranoia - fear of government conspiracies and the whole "prepper" movement; the kinds of people that believe in elaborate conspiracy stuff related to government tyranny - but then go and elect anti-democratic people like trump.

is this the sort of thing you mean by increased support for the 2nd amendment, or are you referring to people who understand that taxation is a necessary part of living in society with roads, bridges and electricity?


(that sounds rude - i guess what i'm actually asking is if the increased support for the 2nd amendment is actually a reflection of how a large body of people are feeling - as opposed to the vocal minority of extremist ideologues(

 

[undiminished689]

We are all in agreement that the 4 gun safety rules should be taught to people when buying a gun right?

@space junk

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Literally the definition.

I have actually have met anarchists. <SNIP>

Ur not an anarchist

 

[JessFR]

Anarchy as a political philosophy has many branches. It's like any political philosophy, or any philosophy at all in that sense.

If there's something philosophy loves, its having one idea and splitting it into a thousand subcategories and sub sub categories.

That anarchofascism is a thing should spell out how complicated this kinda shit can get.

My ex always complained to me how I'd make everything complicated, and I'd always reply "everything IS complicated"

 

[spacejunk]

@space junk

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Literally the definition.

I have actually have met anarchists. You would get slapped for saying something like this and calling urself an anarchist just saying

lol

offering a basic dictionary definition for an elaborate political ideology (with many branches, as jess says) is weird enough.

but you completely ignored definition #2

a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
anarchy prevailed in the ghetto
b : absence of order : disorder

please stop derailing the thread with your shitposting, it's really tedious. if you're not interested in staying on topic, i'm not interested in engaging.