Gun Control

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Hey I moved this conversation over here because there is a pretty strong but unspoken "don't shit up A&H with gun sperging" rule.
SunLightStreak said:
The older activists wanted to ban handguns, conceal carry, shotguns, and just about everything else. This group is just using a more incremental approach.
Click to expand...
No, not really. It's pretty much the same stuff that has been pushed for the last 15-20 years after they got their asses handed to them after they ramrodded through the late 80's early 90's legislation that everyone hated. They changed their tune and bringing back the AWB, registries, mag limitations, ending the "gun show loophole", along with vague suggestions about banning crazy people from having guns has been their standard fare since the last decade at least.

There hasn't been a call for a blanket ban since, ever, really. It's always been these small "reasonable" regulations and laws.

SunLightStreak said:
Personally, the CDC should keep stats. If anything about law enforcement and their lethal engagement stats. The fact that we consider intervention by the SWAT team to be almost a lethal given should concern us. Germany's GSG9 has only had 5 uses of its firearms in its 40 yr history. US law enforcement has proportionally had a lot more deadly outcomes for often less dangerous encounters.
Click to expand...
That's a law enforcement thing. They keep their own stats. They have their own training and procedures too. There are entire fields of study dedicated to this. What the hell is the Centers for Disease Control going to tell them that they don't already know? Shit, how the hell are they qualified to even speak about police matters?

SunLightStreak said:
If recent events have taught us anything, we do have an issue at the very least of the police and crazy people being unable to self regulate themselves in regards to firearms. Yes, the CDC should look into this at the very least. Having more research on this and developing more non-lethal methods for the police to employ can't be a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Crazy people can't own firearms legally in the US. The issue here is reporting requirements and database failures. Cruz, for example, had a ton of red flags that should have gotten him barred but the system failed. Putting the CDC on the case is not going to fix that.

I would just like to point out something here you are misrepresenting. Doing mental health studies about cops or crazy people or violence is not anything that is against the rules for the CDC to do. What is being pushed is the CDC conducting studies on guns, gun violence, and gun owners and making recommendations for regulations. That's the ATF's job. If we want to do a study about firearms we should give the job to them. They are the experts in those areas. Not the CDC.

SunLightStreak said:
Mental health in the US is laughable. No one disagrees with this and doctors should report these cases more often to law-enforcement.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Nobody disagrees here. Not you. Not me. Not the NRA. Not the Brady Campaign. Well, I guess some privacy groups might be peeved. But nobody involved in the gun control debate disagrees.

Why are you bringing up something nobody is opposed to? Did someone convince you that gun owners or advocate groups were? They aren't.

SunLightStreak said:
Yes, gun control activists will blow everything out of proportion; but being the guys to say no to reasonable things, publically attacking survivors, concocting crazed conspiracy theories, or just trying to change the subject will only lose in the long and short run.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think laying low and torpedoing bad policy and legislation is exactly what they should do. They aren't saying no to reasonable legislation. They are saying no to recycled proposed legislation with gigantic flaws in them that won't do a thing to fix the problem of violence thus inviting the next batch of "common-sense" solutions the next time it happens. The aforementioned small "reasonable" regulations and laws that they have been parading around for decades.
 
Seeing as the modern focus on gun control is now on mass shootings, it's strange to see how much shifted in the past twenty years or so.

The gun control debate has been going on in this country since 1865. The American Civil War is honestly the start point of the gun control debate in America for two reasons.

It was the first armed insurrection against the United States government that was truly catastrophic, as opposed to the small-scale uprisings of the antebellum era such as the Whiskey Rebellion.

The war also brought about rapid proliferation of repeating firearms and breech-loading weapons as well, making guns a lot more efficient and effective as a weapon.

For most of the 20th Century, the gun control debate was about crime and was framed as an issue of keeping guns away from street criminals and gangsters. Mass shootings did not become the main focus of the gun control debate until the Columbine massacre in 1999. Even then, the debate still mostly focused on handguns as it did before.

Sandy Hook was a game-changer in that it not only intensified the debate on mass shootings, but also made the AR-15 and the semi-automatic rifle the main villain in the eyes of the Left. The irony in all this is that Adam Lanza only used an AR-15 derivative at Sandy Hook because he stole it, and because the anti-gun crowd focused so much on him using a rifle, it created a copycat effect and a lot of mass shooters decided to use the AR-15.

If Lanza wanted to legally purchase a gun to use in a rampage, he would have likely chose a semi-automatic pistol since they're easier to conceal. A Glock 17 still has a pretty decent capacity and is a lot easier to hide than an AR-15.
 
Here are my thoughts on gun control. If you disarm law abiding citizens you give criminals the advantage. It's best that everyone is on a level playing field so we all leave each-other alone.

Background checks will not prevent mass shootings because most people who commit mass shootings would pass a background check; however, we should still have them because we don't want guns in the hands of people who we know are violent criminals.

Every single authoritarian government has disarmed it's citizens so they couldn't fight back. We need the 2nd amendment, we need guns to protect ourselves, from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

A disarmed citizenry will never be free.
 
In my country, back on the 16th century, the king banned swords for the common people, only nobles could have them. Few years later we created the short knife, everyone had them and to this day we have kinda of a gun culture, mostly on hunting but we don't have mass shootings. The lesson on this is that no matter how you want to ban something, people will come around with some alternative.
Gun control is a very tricky issue, you have countries like Switzerland and Serbia with a strong gun culture like Murica but with no mass shootings. Maybe the problem aren't the guns themselves but mental health, I read that most gun violence on the States are suicides, correct me if I'm wrong. Most people blame guns, but themselves don't kill on their own but people do.
 
Terrorist said:
Hot Take: I might consider some form of gun control on racial lines. The 2nd Amendment (and constitution in general) was written to apply to white men in a majority white nation where they were the only group to hold political power. Blacks have clearly proven unable to handle the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

It's not hot it's a milquetoast 4chan take. Niggers mostly use firearms for things like normal crime, drug deals etc. which is perfectly rational, and also implies that niggers mostly kill other niggers. Which again, is a perfectly rational way of establishing who's the stronger nigger worthy of survival. It's insecure faggot white boys who do autistic shit like mass shootings. If anyone should be banned on racial basis it's the white males.

750px-DavyCrockettBomb.jpg


This is a M-29 tactical nuclear recoilless gun (sorry @Recoil) . It has just a 10-20 tons yield. I think it should be legal.
 
Pitere pit said:
you have countries like Switzerland and Serbia with a strong gun culture like Murica but with no mass shootings. Maybe the problem aren't the guns themselves but mental health, I read that most gun violence on the States are suicides, correct me if I'm wrong. Most people blame guns, but themselves don't kill on their own but people do.
Click to expand...

"mental health" is close to the mark, but that term implies that gun deaths are a medical problem with a medical solution, which just isn't true. The real underlying problem is that amerimutts are low-iq and prone to cruelty, even to themselves.
 
Particle Bored said:
I think about 35-40% of US gun deaths are suicides.
Click to expand...

It’s closer to two thirds.


The science isn’t clear on whether suicide is truly means independent, but I would think that a large percentage of suicides would still occur even if the victim did not have access to a firearm.

That said, there’s evidence to suggest that there are cases where the victim is fixated on the means of suicide.

I don’t buy gun control as an effective means of stopping suicide in particular though. To me it sounds like a Foxconn factory suicide net scenario; it’s an out-of-touch bureaucraic approach and we’re better served by addressing the root problem.

Have a society where people talk down the people ready to jump, not one that throws a net under the bridge and calls it good.
 
Tour of Italy said:
It’s closer to two thirds.


The science isn’t clear on whether suicide is truly means independent, but I would think that a large percentage of suicides would still occur even if the victim did not have access to a firearm.

That said, there’s evidence to suggest that there are cases where the victim is fixated on the means of suicide.

I don’t buy gun control as an effective means of stopping suicide in particular though. To me it sounds like a Foxconn factory suicide net scenario; it’s an out-of-touch bureaucraic approach and we’re better served by addressing the root problem.

Have a society where people talk down the people ready to jump, not one that throws a net under the bridge and calls it good.
Click to expand...
Tbh killing yourself is a lot "easier" with a gun. It only requires only enough conviction to point and squeeze and BAM instant consequences. Turns out slitting your wrists really hurts and you're crying like a bitch in the tub.

We'd be better off just letting people sign up for suicide in a hospital but first they need to go through a few months of therapy than banning guns for that reason though.
 
The best and greatest said:
Tbh killing yourself is a lot "easier" with a gun. It only requires only enough conviction to point and squeeze and BAM instant consequences. Turns out slitting your wrists really hurts and you're crying like a bitch in the tub.

We'd be better off just letting people sign up for suicide in a hospital but first they need to go through a few months of therapy than banning guns for that reason though.
Click to expand...
There is merit to the argument that guns make it easier; there’s no denying that a suicide attempt with a firearm is far more likely to end in death.

For comparison, firearms are far and away the most common cause of death in male suicides, as opposed to poisoning for women which has far higher rates of survival.

There are gun control laws on the books right now that actually make the suicide issue worse. The system of “universal background checks” required in California require all transfers of firearms to be done through a licensed dealer, usually with a fee and waiting period for each weapon. If you have a loved one who is a suicide risk, they cannot surrender their firearms to you without going through this burdensome process.

I am certain this policy has killed people, and in other states where it’s adopted will aggravate firearm suicide more than it would actually help. It puts up a specific roadblock targeting a special vulnerable category of people who are at-risk but still at least willing to seek help. Imagine being on the fence about suicide and wanting to remove that specific impulsive temptation that a firearm represents, but you’ve got to come up with the transfer fee, start the process, then sit around with your guns in your home for days on end while everything goes through.

Suicidal people tend to be depressed and stressed already, and the additional stress of going through that process is not likely to help things.

I suppose you could break the law and get them out of there, but if you were suicidal before imagine what the potential for having to deal with the ATF is going to do to you.

You could destroy them too, as a last resort, but guns typically represent a significant investment and again, I can’t imagine a suicidal invidual is going to feel much better about their situation after having to take an angle grinder to thousands of dollars worth of guns.

You could write a provision where a person could surrender their guns to the police, but that’s an one more additional step with more stress associated with it. That plus I shouldn’t have to point out the issues with a system where people are expected to surrender weapons to the police after expressing an intent to use them and not be harassed or searched as a result.

Long story short, requiring a licensed dealer for all transfers is going to make it harder for people to get their own guns out of their house of their at risk, and what benefit do we even get in return?
 
Here's a link to an excellent TED talk, "Why I Chose the Gun", about 15 minutes long:

www.ted.com

Why I chose a gun

Peter van Uhm is the Netherlands' chief of defense, but that does not mean he is pro-war. In this talk, he explains how his career is one shaped by a love of peace, not a desire for bloodshed -- and why we need armies if we want peace.
www.ted.com www.ted.com

I agree with the message, essentially that a polite, democratic and safe society is only made so by having force backing it up. And good men who want peace are the ones who have to wield those weapons.

I personally think the US's 2nd Amendment is an overall good thing.
 
"On a scale of 1-100, please rate your satisfaction with the nation's current gun control policies. "

How can I even answer that? I mean, you could read anything into my answer. If I answer low, you could take that to mean I'm upset because they are too stringent, or I'm upset because they're too lax. If I answer high, it could mean that as much as I may not like some of them, I recognize we're better than pretty much anywhere else. Or it could mean I like the situation exactly as is. Or it could mean I like it, but I want it to go further.

There's no way to answer that question without giving them an answer they can do whatever with.
 
MembersSchoolPizza said:
"On a scale of 1-100, please rate your satisfaction with the nation's current gun control policies. "

How can I even answer that? I mean, you could read anything into my answer. If I answer low, you could take that to mean I'm upset because they are too stringent, or I'm upset because they're too lax. If I answer high, it could mean that as much as I may not like some of them, I recognize we're better than pretty much anywhere else. Or it could mean I like the situation exactly as is. Or it could mean I like it, but I want it to go further.

There's no way to answer that question without giving them an answer they can do whatever with.
Click to expand...
it was worth it to just put in “ Shall not be infringed“ on the last part.
 
Pensacola shooting: Saudi student kills three at US naval base

The BBC includes links to gun control related content over a shooting by a Saudi at a Navy base. How would gun control stop this when they already don't allow weapons on base thanks to Bill Clinton to be carried around. Also what should the US Democrats do to stop this, kinda gives away who runs the BBC. And both links dated to August 2019 and this shooting happened now.
 
MrJokerRager said:
Pensacola shooting: Saudi student kills three at US naval base

The BBC includes links to gun control related content over a shooting by a Saudi at a Navy base. How would gun control stop this when they already don't allow weapons on base thanks to Bill Clinton to be carried around. Also what should the US Democrats do to stop this, kinda gives away who runs the BBC. And both links dated to August 2019 and this shooting happened now.
Click to expand...

The military doesn't allow weapons to be carried on base? What are we, the Soy-viet Union?

There's so much irony in that I can't even...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom