|
Guns are everywhere in the American news nowadays. Charlestom AME church. Walter Scott. Michael Brown. Open carry goons walking into Chipolte and buying a burrito with an AK strapped to their back. It's not like it's a rare thing. movie theaters get shot up. Fourth of July celebrations. Daily gun crime on the streets. Since I've lived in Atlanta I've seen guns out in the streets hidden in people's belt lines. Shootings are on the rise in major cities. Yet Australia used to have problems with guns, but after strict laws were passed, gun crime has become a rare thing. the UK doesn't even allow regular police to carry guns. Japan has hardly any g firearm ownership at all. Is the US's position really that much different than these countries? Could the U.S. become a nation without guns? Is it even a good idea to put laws on gun use and ownership, and would it even really work?
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Guns are too easy to get in America and are one of the sources of our relatively high homicide rates compared with other wealthy nations. Good luck getting anyone to admit that on this forum though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
"The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must ... organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff. ... [The aim is] that the bourgeois democratic Government not only immediately loses all backing among the workers, but from the commencement finds itself under the supervision and threats of authorities behind whom stands the entire mass of the working class. ...As soon as the new Government is established they will commence to fight the workers. In order that this party (i.e., the democrats) whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat." - Karl Marx, Address to the Communist League (1850) “The minimum programme of the Social-Democrats calls for the replacement of the standing army by a universal arming of the people. Most of the official Social-Democrats in Europe and most of our own Menshevik leaders, however, have “forgotten” or put aside the Party’s programme, substituting chauvinism (“defencism”) for internationalism, reformism for revolutionary tactics. Yet now of all times, at the present revolutionary moment, it is most urgent and essential that there be a universal arming of the people. To assert that, while we have a revolutionary army, there is no need to arm the proletariat, or that there would “not be enough” arms to go round, is mere deception and trickery. The thing is to begin organizing a universal militia straight away, so that everyone should learn the use of arms even if there is “not enough” to go round, for it is not at all necessary that the people have enough weapons to arm everybody. The people must learn, one and all, how to use arms, they must belong, one and all, to the militia which is to replace the police and the standing army. The workers do not want an army standing apart from the people; what they want is that the workers and soldiers should merge into a single militia consisting of all the people.” - A Proletarian Militia by VI Lenin No gun control until capitalism is dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
They are necessary in order to generate the Freedom Field which is used to battle the Angels when they attack the third new Tokyo city. More seriously, nah. Frankly at some point I think they're going to start mandating firearms (to be purchased, of course, at retail outlets) in order to vote, get a driver's license, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Ferdinand the Bull posted:Yet Australia used to have problems with guns, but after strict laws were passed, gun crime has become a rare thing. the UK doesn't even allow regular police to carry guns. Japan has hardly any g First off, comparing "gun crime" tells us nothing. Of course gun crime goes down if it's harder to get guns, but if the decrease in gun crime is completely offset by a simultaneous increase in knife crime, then you aren't really any better off, are you? For the record, the US non-firearm homicide rate is 1.5 times as much as the UK total homicide rate, so clearly there is something at work there other than the availability of guns. Ferdinand the Bull posted:Could the U.S. become a nation without guns? Is it even a good idea to put laws on gun use and ownership, and would it even really work? No. There are 300 million privately owned guns in the US. Even if the Second Amendment and the gun lobby were to disappear tomorrow, the US government cannot significantly reduce civilian firearm ownership without employing coercive measures so severe that they would pose a serious risk of triggering a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
So how do they know that there are three hundred million guns in the US, anyway, unless there's been a secret registry undertaken by the NRA in collusion with the ATF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
You won't convince anyone by talking about Australia. America can never be compared to another nation when talking about something controversial. We're unique.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
They are necessary to shoot things with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Streets ain't safe no more son.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
I am selling special gun screws for screwing on gun things. They will interfere with the RFID chip Obama made the gun manufacturers put into your gun, like in Metal Gear Solid 4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Frankly at some point I think they're going to start mandating firearms (to be purchased, of course, at retail outlets) in order to vote, get a driver's license, etc. I thought this was going to be Ferdinand the Bull's proposition when I first read the title of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
I seem to remember reading somewhere that even the majority of gun owners still support some gun control measures. I think a major problem is the all-or-nothing approach taken by both extremes. The NRA will eventually hang itself by becoming more and more radical and opposed to all forms of gun control. But the left plays into their hands whenever they themselves take the exteme position and talk about banning all guns instead of supporting moderate gun control policies that would actually be practicable. You cannot magically eliminate the hundreds of millions of guns in the US. The US is not Australia or the UK, they have never had the sort of gun saturation the US has. And it's stupid to advocate for banning handguns when semi-automatic assault rifles are legal. If we want gun control we need to go step by step, without alienating potentional allies. A large portion of the gun-owning public has no ideological attachment to guns, they simply do not want to get robbed and shot.
Sucrose fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I seem to remember reading somewhere that even the majority of gun owners still support some gun control measures. I think a major problem is the all-or-nothing approach taken by both extremes. The NRA will eventually hang itself by becoming more and more radical in oppose all forms of gun control. But the left plays into their hands whenever they themselves take the exteme position and talk about banning all guns instead of supporting moderate gun control policies that would actually be practicable. You cannot magically eliminate the hundreds of thousands of guns in the US. The US is not Australia or the UK, they have never had the sort of gun saturation the US has. And it's stupid to advocate for banning handguns when semi-automatic assault rifles are legal. If we want gun control we need to go step by step, without alienating potentional allies. A large portion of the gun-owning public has no ideological attachment to guns, they simply do not want to get robbed and shot. Of course, if the goal is to encourage wary silence instead of disagreement, hey, works pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:One complicating factor in conversation, at least, is that just about any hypothetical proposal from a person who isn't super into guns gets condemned for its generalizations and creeping Bolshevism, as well as possible terror of the rugged independence of the firearm owner. I mean I appreciate being compared to Lenin, myself, but even "maybe we should reconsider the Stand your Ground laws" or something gets popped off at. Oh I agree, the right-wing NRA types are the masters at this sort of crap, but the response should be to act reasonable in the face of their hysteria and strawman insults, not to try and be the polar opposite of the NRA for the sake of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:The NRA will eventually hang itself by becoming more and more radical and opposed to all forms of gun control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I seem to remember reading somewhere that even the majority of gun owners still support some gun control measures. I think a major problem is the all-or-nothing approach taken by both extremes. The NRA will eventually hang itself by becoming more and more radical and opposed to all forms of gun control. But the left plays into their hands whenever they themselves take the exteme position and talk about banning all guns instead of supporting moderate gun control policies that would actually be practicable. You cannot magically eliminate the hundreds of millions of guns in the US. The US is not Australia or the UK, they have never had the sort of gun saturation the US has. And it's stupid to advocate for banning handguns when semi-automatic assault rifles are legal. If we want gun control we need to go step by step, without alienating potentional allies. A large portion of the gun-owning public has no ideological attachment to guns, they simply do not want to get robbed and shot. I don't think you can generalize "the left" like that the same way you can generalize the pro-gun lobby/politicians. Only 18% of Americans want to ban all handguns, and I can only assume that even fewer want to ban bolt-action hunting rifles. In contrast, the NRA is literally insane. Whiskey Sours fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
INH5 posted:For the record, the US non-firearm homicide rate is 1.5 times as much as the UK total homicide rate, so clearly there is something at work there other than the availability of guns. Yeah, you're a lot of bloodthirsty motherfuckers that shouldn't have guns regardless of what you do with your knives in lieu.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Yeah, you're a lot of bloodthirsty motherfuckers that shouldn't have guns regardless of what you do with your knives in lieu.   
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
How about, like, a license that you have to pass a battery of tests for and annual registration for your firearms? Like cars? Cuz like we all accept cars are hella dangerous and are generally accepting of those practices for automobiles. How about for guns? They're made for killing and we already have all this infrastructure and a system set up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Like cars? I'm okay with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:How about, like, a license that you have to pass a battery of tests for and annual registration for your firearms? Like cars? Cuz like we all accept cars are hella dangerous and are generally accepting of those practices for automobiles. How about for guns? They're made for killing and we already have all this infrastructure and a system set up. My CCW would be recognized in all 50 states, the test is so dumbed down that anyone could do it blindfolded, and I could buy anything I wanted so long as I could afford it? Sign me the gently caress up!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
So where'd you guys get those analogies at? Like did they originate somewhere or is this just a folk-response? Is there a FAQ of comebacks somewhere? It'd actually be real interesting reading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:. And it's stupid to advocate for banning handguns when semi-automatic assault rifles are legal. 1. There is no such thing. 2. Pistols kill way way way more people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I seem to remember reading somewhere that even the majority of gun owners still support some gun control measures. I think a major problem is the all-or-nothing approach taken by both extremes. The NRA will eventually hang itself by becoming more and more radical and opposed to all forms of gun control. But the left plays into their hands whenever they themselves take the exteme position and talk about banning all guns instead of supporting moderate gun control policies that would actually be practicable. You cannot magically eliminate the hundreds of millions of guns in the US. The US is not Australia or the UK, they have never had the sort of gun saturation the US has. And it's stupid to advocate for banning handguns when semi-automatic assault rifles are legal. If we want gun control we need to go step by step, without alienating potentional allies. A large portion of the gun-owning public has no ideological attachment to guns, they simply do not want to get robbed and shot. According to the FBI https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 Handguns were involved in 6,220 murders in 2011 (last figure available), Whereas rifles of all kinds (The FBI does not recognize "Assault weapon", and groups it with rifles) are involved in 323. In comparison, Blunt objects like Hammers were used in 496 homicides, knives in 1,694, and hands/feet/fists in 728. Now, add in the AWB backlash being the thing that turned the NRA into the "NEVER RETREAT NEVER SURRENDER" loony bin it is today, and that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle sold for the last 20 years running, then ask why "WE MUST BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS" is the hill that every gun control group wants to go die on. I mean hell even the CDC was unable to find any sufficient evidence that the original AWB had any effect on violent crime at all. If you were logically going after the #1 problem from a homicide perspective, it would be handguns. Rifles (of which, "semi-automatic assault weapons" are only a subset), are literally the least frequently misused firearms out there, and even below Hammers, Feet, Knives, and Fists, yet that's what the gun control groups are going after, the ones that just happen to be the most popular and the least misused, statistically speaking. Doccers fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So where'd you guys get those analogies at? Like did they originate somewhere or is this just a folk-response? Is there a FAQ of comebacks somewhere? It'd actually be real interesting reading.  The "Why don't we license guns like cars!" thing has repeatedly come up ad nausium for 20 years now. The responses also originated about, oh, 20 years ago. Basically it's apples to oranges, it's just a humorous response and providing answers the questioner did not expect to hear. IE Car licenses are good in all 50 states. A CCW permit is... Hilariously and maddeningly complex when you try to figure out where it applies and where it doesn't. http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html for a good primer on this. You also don't have to have a license to have a car, you just need one to operate it on public property. Then there's also the sticky mess of "Well I guess we can just require people to have a license for THIS right," which gets stickier when you remember that the south would love to require tests and licenses for people to vote as well. I don't think it's a slippery slope fallacy because they literally have tried that already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Basically it's apples to oranges, it's just a humorous response and providing answers the questioner did not expect to hear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
No one is really answering the OP:Ferdinand the Bull posted:
No, the idea of a constitutional amendment that would amend the second is as silly as a amendment to outlaw gay marriage. There is quite literally a 0% chance of it occurring in any of our lifetimes. It's also a political loser outside of small sections of the country. Sensible gun control could certainly be passed though, once both sides learn to trust each other and approach the topic in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
The AWB is what happens when people realize that there's a gun problem but politicians can't fix the real gun problem (handguns) so they fix a fake gun problem instead. And now with DC v. Heller that's gone from politically impossible to constitutionally impossible so there's really no point in even bothering with it until the Supreme Court makeup changes, at minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The AWB is what happens when people realize that there's a gun problem but politicians can't fix the real gun problem (handguns) so they fix a fake gun problem instead. And now with DC v. Heller that's gone from politically impossible to constitutionally impossible so there's really no point in even bothering with it until the Supreme Court makeup changes, at minimum. It was more politicians realized that Handguns were too common to get the votes for a nation-wide ban, so they decided to start with rarer, scarier-looking guns, to try and ease people into the idea of bans. Josh Sugarmann, founder of the VPC, put it pretty bluntly, prior to the passing of the 1994 AWB: "Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." And that confusion works. I've talked to people who have been fully in support of banning those evil assault weapons... until it was pointed out that their semi-auto ruger ranch rifle was one. It even trips politicians who try to leverage it to their advantage sometimes.  There's John Kerry, running for president. At the time he was trying to capture the sportsman vote, while also pushing for an expanded assault weapons ban and renewal. A union member gifted him this shotgun, and he proudly displayed it. later that day it was pointed out that, as a semi-automatic shotgun capable of holding more than 5 rounds, it would have qualified as an illegal assault weapon under his own bill. That, and his attempted ban on all centerfire rifle ammunition, (including the 30-30 that the would "Crawl on his belly" to hunt deer with), led to the "That dog don't hunt" ads against him. He's one of the good examples of why the NRA types absolutely do not trust the gun control side - Instead of seeing him as a complete idiot on the subject, they assumed he was lying out one side of his mouth. Doccers fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The AWB is what happens when people realize that there's a gun problem but politicians can't fix the real gun problem (handguns) so they fix a fake gun problem instead. And now with DC v. Heller that's gone from politically impossible to constitutionally impossible so there's really no point in even bothering with it until the Supreme Court makeup changes, at minimum. It helps that spree killers loving love military-style rifles and get the most national attention even if their comparative body count is a tiny fraction of what handguns account for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:It helps that spree killers loving love military-style rifles and get the most national attention even if their comparative body count is a tiny fraction of what handguns account for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
So it sounds like the best thing the hypothetical gun control folks could do is get scary black people (political sorts, rappers) to open carry then. Of course that's probably asking to get shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So it sounds like the best thing the hypothetical gun control folks could do is get scary black people (political sorts, rappers) to open carry then. Of course that's probably asking to get shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Let's be honest. The AWB had way more to do with rap videos than spree killers. You're being cute, but shootings like the Stockton massacre and 101 shooting had a lot to do with it. White people give 10000% more of a poo poo about the remote possibility of a nutcase walking into their child's school and hosing the place down with gunfire than they do about an actual mountain of dead black people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:It helps that spree killers loving love military-style rifles and get the most national attention even if their comparative body count is a tiny fraction of what handguns account for. Spree killers love anything they can get their hands on. Virginia Tech was a pair of handguns with multiple 10 round magazines. I think the idea that spree killers only use AR-15's were due to Holmes and Lanza both used one nearly back-to-back. And of the two, Holmes was the only person who actually bought one. And of that, Holmes' AR jammed pretty quickly, and he switched to other weapons to do most of his killing. People were swearing up and down that the navy yard shooter had to be using an AR-15 because it was the spree-shooters choice. The "Media fear gun of the moment" changes every few years though, last decade it was all about the AK-47. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So it sounds like the best thing the hypothetical gun control folks could do is get scary black people (political sorts, rappers) to open carry then. Of course that's probably asking to get shot. You laugh but that's how gun control in California started, when Ronald Reagon decided something had to be done about these uppity people: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Spree killers love anything they can get their hands on. Virginia Tech was a pair of handguns with multiple 10 round magazines. Good thing I didn't say AR-15 then or I might have had a lunatic jump my poo poo on the internet!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Good thing I didn't say AR-15 then or I might have had a lunatic jump my poo poo on the internet! Anyone who disagrees with my point of view is a lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Doccers posted:You laugh but that's how gun control in California started, when Ronald Reagon decided something had to be done about these uppity people:
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Oh I know. I'd actually be curious how much of that it would take to flip the Scared White People demographic back round on the topic, or if they'd just take it as a sign of the imminence of RaHoWa. It would certainly be amusing, but I don't think that's going to happen. that same group of Scared White People have now realized that the laws will also apply to them, and it's not just used against people who fail the paper bag test like they originally were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:02
|
|