|
various cheeses posted:Hey play nice you guys, try not to ad hominem each others dicks off. There are none. Dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed. Bath in the viscera of the innocent slain. Offer their souls, and yours, to the alter of the gun.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
various cheeses posted:Hey play nice you guys, try not to ad hominem each others dicks off. There's no point trying, the culture is too hosed. Ruling up the stereotypical goon with guns is fun though. Someone post that tfr gun meet group photo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:There's zero reason to play ball with the gun-grabbers as long as they want to use any legislation passed as a wedge in the door. ...you know, other than the daily victims of gun violence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There are none. Dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed. Bath in the viscera of the innocent slain. Offer their souls, and yours, to the alter of the gun. Welcome, friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:This is useless policy, in my opinion. Most of the people who legally buy guns then shoot at their wife, or commit suicide with them, or have it stolen from them, or accidentally shoot someone else with them, do not have a criminal record. Background checks would do nothing for the consequences of mass gun ownership. Why is this useless? Background checks don't stop people without criminal records from buying guns and committing crimes, therefore we should just go ahead and sell guns to known murderers? What?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:There's no point trying, the culture is too hosed. Ruling up the stereotypical goon with guns is fun though. It's fun to rile up the gunless goons too, but that's what rowdy trout gun threads are for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why is this useless? Yes, as long as I can keep my retarded hobby and irrational fear of rape/murder/kidnapping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You haven't rebutted anything, you've only displayed you don't understand what you're talking about those criticisms are perfectly valid but you don't seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. everything you've said doesn't even attack the stats, it demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of what question was asked and is relevant after a lot of searching i found the actual kleck article you cited instead of an abstract and paywall (here and it's not particularly convincing because it does not actually conduct any studies or collect any data: instead, it relies on a number of studies from different time periods to make a basic statistical argument that those various statistics, taken together, make the result reached by Kellermann unlikely. that's a perfectly reasonable way to spitball theories. it is not, of course, a perfectly valid study to hold up in comparison, he needs to get in the field and collect actual data. i note also a lot of his criticisms of Kellermann in this are self-cites. all in all, not a really strong article. this is, of course, the guy who argues that guns stop crimes 2.5 million times per year from a study he did which is, to put it mildly, utterly ludicrous given the data we have on crimes that actually get committed so I certainly wouldn't take his data on faith
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why is this useless? a common gun nut argument is [sensible gun reform] will not eliminate all gun deaths, therefore it is useless and we shouldn't do it at all that it eliminates some for no real cost to anyone does not factor into this analysis
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Gun-haters, I have a question. When will gun laws be in perfect equilibrium in your opinion? Like what laws need to get passed where you stop and say "whoa guys I think this is enough, we got it"? What are your victory conditions? Anyone?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:a common gun nut argument is [sensible gun reform] will not eliminate all gun deaths, therefore it is useless and we shouldn't do it at all well the cost is that it is an unfair restriction on our god given rights, which is why i applaud the dozen odd veterans who lay down their lives every day for the second amendment in opposition to obama's tyrannical takeover of the VA. heroes, every one
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Anyone? Already answered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Here's a cool and good article about the last time the gun control lobby tried to work with the NRA on background checks Spoilers: It didn't turn out well quote:In early March, Chris Cox and Jim Baker [NRA lobbyists] came to Manchin’s office to hear him out — the first of several face-to-face meetings they would have that month. Manchin knew that the lobbyists were never going to embrace universal background checks. His hope was simply that they would not fight him. To win their neutrality, Manchin had all sorts of ideas for an N.R.A.-friendly bill. In his version, firearms dealers would, for the first time since 1968, be allowed to sell handguns across state lines, including at out-of-state gun shows. Members of the military and their spouses could purchase guns in their native state and in the state where they were stationed. Such provisions had been championed by the gun group for years. “I told the N.R.A., ‘When will you ever have a time when liberals who hate us even having a gun actually vote for something that protects and enhances our rights — and all we ask for in return is to tighten up loopholes in legislation that’s already there?’ ” he said. “Absolutely, I said that to them. Many, many times.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:a common gun nut argument is [sensible gun reform] will not eliminate all gun deaths, therefore it is useless and we shouldn't do it at all Ah. Actually I can get behind this reasoning. Having guns hasn't eliminated all gun deaths therefore...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:a common gun nut argument is [sensible gun reform] will not eliminate all gun deaths, therefore it is useless and we shouldn't do it at all Wouldn't it be smarter and more effective to spend money and time on reducing overall death (I assume you meant murder) rates? Why make gun deaths some extra special version of death?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:When will gun laws be in perfect equilibrium in your opinion? Like what laws need to get passed where you stop and say "whoa guys I think this is enough, we got it"? What are your victory conditions? When nuts like the Newtown, VT, and Aurora shooters aren't mowing down shitloads of people on a regular basis, honestly. Whether it involves more restrictions on guns at a minor inconvenience to sane hobbyists (which is what I think it will take), or something else entirely. If a waiting period or having to prove you're not a jackass when it comes to guns in order to own one is a horrible inconvenience, then I'm fine with calling a person a giant tittybaby over the whining.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
My question is why are pro-gunners afraid of gun bans anyway? As LeJackle loves to point out anyone with a pipe, nail, and hammer can make themselves a gun no problem, and I'm sure he can dig up those photos of handmade guns he posts all the time. So what fear do you have, your precious guns are only ever a hardware store away, just go build one. Hell, build as many as you want!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Wouldn't it be smarter and more effective to spend money and time on reducing overall death (I assume you meant murder) rates? Why make gun deaths some extra special version of death? do you think we only get to pass one bill a year or something i can support both regulations regulating the most common cause of gun deaths (guns), and work on other deaths (say, by supporting increased health care funding) this is an even dumber argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Wouldn't it be smarter and more effective to spend money and time on reducing overall death (I assume you meant murder) rates? Why make gun deaths some extra special version of death? Because it turns out it doesn't matter what your belief system is or what sins you have committed, only those killed by a gun go to hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
also guns do not merely cause murders, they cause accidental deaths and suicide deaths (because while making a suicide attempt is relatively means-independent, if it succeeds heavily depends on the means chosen)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:do you think we only get to pass one bill a year or something Right, because the resources of the government are infinite so there is no problem spending them on things we can't demonstrate are effective. Excuse me a minute, I have to go advocate for spending education dollars on anti-bullying crystal installations and anti-tiger rocks. evilweasel posted:also guns do not merely cause murders, Oh man, if only we could go back to the time before murder was committed, a time before the invention of guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:52
|
|
various cheeses posted:Wouldn't it be smarter and more effective to spend money and time on reducing overall death (I assume you meant murder) rates? Why make gun deaths some extra special version of death? Anti-agatics won't do much good if gun nuts keep murdering liberals.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:do you think we only get to pass one bill a year or something Maybe you need to look inside yourself and ask if your decisions are based on a desire to reduce crime, or just to stick it to some smug gun-owning strawman?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:My question is why are pro-gunners afraid of gun bans anyway? As LeJackle loves to point out anyone with a pipe, nail, and hammer can make themselves a gun no problem, and I'm sure he can dig up those photos of handmade guns he posts all the time. So what fear do you have, your precious guns are only ever a hardware store away, just go build one. Hell, build as many as you want! Production guns are masterpieces of engineering and beautiful works of art. If we were to destroy the domestic market, we'd be left with crudely-made approximations and rusting relics of a forgotten age. gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Stop accusing us of being children defending our toys. My legitimate need for a firearm? Recreation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Wouldn't it be smarter and more effective to spend money and time on reducing overall death (I assume you meant murder) rates? Why make gun deaths some extra special version of death? gun deaths are the only common form of death in america with an active and vocal pro-death lobby
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Here's a cool and good article about the last time the gun control lobby tried to work with the NRA on background checks Kill the NRA
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Oh man, if only we could go back to the time before murder was committed, a time before the invention of guns. People die anyway, therefore we should sell 4,000 truck bombs around the corner from all federal buildings. What you dumb lib, you think people didn't die before truck bombs or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
More effective than gun control would be the establishment of death squads that could investigate gun owners and separate the harmless hunters and target shooters from the LeJackals and various cheeseses and so on of the world, and slaughter the latter horribly and promiscuously until they disarm themselves out of fear. But this is unlikely to ever have good optics.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Maybe you need to look inside yourself and ask if your decisions are based on a desire to reduce crime, or just to stick it to some smug gun-owning strawman? like seriously, help me out here, what argument did you think you were making there, what thought process produced "well, by supporting gun control you must not support anything else" i'm not even attributing le"walking example of why people who love guns shouldn't have them"jackal's posts to you but throw me a bone, what on earth made you think that post made sense
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:also guns do not merely cause murders, they cause accidental deaths and suicide deaths (because while making a suicide attempt is relatively means-independent, if it succeeds heavily depends on the means chosen) Accidental deaths can be mitigated with education. As for suicide, well after Australia scooped up all the guns, it seems to be relatively flat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Gun-haters, I have a question. When will gun laws be in perfect equilibrium in your opinion? Like what laws need to get passed where you stop and say "whoa guys I think this is enough, we got it"? What are your victory conditions? French gun policy : Some guns may not be owned because they are wholly unnecessary. These include weapons of war. Some guns may be owned and kept at home on the condition of a prefectoral agreement licensing ownership and detention. You have to be a member of the national shooting federation and over 18 to apply, with regular training at a range, show proof that you own a safe, show a certificate that attests you are in full possession of your mental abilities delivered by a competent doctor, and pass a background check. The national shooting federation also has to give a favorable opinion to your application. Upon reception of the agreement, you have three months to buy the gun you have applied for. You may not own over 12 guns, and a thousand bullets. And the agreement has to be renewed every 5 years. Of course, you are not allowed to carry these - unless you are going to a range. All handguns are in this category, among other guns. Some guns may be owned without an express agreement, but they need to be declared to the préfecture - this is the gun seller's job. However, to buy one you need to show either that you have a hunter's license, or a shooting license for people who shoot for sport. These may be used at ranges or to hunt or for sport under certain conditions. The only guns you are allowed to buy freely are either entirely unusable, or have been made before 1900. There's another category of guns that simply need to be registered - long barreled single-shot small rifles. For a full list of which gun is in which ategory, please refer to https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/N287 In my opinion this policy is sensible, although a little bit too permissive. There ought to be regular checks that the guns are stored safely at home, and regular background checks of the people on the registry. In the US, given the wording of the second amendment, it wouldn't strike me as odd to have all registered gun-owners added to some sort of military reserve.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Wouldn't it be smarter and more effective to spend money and time on reducing overall death (I assume you meant murder) rates? Why make gun deaths some extra special version of death? Well, because we've focused on car deaths enough that they're actually getting to be less than gun deaths. We already spend a fortune on preventing the hard-to-prevent cardiac arrest and cancer deaths. Guns are the next biggest category. So... yeah. We do. Guns are the area we put the least effort into making headway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:like seriously, help me out here, what argument did you think you were making there, what thought process produced "well, by supporting gun control you must not support anything else" I'm saying you'll get a lot less pushback on things other than gun control that may get you to the same destination: less people dying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Wait background checks are pointless guy is now outlining ideal gun policy that includes background checks? So your problem with background checks is that they're not accompanied with even more regulations? You realize gun-grabbing liberals aren't the ones preventing those other regulations from coming about, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:Production guns are masterpieces of engineering and beautiful works of art. If we were to destroy the domestic market, we'd be left with crudely-made approximations and rusting relics of a forgotten age. gently caress that. lol if you think the Glock is a masterpiece
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:Guns are the next biggest category. In which dimension? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why is this useless? What I'm saying is that it's not enough. The victims of guns are majoritarily not homicide victims, and those who are are victims of people who legally own guns and would have passed a background check. So background checks would not curtail the level of gun deaths. Because the aim is not to control gun ownership per se, the aim is to reduce gun deaths.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I'm saying you'll get a lot less pushback on things other than gun control that may get you to the same destination: less people dying. unfortunately, since we can only do one thing as a society at one time, we cannot reduce obesity rates or encourage people to quit smoking until we grab all the guns
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:thank you for your honesty It's not paranoia if they (the they in this instance being a number of prominent DNC politicians) really do want to remove/ban guns for everyone except themselves and their cronies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:01
|
|