Texas Representative Steve Stockman (R) introduces H.R. 4380 (Firearms)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Texas Representative Steve Stockman (R) introduces H.R. 4380 (Firearms)

«‹›142 »

LJONESRYDA: Oct 7, 2011

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Gun Confiscation and Registration Prevention Act (H.R. 4380).

Link: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4380

PDF: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr4380ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr4380ih.pdf

I feel like the climate in the US is turning very gun friendly very quickly. Recently I was reading about NJ being called to the supreme court by 19 other states, 34 congressmen, and the NRA for a review of there gun laws. Everything feels like its going so fast in different directions here in regards to firearms ownership.

Link to NJ/Wyoming Firearms case: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/13/1-states-join-legal-fight-against-new-jersey-concealed-weapons-law/

LJONESRYDA fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 16, 2014

# ? Apr 16, 2014 17:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 18, 2024 04:24

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

It's an election year. Every right wing jerk with doubts about their electability is going to be pandering to the niche interests with large populations of single-issue voters right now, and that includes insignificant bills with grand-sounding titles and little to no chance of passing.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 19:58

emfive: Aug 6, 2011; Hey emfive, this is Alec. I am glad you like the mummy eating the bowl of shitty pasta with a can of 'parm.' I made that image for you way back when. I’m glad you enjoy it.

quote:

I feel like the climate in the US is turning very gun friendly very quickly.

finally, after decades of repression, Americans are starting to find it easier to obtain firearms. The door is open - just a crack, perhaps, but daylight is flooding in.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:04

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

I think it's less that America as a whole is gun friendly, but pro-gun people are absolutely bonkers in their support of this issue above literally everything else.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:07

I.G.: Oct 10, 2000

Is this notable in some way? Most bills don't become laws, and this one would only prevent something that was never going to happen anyway.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:12

ReidRansom: Oct 25, 2004

Main Paineframe posted:

It's an election year. Every right wing jerk with doubts about their electability is going to be pandering to the niche interests with large populations of single-issue voters right now, and that includes insignificant bills with grand-sounding titles and little to no chance of passing.

Stockman is already on his way out. Gave up his seat n a half-assed attempt to beat Cornyn in the senate primary.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:21

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

emfive posted:

finally, after decades of repression, Americans are starting to find it easier to obtain firearms. The door is open - just a crack, perhaps, but daylight is flooding in.

Innocent guns are already being saved from the fires in Arizona, you know. There is hope for the future, my brother in Zardoz...

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:24

BUSH 2112: Sep 17, 2012; I lie awake, staring out at the bleakness of Megadon.

It's going to be hilarious in a few years when all of this pro-gun bullshit and all of these shootings culminate in extremely strict federal gun laws because literally everyone except for gun toting idiots is sick of this poo poo.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:30

happyhippy: Feb 21, 2005; Playing games, watching movies, owning goons. 'sup; Pillbug

So could you in theory set up a gun reseller business and fake a tax pay back from the IRS for imaginary guns that the IRS are not allowed to count if they contest it?

Sell one gun, claim one million, get money from gubment, RON PAUL!

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:31

happyhippy: Feb 21, 2005; Playing games, watching movies, owning goons. 'sup; Pillbug

BUSH 2112 posted:

It's going to be hilarious in a few years when all of this pro-gun bullshit and all of these shootings culminate in extremely strict federal gun laws because literally everyone except for gun toting idiots is sick of this poo poo.

It's going to take a shooting up of a Republican/Christian meeting to do that though.
And only if the shooter is a white guy.
Otherwise its going to be brushed off as terrists/lone bad apples/false flag.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:34

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

BUSH 2112 posted:

It's going to be hilarious in a few years when all of this pro-gun bullshit and all of these shootings culminate in extremely strict federal gun laws because literally everyone except for gun toting idiots is sick of this poo poo.

The US homicide rate is actually at a historic low and still headed for the basement.

Don't worry though, pro-gun idiots don't have a monopoly on this sort of thing. I mean CA actually passed AB 1471 and is going to spend a fortune defending it in court.

PS. Nothing this year will be funnier than Leland Yee getting arrested for gunrunning for terrorists.

Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Apr 16, 2014

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:35

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Rent-A-Cop posted:

PS. Nothing this year will be funnier than Leland Yee getting arrested for gunrunning for terrorists.

People should find this hilarious no matter what else they think about guns, quite frankly.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:43

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

People should find this hilarious no matter what else they think about guns, quite frankly.

Pretty much. I'm as anti-gun as it gets but yea holy poo poo was that not the funniest story.

Wasn't the dude he was running them for named Baby Shrimp or some other hilariously dumb Asian mobster name?

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:51

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

BUSH 2112 posted:

It's going to be hilarious in a few years when all of this pro-gun bullshit and all of these shootings culminate in extremely strict federal gun laws because literally everyone except for gun toting idiots is sick of this poo poo.

What color is the sky from your window?

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:53

BUSH 2112: Sep 17, 2012; I lie awake, staring out at the bleakness of Megadon.

DeusExMachinima posted:

What color is the sky from your window?

The same color it was 10 years ago when the majority of people supported banning gay marriage?

[edit] That came across kind of dickish, I just mean that I think public opinion on this is going to turn really quickly over the next year or two. The crazies are making it easier and easier for people to murder each other with guns, and normal people don't give two shits about the second amendment when it's their families who are in danger, and they're beginning to see that the "more guns = less violence" rhetoric is totally discredited.

BUSH 2112 fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Apr 16, 2014

# ? Apr 16, 2014 20:55

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

BUSH 2112 posted:

The same color it was 10 years ago when the majority of people supported banning gay marriage?

[edit] That came across kind of dickish, I just mean that I think public opinion on this is going to turn really quickly over the next year or two. The crazies are making it easier and easier for people to murder each other with guns, and normal people don't give two shits about the second amendment when it's their families who are in danger and they're beginning to see that the "more guns = less violence" rhetoric is totally discredited.

On the other hand, we had five people killed in a mass stabbing in Calgary, and some people (idiots) are already starting to say that guns would've been the answer. Unless you address the root causes of violent crime, it's just going to go back and forth between "guns are causing crime" to "guns would prevent crime," depending on how restricted guns are at that specific point.

High availability of guns does cause other problems (such as a greater number of successful suicides compared to other methods, and greater chances of accidental injury or death compared to other weapons) but it is wrong to say that they are causing crime. Nuts who want to kill a lot of people are nuts who want to kill a lot of people whether they have guns or knives.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 21:04

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

BUSH 2112 posted:

The same color it was 10 years ago when the majority of people supported banning gay marriage?

[edit] That came across kind of dickish, I just mean that I think public opinion on this is going to turn really quickly over the next year or two. The crazies are making it easier and easier for people to murder each other with guns, and normal people don't give two shits about the second amendment when it's their families who are in danger, and they're beginning to see that the "more guns = less violence" rhetoric is totally discredited.

Clearly if there had been more people with guns at -insert shooting here- the shooter would have been stopped before he could have killed nearly as many people :smug:

Didn't the NRA or something advocate having armed guards in every school after the New town shootings? If pro-gun voters feel like they're in danger, they buy another gun to stick under their pillow at night. The ability to murder any ~~black~~ shady person who looks at them funny is the only thing that lets them feel safe from, you know, those people.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 21:08

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

I.G. posted:

Is this notable in some way? Most bills don't become laws, and this one would only prevent something that was never going to happen anyway.

It happened in New York and Connecticut. But yea this is just grand-standing.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 21:08

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

BUSH 2112 posted:

[edit] That came across kind of dickish, I just mean that I think public opinion on this is going to turn really quickly over the next year or two. The crazies are making it easier and easier for people to murder each other with guns, and normal people don't give two shits about the second amendment when it's their families who are in danger, and they're beginning to see that the "more guns = less violence" rhetoric is totally discredited.

The gently caress? How is "the Other" making it 'easier' for people to murder each other? And how are 'normal people's families' in danger?

You sound ridiculously reactionary with a penchant for authoritarianism.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 21:13

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Powercrazy posted:

The gently caress? How is "the Other" making it 'easier' for people to murder each other? And how are 'normal people's families' in danger?

You sound ridiculously reactionary with a penchant for authoritarianism.

I don't get his point about "the other," but most people's children go to places like schools and movie theaters.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 21:19

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Powercrazy posted:

The gently caress? How is "the Other" making it 'easier' for people to murder each other? And how are 'normal people's families' in danger?

You sound ridiculously reactionary with a penchant for authoritarianism.

Dude a guy on the news killed people! There were graphics and sound effects and Wolf Blitzer and everything. Crime must be out of control.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 21:20

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

Nessus posted:

I don't get his point about "the other," but most people's children go to places like schools and movie theaters.

And we all know how often someone gets shot at those kinds of places.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 21:21

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

BUSH 2112 posted:

It's going to be hilarious in a few years when all of this pro-gun bullshit and all of these shootings culminate in extremely strict federal gun laws because literally everyone except for gun toting idiots is sick of this poo poo.

Reminder that the NRA (and Ronald Reagan!) supported tougher gun laws when the Black Panthers were a thing.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 21:36

Bip Roberts: Mar 29, 2005

Invest in high-capicity magazines people.

# ? Apr 16, 2014 21:54

breaker: Jul 4, 2004

Luigi Thirty posted:

Reminder that the NRA (and Ronald Reagan!) supported tougher gun laws when the Black Panthers were a thing.

The full text of the NFA hearings they quote is online, and the one they pull out is a bit cherry picked: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.htm Aside from wanting to have licensed concealed carry he makes almost all of the same arguments the current NRA would, including challenging if the whole thing is even constitutional (spoiler: "I think that under the Constitution the United States has no jurisdiction to legislate in a police sense with respect to firearms.") Without the NRA testifying literally any gun that could take a higher than 12 round magazine would have been classified as a machine gun. Frederick is the NRA guy in all of this, everyone else is a congressman. Right before the quote he says:

quote:

Mr. HILL. When you do that, do not forget that we are after the gangster.

Mr. FREDERICK. You have put your finger on it. My general objections to most of the regulatory provisions are proposed with that in view. I am just as much against the gangster as any man. I am just as much interested in seeing him suppressed, but I do not believe that we should burn down the barn in order to destroy the rats. I am in favor of some more skillful method of getting the rats without destroying the barn. In my opinion, most of the proposals the regulation of firearms, although ostensibly and properly aimed at the crook, do not reach the crook at all, but they do reach the honest. man. In my opinion, the forces which are opposed to crime consist of two general bodies; one is the organized police and the second is the unorganized victims, the great mass of unorganized law-abiding citizens, and if you destroy the effective opposition of either one of those, you are inevitably going to increase crime, because as you destroy the forces of resistance to the human body to disease, you are going to increase disease. So, by destroying the resistance of any body which is opposed to crime, you are going to increase crime. I think we should be careful in considering the actual operation of regulatory measures to make sure that they do not hamstring the law-abiding citizen in his opposition to the crook.

Mr. KNUTSON. There is no opposition on the part of the victims?

Mr. FREDERICK. It is not a 100 percent effective. Of course, the right of self-defense is still a useful thing.

Mr. KNUTSON. It is a right, but an ineffective right under the present situation.

Mr. FREDERICK. I would be interested to show you a collection which I have made of newspaper clippings indicating the effective use of firearms in self-defense, as a protection against the perpetration of crime. Because of arguments which have been advanced by those who are against the use of guns, I have made it my business to clip from newspapers passing over my desk such cases as I run across of effective self-defense with pistols, most of them pistols. I have a scrap book two thirds full and I can show you dozens and hundred of cases happening every year.

If you take the time to read it you will also realize that these same arguments (and I mean EXACTLY the same) have been going back and forth for longer than anyone arguing about it on the Internet has been alive. So when someone busts about b-b-b-but guns should be regulated like cars, they were beat to that 80 years ago.

quote:

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frederick, the automobile is a dangerous, even deadly instrument, but never intentionally a deadly instrument, of course. States uniformly have taken notice of the danger to the innocent pedestrian and others involved in the use of the automobile. They have set up around the privilege of its ownership and operation a complete regulatory system consistent with reasonable rights to the use of the automobile. Approaching the subject of firearms, would you not consider that society is under the same duty to protect the innocent that it is with regard to the automobile and that with a view to the attainment of that result, the person who wishes the privilege of bearing firearms should submit to the same regulations as rigid as the automobile owner and driver is required to accept?

Mr. FREDERICK. You have raised a very interesting analogy, one which, to my mind, has a very decided bearing upon the practicability and the desirability of this type of legislation. Automobiles are a much more essential instrument of crime than pistols. Any police officer will tell you that. They are much more dangerous to ordinary life, because they kill approximately 30,000 people a year. The extent, so far as I know, to which the Government, or the Congress, has attempted to legislate is with respect to the transportation in interstate commerce of stolen vehicles, which apparently has accomplished very useful results. The rest of the legislation is left to the States, and in its effect and in its mode of enforcement, it is a wholly reasonable and suitable approach, because, if I want a license for my car I can get it in 20 minutes, by complying with certain definite and well-known regulations.

Mr. LEWIS. And qualifying.

Mr. FREDERICK. And qualifying, yes, sir. I do not have to prove I am a driver in order to get an automobile license. I do in order to get a personal driver's license, of course. Complying with the regulations, I get that automatically, as a matter of course. If I want a pistol license, and I have had one for a number of years in New York, it takes me 6 weeks to 4 months to get that license, and it costs me an enormous amount of personal bother and trouble. The difficulty in a sense is in the manner of administration and we know that that which is oppressive can be put into the administration much more effectively than into the law; it is the way the thing works. I have no objection, personally, to having my fingerprints taken, because my own fingerprints have been taken many times, but I do object to being singled out with the criminal element and having my fingerprints taken and put in the Bureau of Criminal Identification because I like to use a pistol or because I may need one for self-defense, whereas automobile owners are not fingerprinted and are, as a class, a much more criminal body, from the standpoint of percentage, than pistol licensees.

Crime guns are stolen:

quote:

Mr. HILL. I take it then that it is your opinion that the criminal is going to get firearms regardless of any laws.

Mr. FREDERICK. I think that is the opinion of any person who has knowledge of the subject. In most instances, the guns are stolen. They are not gotten through legitimate channels. Dillinger stole his guns. I have a half-dozen cases where guns have been used in prisons to effect a break; we have had that in New York, and all over the country. If you cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals in jails, I do not see how you can keep them out of the hands of criminals walking about on the public highways.

Need to limit those clips:

quote:

(H.R. 9066, 73d-Cong. 2d sess.)

A BILL To provide for the taxation of manufacturers, importers, and dealers in small arms and machine guns, to tax the sale or other disposal of such weapons, and to restrict importation and regulate interstate Transportation thereof

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purposes of this act the term �firearm� means a pistol, revolver, shotgun having a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or any other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, a muffler or silencer therefor, or a machine gun.

The term �machine gun� means any weapon designed to shoot automatically or semiautomatically twelve or more shots without reloading.

...

Mr. WOODRUFF. As a matter of fact, the only thing that controls or limits the number of shots that an automatic rifle or shotgun can fire is the magazine itself, is it not?

Mr. FREDERICK. I think that is correct.

Mr. WOODRUFF. That is the only way in which you can limit the number of shots that can be fired. And it is a very simple matter, is it not, to change the magazine or the clip or whatever they use to hold these cartridges, to meet any restrictions, particularly restrictions such as are proposed in the paragraph at the bottom of the first page of this bill?

It goes on like this, but basically same poo poo different day all over. Replace John Dillinger for the name of the last mass shooting and you have pretty much every argument covered on both sides.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 04:24

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

breaker posted:

Crime guns are stolen:

Unless they're being wielded by Sovereign Citizen-type militias, in which case it's okay because they're being wielded by patriots valiantly defending themselves against the tyranny of big government.

See: The cattle rancher thing happening in Nevada right now.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 07:44

breaker: Jul 4, 2004

OneEightHundred posted:

Unless they're being wielded by Sovereign Citizen-type militias, in which case it's okay because they're being wielded by patriots valiantly defending themselves against the tyranny of big government.

See: The cattle rancher thing happening in Nevada right now.

The point isn't the point, it's that the points haven't changed. If you review a congressional hearing from 1934 and recognize that you are participating in a near verbatim argument 80 years later I would hope some level of futility is realized.

Gun control arguments are about as productive as Catholics and Sunnis debating why theirs is the one true faith. You will have as much chance of talking a gun owner out of his gun as talking someone out of their religion, and likewise a gunhaver is not going to be able to convince someone who was taught to fear weapons that they should take up arms. Whether you like guns or not in the US is a question of your parents, your economic status, and your surroundings. When people call guns tools of murderers, realize that for about half the country who grew up rural with their dad teaching them how to shoot, you are insulting their family and upbringing. Likewise when a pro-gun person accuses an anti of cowardice they don't understand that person was likely taught to run from physical confrontation and that only criminals used guns by their parents. Basically expect the same level of fervor from gun owners when you impact their beliefs as you see from the religious when you attack theirs. Convince someone that their parents were either monsters or cowards and that everything they were taught to believe is wrong. Do that and you will win the debate. Since that won't happen how about everyone figures out how to stay out of each others way and only deal with problems that are based on hard data.

breaker fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Apr 22, 2014

# ? Apr 22, 2014 08:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

breaker posted:

Since that won't happen how about everyone figures out how to stay out of each others way and only deal with problems that are based on hard data.

Well, you do have a problem there, because there is active interference in the collection of hard data.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 09:05

meristem: Oct 2, 2010; I HAVE THE ETIQUETTE OF STIFF AND THE PERSONALITY OF A GIANT CUNT.

Yeah, data... Can we talk a bit about this?

A couple of months ago, a start-up called Statwing released, as a promo of their software, a set of the Global Social Survey data. For those of you who don't know it, GSS is basically this long-running study of the American society. Cited in 14,000 articles, very statistically sound. Among other things, it has data on gun ownership... I downloaded it and essentially have been playing with it ever since.

There's some interesting stuff in it - I partitioned the data according to age/race/sex, and worked on that. It turns out that young (under-40) white men experienced a drop in personal gun ownership rates of around 0.5%/year since the mid-80s. And they are a unique demographic in this. Personal gun ownership rates among young white men explain 70% of variability in US national homicide rates since mid-1980s, and household gun ownership rates among young white and black men explain 80% (that's a correlation coefficient of around 0.9). Huge correlates include marital status (married experienced larger drop than singles) and party identification (self-identified Democrats dropped at around 1.15%/year, Independents at 0.5%/year, Republicans stayed the same), but not political ideology (all of liberals/moderates/conservatives experienced a drop) or geographical region (all geographical regions apart from the Northeast, where the rates had been low already, did). And young white male gun owners have a statistically significantly different opinion from basically everyone else, including old white male gun owners, when it comes to answering the question of whether a local law can compel a house owner not to discriminate against a potential buyer based on race.

It's pretty fun data, all in all. I'd especially love to know what caused the drop. One person I discussed it with theorised that guns simply became more expensive in the mid-1980s, but another thought that maybe the same reason that caused the change in homicide rates also caused the change in gun ownership rates...

Would it be OK to discuss this here, what do you guys think?

# ? Apr 22, 2014 13:01

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

PT6A posted:

On the other hand, we had five people killed in a mass stabbing in Calgary, and some people (idiots) are already starting to say that guns would've been the answer. Unless you address the root causes of violent crime, it's just going to go back and forth between "guns are causing crime" to "guns would prevent crime," depending on how restricted guns are at that specific point.

High availability of guns does cause other problems (such as a greater number of successful suicides compared to other methods, and greater chances of accidental injury or death compared to other weapons) but it is wrong to say that they are causing crime. Nuts who want to kill a lot of people are nuts who want to kill a lot of people whether they have guns or knives.

Personally I'm waiting for the moment of clarity when everyone finally realizes that what causes mass killing incidents is mental illness, specifically suicidality, and the answer that would actually address the problem is better public mental health care.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 13:17

sean10mm: Jun 29, 2005; It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD-2R World

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Personally I'm waiting for the moment of clarity when everyone finally realizes that what causes mass killing incidents is mental illness, specifically suicidality, and the answer that would actually address the problem is better public mental health care.

But aren't you saying that all mentally ill people are mass killers in the making, which is wrong and bad and you should feel bad for saying it?

(No, but that's always the response whenever anybody raises the idea that people who want to go on a mass murder/suicide by cop spree probably have something wrong with their minds and maybe we should try to do something about it instead of having the worst mental health system in the developed world...)

# ? Apr 22, 2014 13:24

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

emfive posted:

finally, after decades of repression, Americans are starting to find it easier to obtain firearms. The door is open - just a crack, perhaps, but daylight is flooding in.

I dream that one day our children will be judged not on the caliber of their chamber, but by the accuracy of their shots. Into other children.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 13:29

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

breaker posted:

Likewise when a pro-gun person accuses an anti of cowardice they don't understand that person was likely taught to run from physical confrontation and that only criminals used guns by their parents.

More like people are assholes and when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 13:34

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

sean10mm posted:

But aren't you saying that all mentally ill people are mass killers in the making, which is wrong and bad and you should feel bad for saying it?

(No, but that's always the response whenever anybody raises the idea that people who want to go on a mass murder/suicide by cop spree probably have something wrong with their minds and maybe we should try to do something about it instead of having the worst mental health system in the developed world...)

I don't even think it's "probably", I think it's provably -- by definition, if you're suicidal you are mentally ill, and almost every single mass shooting incident I'm aware of involved either apparent suicidality or other history of mental illness or both. There's a stigma issue that has to be addressed too but that needs to be done anyway because being mentally ill shouldn't be any more stigmatized than having a cold is; everyone is going to have some degree of mental illness at some point in their life, even if it's just short-term depression.

It drives me up the wall. Yesterday morning on NPR they had a woman on from Bloomberg's new anti-gun group and she talked for over an hour and the only time she even mentioned mental health and suicide prevention was in passing, as a "oh and we're working on that too." She spent three times as much time talking about how the group was going to punish pro-gun Democrats. It's like the entire political debate has become captured by a giant red herring, a giant poisoned red herring that will only harm the left's ability to effect real change. Every dollar spent on gun control drives more Republican gun owners to the polls and thus directly harms the legislatures' ability to enact positive health care reforms. Drives me batty.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 15:42

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

Gun-control is probably the second largest waste of money and time behind the MIC. Though at least the MIC acts like really inefficient welfare so it's actually BETTER than gun-control, and yet you have people who still, without an ounce of self-awareness bring it up, it's bizarre.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 16:30

Kiwi Ghost Chips: Feb 19, 2011; Start using the best desktop environment now!
Choose KDE!

Gun control provides jobs for ATF agents

# ? Apr 22, 2014 16:48

happyhippy: Feb 21, 2005; Playing games, watching movies, owning goons. 'sup; Pillbug

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

Gun control provides jobs for ATF agents

And scene clean up crews.
And morticans.
And penis pump manufacturers.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 17:06

BUSH 2112: Sep 17, 2012; I lie awake, staring out at the bleakness of Megadon.

Powercrazy posted:

The gently caress? How is "the Other" making it 'easier' for people to murder each other? And how are 'normal people's families' in danger?

You sound ridiculously reactionary with a penchant for authoritarianism.

Powercrazy posted:

And we all know how often someone gets shot at those kinds of places.

Just to be clear, you're a loving idiot who apparently doesn't understand the english language.

I was pretty clearly talking about conservative politicians making it easier, via legislation, for people to get away with murder. And by "normal people" I meant people who aren't obsessed with their theoretical right to own a metal dick that they can flash around and potentially murder people with. It's not authoritarianism to want the government to protect the loving public, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a pouting manchild.

Oh, but it's a waste of money. Well gently caress it, then. I guess it's only cool to blow a fuckton of money if it involves people getting killed with guns.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 17:07

new phone who dis: May 24, 2007; by VideoGames; Morbid Hound

BUSH 2112 posted:

Just to be clear, you're a loving idiot who apparently doesn't understand the english language.

I was pretty clearly talking about conservative politicians making it easier, via legislation, for people to get away with murder. And by "normal people" I meant people who aren't obsessed with their theoretical right to own a metal dick that they can flash around and potentially murder people with. It's not authoritarianism to want the government to protect the loving public, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a pouting manchild.

Oh, but it's a waste of money. Well gently caress it, then. I guess it's only cool to blow a fuckton of money if it involves people getting killed with guns.

Your characterization of gun owners is about as valid as a universal view of blacks as gun-toting thugs waiting to rape you at a moment's notice. .013% of guns are involved in deaths yearly and the person you're describing is an even tinier percentage of that. The gun nut for the left is the same as the welfare queen for the right. They don't exist in meaningful numbers at all and only serve as a cultural stereotype for people to easily attack.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 17:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 18, 2024 04:24

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

BUSH 2112 posted:

Just to be clear, you're a loving idiot who apparently doesn't understand the english language.

I was pretty clearly talking about conservative politicians making it easier, via legislation, for people to get away with murder. And by "normal people" I meant people who aren't obsessed with their theoretical right to own a metal dick that they can flash around and potentially murder people with. It's not authoritarianism to want the government to protect the loving public, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a pouting manchild.

Oh, but it's a waste of money. Well gently caress it, then. I guess it's only cool to blow a fuckton of money if it involves people getting killed with guns.

Your problem here is that the demographic you're fulminating about is also the demographic which is what many politicians consider when they think of "the public." I believe the theory that the best way you can establish gun control is to bring back the Black Panthers is probably accurate, though at this point even that might not work.

# ? Apr 22, 2014 17:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Texas Representative Steve Stockman (R) introduces H.R. 4380 (Firearms)

«‹›142 »