Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



Even if this wasn't an incredibly dumb premise, what would that signify? They don't have standing to oppose violence? It's not a real concern to them unless they've been the direct singular recipient of a shooting? Are you just trying to mad libs a reversal of "statistically you don't really neeeeeeeed a gun" and loving up the reasoning?

Jehde posted:

The point is it's not the gun violence they feel strongly against (like no poo poo, everyone wants less gun violence), it's the gun culture that they're against. Gun violence being a subset to gun culture, from their point of view. Gun violence is generally decreasing, again feel free to prove me wrong with whatever stats, the numbers don't really matter. The thing that has sharply increased is gun culture, after 8 years of Obamarama blowing the industry up in a pretty crazy way. This is what people are mad about, they use kids dying as justification to act against it.

lmao

the big meanieheads want to take my toys away, because they're just mean! and they're lying about caring when people die, nobody really cares about anything but my toys!

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:44 on May 30, 2018

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jehde
Apr 20, 2010



A Wizard of Goatse posted:

Even if this wasn't an incredibly dumb premise, what would that signify? They don't have standing to oppose violence? It's not a real concern to them unless they've been the direct singular recipient of a shooting? It's basically "statistically you don't really neeeeeeeed a gun" but backwards and somehow lamer.

They're full of poo poo unless they entertain ideas brought up by the other side to help the issue of gun violence. If all they do is parrot their hate about NRA and gun owners, then welp. Guess which kind of advocate for gun control I see far more than the other.


A Wizard of Goatse posted:

lmao

the big meanieheads want to take my toys away, because they're just mean! and they're lying about caring when people die, nobody really cares about anything but taking my toys!

I'm not here to play the numbers game. I put that there to let people know I don't care if someone comes around with an "WELL ACTUALLY", and to emphasize that the real shift is somewhere else. The whole point of the argument is that gun violence numbers aren't why people feel the need to call the NRA a terrorist organization now.

Jehde fucked around with this message at 21:48 on May 30, 2018

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

I've experienced a violent crime, but there was no point in reporting it, so as far as crime stats, I don't show up. Most crimes are never reported. And you'd have to look at rate, per year, over the lifespan of a person and account for a whole lot of boring math and demographics. About 1 in 5 or 6 women have faced sexual assault, but that doesn't mean that every single year, 1/5 or 1/6 of women face sexual assault.

In any case, it is not personally required to have experienced it to support something. I've never been in a shoot out, but I support personal gun ownership, including for defensive use. In the cases where I even considered defensive gun use, I was able to de-escalate it without a gun, though I once yelled through a door at a guy that I had a gun. He didn't know if I was lying or not and he mostly left cause he was drunk and out of it, and someone else had called the cops. Does that mean my support of gun ownership is hypocritical or irrational or otherwise dumb? (an anti-gun peson might say yes)

It's a moot point, because crime won't disappear tomorrow, but gun control historically has been tied, for better or worse, to events and trends rather than pure firearms-based ideology. All kinds of gun laws popped up when slaves were freed. Or they were carefully crafted during the Jim Crow era. Different types sprung up after various tragedies, or were repealed after a tragedy like the Luby's Massacre. Gun control went hog-wild in Arizona during the Wild West years.

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

Are you just trying to mad libs a reversal of "statistically you don't really neeeeeeeed a gun" and loving up the reasoning?

This, basically.

"I know you like the 2A, but how many of you have overthrown and revolutionized the government or used a militia to fight off the King, hmmmmm?" type logic

mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 21:48 on May 30, 2018

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



The ideas brought up by the "other side":

- ban videogames
- ban the news
- ban porn
- ban fire exits
- arm Mrs. Golder from music class with a Glock, to fight off the rampaging gun nut with an AR
- arm Mrs. Golder from music class with rocks, to fight off the rampaging gun nut with an AR
- let the rampaging gun nut with an AR have a suppressor
- let random gun nuts with ARs patrol the schools, in case one of them goes on a rampage
- I want to do weird poo poo to David Hogg's rear end
- shootings don't actually exist, they're all staged by crisis actors
- extremely nebulous invocations of "mental health", vehement opposition to any actual policy pertaining
- what about Muslims tho

yeah gee how can anyone not take gun culture seriously as a good-faith partner and legitimate contributor in the effort to curb spree killing, it must be because they're big stupid jerks who live only to gently caress with my toys

mlmp08 posted:

It's a moot point, because crime won't disappear tomorrow, but gun control historically has been tied, for better or worse, to events and trends rather than pure firearms-based ideology. All kinds of gun laws popped up when slaves were freed. Or they were carefully crafted during the Jim Crow era. Different types sprung up after various tragedies, or were repealed after a tragedy like the Luby's Massacre. Gun control went hog-wild in Arizona during the Wild West years.

I feel like the major driver (as with loads of legislation beyond guns) has really been when a specific category of people or guns can be targeted as 'other', and placed outside legitimate society. Which, obviously, race contributes heavily to. The AWBs flourished when scary-looking modern rifles with big detachable mags were a marginal thing championed only by the more out-there kinds of gun nuts and Eazy E, people even most gun owners of the time didn't identify with. All the really restrictive state legislation I can think of offhand passed when those states were having serious urban crime problems, to tackle perceived waves of violent hooligans tooling up and lighting up the voters, and worded (however incompetently) to reassure joe blow that he could keep his poo poo for his own defense against the raiders but nobody further would be allowed a pistol. All the Democratic sanctimony about the sacred whitetail sounds doofy as hell now, but it's really a dated and out-of-touch attempt to parse a distinction between normal everyday people who own guns and the bad gun owners who do all the violence and aren't like us.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 30, 2018

Doctor Grape Ape
Aug 26, 2005

Dammit Doc, I just bought this for you 3 months ago. Try and keep it around for a bit longer this time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNe5npkid-s

CainFortea
Oct 15, 2004





A Wizard of Goatse posted:

Even if this wasn't an incredibly dumb premise, what would that signify? They don't have standing to oppose violence? It's not a real concern to them unless they've been the direct singular recipient of a shooting? Are you just trying to mad libs a reversal of "statistically you don't really neeeeeeeed a gun" and loving up the reasoning?

mlmp08 posted:

I tend to think that if gun crime and violence in the US just went away tomorrow, you'd suddenly see little or no wind in the sails of gun control advocates, aside from an extreme fringe group.

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



So, again, you need to have been personally shot to have an opinion about being shot? Doesn't cut it if it's your aunt, your neighbor? That's not how people work, dude. Violence ripples out and affects more people than the immediate recipient, and there's quite a lot of violence in the US. If people getting shot was a thing people here only ever saw on TV, happening to others far away, it'd have about the level of opposition of, like, drone strikes.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:30 on May 30, 2018

CainFortea
Oct 15, 2004





A Wizard of Goatse posted:

So, again, you need to have been personally shot to have an opinion about being shot?

Not what I said at all. I'm actually saying the opposite.

Jack B Nimble
Dec 25, 2007




Soiled Meat

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

- let random gun nuts with ARs patrol the schools, in case one of them goes on a rampage

I'm pro gun, but politics aside this gives me a catch-22 style chuckle. It sounds like the tail end of Milo Minderbinder's plan to stop active shooters.

FruitNYogurtParfait
Mar 29, 2006

Sion lied. Deadtear died for our sins. #VengeanceForDeadtear
#PunGateNeverForget
#ModLivesMatter

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

The ideas brought up by the "other side":
- let the rampaging gun nut with an AR have a suppressor


yeah gee how can anyone not take gun culture seriously as a good-faith partner and legitimate contributor in the effort to curb spree killing, it must be because they're big stupid jerks who live only to gently caress with my toys


UHC, other social safety nets, eradicating poverty and homelessness and desperation, in general fixing wealth inequality full stop, but nobody listens or reports when people talk about things that are difficult because its easier to go haha look at these stupid assholes talking about porn causing murders and these other assholes jerking themselves raw about shoulder things that go up


I left the one point in there cause eat a butthole if you're against suppressors


A Wizard of Goatse posted:

I feel like the major driver (as with loads of legislation beyond guns) has really been when a specific category of people or guns can be targeted as 'other', and placed outside legitimate society. Which, obviously, race contributes heavily to. The AWBs flourished when scary-looking modern rifles with big detachable mags were a marginal thing championed only by the more out-there kinds of gun nuts and Eazy E, people even most gun owners of the time didn't identify with. All the really restrictive state legislation I can think of offhand passed when those states were having serious urban crime problems, to tackle perceived waves of violent hooligans tooling up and lighting up the voters, and worded (however incompetently) to reassure joe blow that he could keep his poo poo for his own defense against the raiders but nobody further would be allowed a pistol. All the Democratic sanctimony about the sacred whitetail sounds doofy as hell now, but it's really a dated and out-of-touch attempt to parse a distinction between normal everyday people who own guns and the bad gun owners who do all the violence and aren't like us.

Y'all know as well as everyone else here that most gun control in this and other countries is classist and racist as gently caress. From $200 tax stamps in an era where income was like $1,500 a year to reagan's bullshit when the black panthers started preaching that black folks should arm themselves. poo poo is designed and built from the ground up that the people in charge and their chosen few can get what they want and everyone else can gently caress off

FruitNYogurtParfait fucked around with this message at 23:07 on May 30, 2018

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

UHC, other social safety nets, eradicating poverty and homelessness and desperation, in general fixing wealth inequality full stop, but nobody listens or reports when people talk about things that are difficult because its easier to go haha look at these stupid assholes talking about porn causing murders and these other assholes jerking themselves raw about shoulder things that go up


I left the one point in there cause eat a butthole if you're against suppressors


Y'all know as well as everyone else here that most gun control in this and other countries is classist and racist as gently caress. From $200 tax stamps in an era where income was like $1,500 a year to reagan's bullshit when the black panthers started preaching that black folks should arm themselves. poo poo is designed and built from the ground up that the people in charge and their chosen few can get what they want and everyone else can gently caress off
I'd love it if there were a gun-hugging socialist alternative to the NRA but the facts of the matter are the stupid assholes you're talking about are the chief progun politicians and public figures in America and the guy nobody talks about is some dude on a dead gay forum

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:15 on May 30, 2018

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Unfortunately, the most well-known firearm advocacy group in the nation has decidedly either stayed completely quiet about poverty, or has jumped neck-deep in some cases to mock the impoverished and blame them.

Ted Nugent, NRA board member posted:

As the Democrats continue to get away with their crimes, the squawking poor just keep on getting poorer, and as is always the case, they have no one to blame but themselves. Stupid is as stupid does. Brainwashing only works if you give up your brain and your soul to the brainwashers.

Another mind-boggling conundrum is the fact that America's so-called poor live a life far better than do real poor people around the world and have luxuries they can only dream of.

With their cell phones, automobiles, microwave ovens, air-conditioning, new clothes, manicures and pedicures, bling-bling, clean water, more food than they can eat, pretty much redistributed everything handed to them, they still whine how America should be more like those other countries.



OK, dunking on Ted Nugent because he's awful is easy. There are more reasonable groups, even within the NRA, to talk to.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180406/reducing-gun-violence-without-attacking-gun-owners

It's an NRA-ILA post discussing community leader programs such as Ceasefire to stop violence before it happens. It's a much better idea, but it's still a program of trying to intervene right before violence happens rather than really going after root causes. Unfortunately for all of us, NRA-ILA discussion of such tactics is drowned out by the NRA itself as the NRA, just like the most prominent gun control activists, gets more clicks when it goes into culture warrior mode. Also Ceasefire just got defunded in a bunch of cities,

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


I think part of the problem for people that propose/support these laws is that they've rarely ever, if never, interacted with the court system or law enforcement. I wrote up the instances of costs for someone who had their firearms taken away by the California GVRO, whether the GVRO was later found warranted or unwarranted, previously in this thread. Recently on Calguns, we had another reported instance of someone -attempting- to comply with the Assault Weapon Ban Registration, and four kitted-out California DoJ "Special Agents" showed up at his door to go into his residence to inspect and seize the firearm (some sort of AR, with Bullet Button). There's only the person's post to go by at this time, but as best as the community could tell from what the OP said, the firearm was seized in a car accident by the local sheriff/police, and when they returned the firearm to him (which he had to use a lawyer to get it back iirc), they counted that as the "ownership date".

The other guy who was registering for the AWB in Bakerfield, while he ended up having many illegal things, the cause for sending armed agents out to his place was, by the police report anyway, for his AR pistol. a difference between how the form was filled out (purchased as a complete firearm) and how it was transferred (frame only), and that he supposedly got it from his divorced wife.

Now if both of those are true, that seems like a simple paperwork error... the issue is with other non-law enforcement government agencies (of state and federal), this is usually dealt with via phone call, e-mail, or letter... but CA DoJ resolves this by sending four armed agents out to the person's house to seize the firearm until they can determine whether the law/regulation is broken or not.


Anyone proposing any gun control measure should include a "No Californias" rule, because most of that poo poo as I've reluctantly realized is done in bad faith at the state government level.

(Edit: The TL;DR is basically most people don't realize that most interactions with the court system and law enforcement are adversarial.)

BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 23:50 on May 30, 2018

chitoryu12
Apr 23, 2014



So what we really need to do is stop Ted Nugent.

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



chitoryu12 posted:

So what we really need to do is stop Ted Nugent.

It's up to us and CPS

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

BeAuMaN posted:

I think part of the problem for people that propose/support these laws is that they've rarely ever, if never, interacted with the court system or law enforcement.

That's a bold claim. Ignorance of various gun laws and features, sure. Hell, gun control is more popular in a lot of areas rife with high crime, minorities, and law enforcement presence where people likely have better odds of being in contact with law enforcement and courts.

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


mlmp08 posted:

That's a bold claim. Ignorance of various gun laws and features, sure. Hell, gun control is more popular in a lot of areas rife with high crime, minorities, and law enforcement presence where people likely have better odds of being in contact with law enforcement and courts.

Then that would mean that they are just as terrible as many people on the "pro-gun side" (whatever that is) would claim or suspect them to be. That they would wish upon those who attempt to comply with the laws to be lead through constant legal traps and harassment.

Capn Beeb
Jun 29, 2003

Enter the woods, find a friend!


A Wizard of Goatse posted:

I'd love it if there were a gun-hugging socialist alternative to the NRA but the facts of the matter are the stupid assholes you're talking about are the chief progun politicians and public figures in America and the guy nobody talks about is some dude on a dead gay forum

Yo what up

https://www.socialistra.org/

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

BeAuMaN posted:

Then that would mean that they are just as terrible as many people on the "pro-gun side" (whatever that is) would claim or suspect them to be. That they would wish upon those who attempt to comply with the laws to be lead through constant legal traps and harassment.

Way to miss the point I was making.

I just don't think that the person who goes through life without ever dealing with court or cops ever is in any significant way correlated with being in favor of gun control. It probably has rather little to do with opinions on it. Also I don't think most anti-gun people equate UBC or magazine bans with driving-while-black stops or the war on drugs. Hell, I sure as poo poo don't think of UBC or mag bans as being as pernicious as the war on drugs, racial profiling, etc.

Doctor Grape Ape
Aug 26, 2005

Dammit Doc, I just bought this for you 3 months ago. Try and keep it around for a bit longer this time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0359hSerDeE

Proper Kerni ng
Nov 14, 2011



mlmp08 posted:

I do feel their numbers would whither. Financially, if no other reason. Some might actually conclude it wasn't a problem. Others might find another thing to champion, if they're just the type of person who always needs a thing to champion. Still others might revert to the role of the doomsday predictor who says that any day now, they'll be proven correct.
Violent crime, including ~~gun crime~~, hit a twenty year low in 2016, after two decades of steady year-on-year nationwide decline. They didn't go anywhere. Neither have all the doomsday predictors who break out the ~~return to the Wild West~~ and ~~blood in the streets~~ cue cards any time a state legislature proposes opening up restrictions on guns and/or carrying. For the Schumers and Pelosis of the world it is pretty clearly not about reacting to specific acts of shocking public violence, they just want a completely disarmed populace and any individual atrocity only really matters to them as a marketing ploy to be cynically exploited.

Nobody wants to see two dozen ambulances outside an elementary school on CNN, but I think you are completely off base in claiming that there is no one at all on the anti side whose first thought on seeing that infographic is "...Maybe now they'll listen!" instead of "Oh Appropriate Religious Figure, those poor kids."

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


mlmp08 posted:

Way to miss the point I was making.

I just don't think that the person who goes through life without ever dealing with court or cops ever is in any significant way correlated with being in favor of gun control. It probably has rather little to do with opinions on it. Also I don't think most anti-gun people equate UBC or magazine bans with driving-while-black stops or the war on drugs. Hell, I sure as poo poo don't think of UBC or mag bans as being as pernicious as the war on drugs, racial profiling, etc.

That's a fair point. Well when I've had these discussions with people in the past (not on social media, gently caress that poo poo), usually because I off-handedly mention firearms (and that discussion comes up), in many cases they seemed mostly clueless not just on the technical level of the labyrinthine laws to comply with, but also of the enforcement, and what that means. It doesn't seem to translate that Cal DoJ is very adversarial out here and they will gently caress you given the opportunity.

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



Proper Kerni ng posted:

Violent crime, including ~~gun crime~~, hit a twenty year low in 2016, after two decades of steady year-on-year nationwide decline. They didn't go anywhere. Neither have all the doomsday predictors who break out the ~~return to the Wild West~~ and ~~blood in the streets~~ cue cards any time a state legislature proposes opening up restrictions on guns and/or carrying. For the Schumers and Pelosis of the world it is pretty clearly not about reacting to specific acts of shocking public violence, they just want a completely disarmed populace and any individual atrocity only really matters to them as a marketing ploy to be cynically exploited.

Nobody wants to see two dozen ambulances outside an elementary school on CNN, but I think you are completely off base in claiming that there is no one at all on the anti side whose first thought on seeing that infographic is "...Maybe now they'll listen!" instead of "Oh Appropriate Religious Figure, those poor kids."

Yeah. They didn't go anywhere. Democratic supermajority, aggressive expansion of the security state, more mass shootings and pretexts for a crackdown than you can shake a stick at, and federal legislation did not go anywhere. Who loving cares what literally Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi think? You're obviously never going to convince them, which I get it y'all are forever gonna sulk about no matter what, but it's not them you need to convince, they are two people and a number that isn't gonna dwindle except by death. It's the scores of legislators in gun-heavy districts whose careers don't rest on the favor of the Clinton machine, the hundreds of millions of Americans who don't have a particularly strong opinion about guns either way, who have a gun but don't care about yours or don't have a gun and just want to hear that they won't be shot by a bad man, whose support was required to pass all the actual legislation you hypothetically care about somewhere in there.

Or, I guess, you can obsess over the literally hundred-odd people already in the Brady Campaign, how they won't debate you and bow to your superior genius online, and use their conviction as an excuse for why it doesn't matter that gun dudes have pissed away all goodwill and forbearance from their fellow man until gun culture dwindled from a fundamental part of American culture to a screeching alt-right hate group ruled over by traitors and child molestors.

mlmp08 posted:

Way to miss the point I was making.

I just don't think that the person who goes through life without ever dealing with court or cops ever is in any significant way correlated with being in favor of gun control. It probably has rather little to do with opinions on it. Also I don't think most anti-gun people equate UBC or magazine bans with driving-while-black stops or the war on drugs. Hell, I sure as poo poo don't think of UBC or mag bans as being as pernicious as the war on drugs, racial profiling, etc.

I don't think it correlates in that gun dudes are pro-gun because of how super woke and hip to the legal process they are, but there's definitely a strong argument to be made that the average person has no loving clue how the law works or what implementation looks like, and that affects what policies they're willing to support and how much magical thinking goes into that. It hardly matters where you're from; for the privileged, the legal system is a thing that happens to other people to make the bads go bye-bye, for the poor it's so obtuse by design that the firsthand experience of getting processed by the courts is indistinguishable from terrible things happening to you for no reason. And the experience of being a minority handled by the police in a high-crime urban setting is terrible things happening to you for no reason. There's a reason defending yourself at trial is hopeless.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 06:04 on May 31, 2018

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



A Wizard of Goatse posted:

As this thread keeps pointing out, people die to text-driving and industrial accidents all the time and there's nothing like a comparable push for mandating phones disable themselves while moving or enforcing all the workplace safety regs that are getting rolled back doubletime. Hell, we've been having Port Arthur grade shootings on the regular for most of our lifetimes, clearly school shootings alone aren't enough to move the needle on gun laws. It's the combination of the spectacle of mass shootings and the high-profile pro-gun response being to send out literal traitors and pedophiles on broadcast to yell about how what we really need to do is outlaw doors and kill all the reporters that makes guns uniquely repellent, where all the other sources of mass deaths in this country have slick PR teams on the case to smooth stuff over and offer token gestures and make it somehow a freak lapse of personal responsibility.

The key difference isn't the quality of the PR team, it's that everyone drives or rides in vehicles and everyone likes loving with their phones. But a shrinking minority of people have guns, it's a subset of that minority that care about 'gun rights', and they're mostly concentrated entirely within a certain political and cultural demographic that the 'other side' already thinks is wrong about everything else, too. I think there's a broader story worth telling about the NRA's longer-term failure to get guns to jump the culture gap and become something less tied to that specific political and cultural identity (and whether doing that was possible even if the NRA weren't the clown show it is), but the more immediate story now is really just about the rise of mass shootings coupled with the population skewing towards demographics that don't have any interest in owning guns (and to whom therefore, "do something about guns" sounds like a great solution). Everything else happening now on the issue flows out of that.

Mass shootings (on the scale of Aurora / Sandy Hook / Pulse / Vegas / Parkland) are the only thing that move the needle of public sentiment in the short term, and even though the needle tends to move most of the way back to center if we can go a few months without another one, their frequency has been increasing, and I think enough of them happening over a short enough span of time will definitely get some new federal laws passed. And then that cycle will continue as the mass shootings continue, which they will.

quote:

I don't think you'd need to "make school shootings stop entirely" to take the wind out of efforts to strictly regulate firearms, just offer some kind of plausible appearance that gun owners on the whole are positive contributors to society who take kids dying seriously and not a bunch of fascist loons lurking around schools in full battle rattle looking for a black boy to defend themselves against.

"Make mass shootings stop almost entirely." And I do think that's what it'd take. Even if there were a way to drive the number of visibly fascist gun culture ambassadors down to zero (which of course there isn't), that wouldn't be enough. No doubt they're not helping, but they're also not the primary driver of public sentiment. Dead suburban kids drive it. People getting killed in situations where pretty much everyone can picture themselves being, like at the movies watching Batman 3 drive it.

Sten Freak
Sep 10, 2008

Despite all of these shortcomings, the Sten still has a long track record of shooting people right in the face.


College Slice

I don't buy for a second that people pushing for gun control are doing so in response to "visibly fascist gun culture ambassadors".

CainFortea
Oct 15, 2004





That's actually what he said. If we got rid of the Nazi tables at gun shows that wouldn't be enough. They sure as poo poo aren't helping, but they're also not the primary reason.

Hasselblad
Dec 13, 2017
NRA shill who thinks homeless people would love to live in migrant border camps. Help me realize I am a bigoted piece of shit.


A Wizard of Goatse posted:

TFR posters keep throwing out that ask for repeals of extremely established legislation yet don't concede anything substantive like 10+rd magazines.

Perhaps it is because 10+ round magazine use in murders is barely measurable statistics-wise, despite 10+rd mags being as plentiful as hell?

NovemberMike
Dec 28, 2008



Hasselblad posted:

Perhaps it is because 10+ round magazine use in murders is barely measurable statistics-wise, despite 10+rd mags being as plentiful as hell?

Yep. I don't actually need compromise, if someone could show me that banning something would likely cause a significant drop in people dying without negatively impacting people's ability to defend themselves to a more significant degree then I'm for it. 10+ round magazines are a stupid target though because they're better for defensive purposes than criminal purposes.

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



Hasselblad posted:

Perhaps it is because 10+ round magazine use in murders is barely measurable statistics-wise, despite 10+rd mags being as plentiful as hell?

Putting some actual effort behind pushing an alternative policy that would have a measurable difference statistics-wise (and not in the usual way of making murders worse) would be a fair response, were it actually gonna happen; the point is that's something they've been pretty vocal about actually giving a poo poo about and think would make a difference, something that'd actually be a concession on your part; whereas most of the "compromises" posted ITT have been blatantly designed to offer the other party nothing so the guy posting it can whine about how unreasonable antigun people are when they aren't interested. And moan that their offer isn't good enough, so there's just no point to ever operating in good faith. And cry that nothing could ever possibly satisfy anyone who'd dare vote against guns so might as well make gun ownership synonymous with neonazi kiddie diddlers.

If you wanna engage in a real discourse be willing to offer actual serious grownup answers that aren't the shortest line between you and your personal convenience. If you really wanna chill with Chomos for Hitler quit wailing about how the unspeakable cruelty of literally any one person in the world vehemently disagreeing with you has forced you into the most unreasonable of positions and just own it.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 15:39 on May 31, 2018

NovemberMike
Dec 28, 2008



A Wizard of Goatse posted:

Putting some actual effort behind pushing an alternative policy that would have a measurable difference statistics-wise (and not in the usual way of making murders worse) would be a fair response, were it actually gonna happen; the point is that's something they've been pretty vocal about actually giving a poo poo about and think would make a difference, something that'd actually be a concession on your part; whereas most of the "compromises" posted ITT are blatantly designed to offer the other party nothing so you can whine about how unreasonable they are when they aren't interested. And then complain that their offer isn't good enough, so there's just no point to ever operating in good faith. And then moan that nothing could ever possibly satisfy anyone who'd dare vote against guns so might as well make gun ownership synonymous with neonazi kiddie diddlers.

Doing anything to guns won't have a measurable impact statistics wise. I could be wrong here, but if I believe that and have evidence backing it up then what would I push?

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



NovemberMike posted:

Doing anything to guns won't have a measurable impact statistics wise. I could be wrong here, but if I believe that and have evidence backing it up then what would I push?

IDK do you believe literally anything you could do could make the world better than it is? I haven't seen any of the problems with being universally regarded as insincere and sociopathic dudes itt keep whining about from people who own guns and actually volunteer for community cleanup programs or free food kitchens, it lends a sort of air of credibility when you actually aren't a sociopathic bad faith actor who only cares about your guns.

e: vvv yeah probably shoulda banned handguns and kept all that other poo poo back in the 30s.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 15:47 on May 31, 2018

LimburgLimbo
Feb 10, 2008

One day I will be happy
every day


NovemberMike posted:

Doing anything to guns won't have a measurable impact statistics wise. I could be wrong here, but if I believe that and have evidence backing it up then what would I push?

Restricting access to handguns would be the main target. Still lets people keep AR15 for home defense and gubmint overthrowin', still lets people who are going to do the paperwork for CCW have them anyway, but greatly reduces access to what is used in the vast majority of crimes and (probably) suicides.

NovemberMike
Dec 28, 2008



A Wizard of Goatse posted:

IDK do you believe literally anything could make the world better than it is? I haven't seen any of the problems with being universally regarded as insincere and sociopathic dudes itt keep whining about from people who own guns and actually volunteer for community cleanup programs or free food kitchens, it seems to be mostly a problem of being actually a sociopathic bad faith operator.

Of course there are things that could make the world better like socialism but you have to be intelligent and actually show cause and effect. Global warming is a problem but if you came here pushing for bills to limit how much you could run a space heater and ignored the greenhouse effect I'd have a similar problem. Space heaters probably do contribute to warming but they're not a significant factor.

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



NovemberMike posted:

Of course there are things that could make the world better like socialism but you have to be intelligent and actually show cause and effect. Global warming is a problem but if you came here pushing for bills to limit how much you could run a space heater and ignored the greenhouse effect I'd have a similar problem. Space heaters probably do contribute to warming but they're not a significant factor.

And if your response is "gently caress you I like my space heater" or "you can take my space heater when I can take your liver" don't expect to convince that person that actually your space heater is fine, just that you're an rear end in a top hat who needs to be overcome to save the world. Talk is cheap, especially from people who talk about being socialists when pressed on their morals online and then donate money to Wayne LaPierre in real life. Throw out your space heater and all your electrical gadgets, grow out your back hair, and live in the woods like the noble bear.

NovemberMike
Dec 28, 2008



A Wizard of Goatse posted:

And if your response is "gently caress you I like my space heater" don't expect to convince that person that actually your space heater is fine, just that you're an rear end in a top hat who needs to be overcome to save the world. Talk is cheap, especially from people who talk about being socialists when pressed on their morals online and then donate money to Wayne LaPierre in real life. Throw out your space heater and all your electrical gadgets, grow out your back hair, and live in the woods like the noble bear.

I don't donate to the NRA, I donate to NAAGA.

Hasselblad
Dec 13, 2017
NRA shill who thinks homeless people would love to live in migrant border camps. Help me realize I am a bigoted piece of shit.


A Wizard of Goatse posted:

Putting some actual effort behind pushing an alternative policy that would have a measurable difference statistics-wise (and not in the usual way of making murders worse) would be a fair response, were it actually gonna happen; the point is that's something they've been pretty vocal about actually giving a poo poo about and think would make a difference, something that'd actually be a concession on your part; whereas most of the "compromises" posted ITT have been blatantly designed to offer the other party nothing so the guy posting it can whine about how unreasonable antigun people are when they aren't interested.

- Bump stocks put on the NFA and Suppressors removed.
- Make UBCs a thing, but make it a free public available service

Are you pretending that these have not been brought up? Does anyone need to give something up in return if we end the war on drugs, the cause of the vast majority of gun crime and crime in general? Do we really need to ban 10+rd mags just for the feels, despite the statistics (and impossibility of it)?

Hasselblad fucked around with this message at 15:55 on May 31, 2018

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



Yeah your reasonable proposals are one where you trade the outlawing of something that is already being outlawed for repealing a bill that's been around for decades and isn't going anywhere, and one that sounds like a good answer in abstract and then is violently opposed by the forum every time anyone tries to flesh it out into any level of detail.

I don't personally support banning 10+rd magazines, so going "but statistics" at me is going to work even less than it's ever worked on the people who do want them banned, which is not at all.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 15:58 on May 31, 2018

Hasselblad
Dec 13, 2017
NRA shill who thinks homeless people would love to live in migrant border camps. Help me realize I am a bigoted piece of shit.


A Wizard of Goatse posted:

Yeah your reasonable proposals are one where you trade the outlawing of something that is already being outlawed for repealing a bill that's been around for decades and isn't going anywhere, and one that sounds like a good answer in abstract and then is violently opposed by the forum every time anyone tries to flesh it out into any level of detail.

Flesh out what?
UBC calls being accessible by all citizens for free?

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

I don't personally support banning 10+rd magazines, so going "but statistics" at me is going to work even less than it's ever worked on the people who do want them banned, which is not at all.

Why did you include it in your list? Doesn't sound like you actually want to have a discussion but rather to take a massive dump on the thread.

Hasselblad fucked around with this message at 16:00 on May 31, 2018

Shima Honnou
Dec 1, 2010

The Once And Future King Of Dicetroit



College Slice

Outlaw bump stocks, mandate all guns have a loudening brake attached at all times, free earpro for all. Compromise achieved.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



Hasselblad posted:

Flesh out what?
UBC calls being accessible by all citizens for free?


Why did you include it in your list?

Do we really need to do the whole "but what if your boss does a NICS check on you" dance again?

It was cited as an example of an actual compromise with Chuck and Nancy (who are apparently the people who need to be compromised with?) based on their beliefs about what would work, and it's a compromise that's been cut by the NRA in the past. Statistically, it's handguns that should be illegal.

  • Locked thread