|
You keep framing disagreement with you as disagreement with the conversation itself, to tell people that disagreeing with you is not productive participation. gently caress you. You stop disagreeing with me. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You keep framing disagreement with you as disagreement with the conversation itself, to tell people that disagreeing with you is not productive participation. gently caress you. You stop disagreeing with me. Your disagreement is the conversation itself. If it isn't, then you won't mind answering what you think "this idea is pointless because conservative America hates it" adds to a discussion in a forum where the vast majority of posters are coming from the left side of the spectrum with their solutions to any political problem in the US. Why is it suddenly on gun control, Manchin-ism has a point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you keep using regular quotes and not forum quotes because no one actually said that. And I have been repeatedly assured that reality is relevant to our conversations. which definitely sucks as a Leftist
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Xombie posted:This "political reality" isn't any different for any topic where you're proposing a solution from the left. I fail to see why it's a trump card for gun control when it isn't for any other topic of conversation. Like Mulva, if you don't actually like the topic of gun control, no one is forcing you to be part of it. But if all you have to add to the discussion is the thought-terminating cliché of "America is pretty conservative", what exactly do you want people to discuss with you? It isn't actually up to anyone here to "sell" the idea of gun control, because none of us are actually politicians. Not like leftists want to hear about it either. We're mostly pretty aware that the right hates us and the centrists are more worried about decorum than who the right is killing as long as it's not their donors, while there is a distinct difference of outcome when it comes to how the police treat their ideological allies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Not like leftists want to hear about it either. We're mostly pretty aware that the right hates us and the centrists are more worried about decorum than who the right is killing as long as it's not their donors, while there is a distinct difference of outcome when it comes to how the police treat their ideological allies. I'm always a little suspicious of any would-be leftist who insists that this particular form of conspicuous consumption is actually praxis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Xombie posted:You mean the magic box that requires classes and a continually renewed license to operate, which has to be registered with the state and inspected upon being re-registered across state lines? The box where your safe operation of it is under constant, direct, strict police observation and enforcement? There are no inspections or license or insurance requirements to own a car. And I can operate it however I feel on my own property. I'd be okay if you want to do the same thing with guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:There are no inspections or license or insurance requirements to own a car. This is verging on hardcore ancap arguments. Bullets don't stop at property lines, and people get (lawfully!) killed by trigger-happy property owners for coming onto their property for innocent reasons all the time. And these killings are disproportionately done by killers who tend to be white and victims who tend to be non-white.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This is verging on hardcore ancap arguments. Bullets don't stop at property lines, and people get (lawfully!) killed by trigger-happy property owners for coming onto their property for innocent reasons all the time. And these killings are disproportionately done by killers who tend to be white and victims who tend to be non-white. My point is comparing car ownership to gun ownership is not the clever comparison people think it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:My point is comparing car ownership to gun ownership is not the clever comparison people think it is. It absolutely is an appropriate comparison, because like cars, guns are a dangerous possession and a leading cause of death. Little stupid logic puzzle games premised on the straw argument of regulating guns exactly like cars, down to the tiniest detail, don't change that. If you charge in here with, "Ah ha, so you want to require people to wear seatbelts to use a gun? How ridiculous!" you're going to get rightly mocked. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:There are no inspections or license or insurance requirements to own a car. A private transfer of title ownership has to be done at a DMV, actually. But as Cease to Hope points out, you're just hair splitting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Personally, I find my thoughts about guns based on a handful of core premises that end up leading to incompatible conclusions. First, guns are a hazardous good. Owning a gun makes you a danger, chiefly to yourself but also to everyone around you. If you ever feel suicidal, you're more likely to be dead (as opposed to merely hospitalized or the feeling passing), because guns are more immediately lethal. If you're ever afraid of anyone, having a gun means it's more likely someone's going to die rather than you fleeing or hiding or ending up in a fight that everyone survives. They turn impulse into deadly action, and they do this for everyone, even "responsible" gun owners. Everyone is a responsible owner until they aren't, and a significant portion of gun death is people who are by all visible measures responsible. Guns being a hazardous good means that it's obvious to me that they should be heavily regulated (if not abolished). Cars are a good comparison, as are hazardous workplaces. Second, law enforcement is systemically racist. This has two impacts on guns in general, pointing in opposite directions. Law enforcement is going to do most of the enforcing of any given law regarding personal gun ownership, and, like everything else they do, it's going to be done in a lazy, racist way. But also, right now, police can also execute you because they think or know you have a gun, and are disproportionately more likely to do this to people who aren't white or are visibly not cis/straight. What good is a constitutional right if the de facto state is that police can execute you just because they fear you might be exercising it? Third, gun ownership in the US is largely driven by fantasies. Fantasies that it makes you safer from personal assault, and that it makes you safer from government oppression. These fantasies are both the product of decades of marketing, and I don't feel like they're more realistic when refigured for leftist goals. I do not think personal gun ownership makes you safer if you're black or trans. I do not think guns make you any safer from actual nazis than feminazis, even if actual nazis are more real. Even if you're getting in streetfights against far-right thugs on the regular, Kyle Rittenhouse and Kyle Chapman get to be protected but Michael Reinoehl and Edward Crawford do not. And, finally, conservatives get final say on gun laws in the US right now anyway. From the local level to the Supreme Court, there is no level where gun laws can be passed that won't be struck down or neutered by people who like the racist status quo or subscribe fully to the fantasies. I'm not sure there's any "reasonable" scheme of gun control that can thread that needle. I don't know what can be done to change that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Third, gun ownership in the US is largely driven by fantasies. Fantasies that it makes you safer from personal assault, and that it makes you safer from government oppression. These fantasies are both the product of decades of marketing, and I don't feel like they're more realistic when refigured for leftist goals. I do not think personal gun ownership makes you safer if you're black or trans. I do not think guns make you any safer from actual nazis than feminazis, even if actual nazis are more real. Even if you're getting in streetfights against far-right thugs on the regular, Kyle Rittenhouse and Kyle Chapman get to be protected but Michael Reinoehl and Edward Crawford do not. firearms are also statistically used more often for self harm and for harming close family members than self defense or doing a political act. i absolutely dont trust people with firearms if they can barely manage to keep their social media consumption from developing into full on addiction and spiraling anxiety problems
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Xombie posted:A private transfer of title ownership has to be done at a DMV, actually. Nope. So long as you never drive it on a public road, it can go untitled forever. Thousands of farm vehicles out in the Midwest and great plains like that, haven't had a title or licence plate in decades but nobody says poo poo when the 14 year old takes the work truck over to feed the horses at 6am .
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Nope. So long as you never drive it on a public road, it can go untitled forever. Thousands of farm vehicles out in the Midwest and great plains like that, haven't had a title or licence plate in decades but nobody says poo poo when the 14 year old takes the work truck over to feed the horses at 6am . Cool. Who cares? Cars are regulated at the point that is most convenient, which is when they are manufactured, when they are sold and in their main form of use. Guns would need to be regulated somewhat differently, but the need remains the same, as they are a significant danger to the wider community. That remains true on homesteads, where suicide is no less common and shooting innocent "trespassers" still happens with alarming regularity. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
Jumping in with a slightly different topic, Is there any data on gun confiscation in modern history? I know even bringing it up gets people all worked up but I'm seriously looking for something beyond the generalize response of "It's impossible. Too many guns. Cops will refuse to do it. It'd start a civil war!". Like, how many troops would it literally take to search everyone's home? Or even a majority of homes? And before anyone jumps in and say that alienate half the Country remember that Republicans only represent something like a quarter and even less are armed. The reason I'm asking is because this time to me at least genuinely feels different. It's hard to describe, I don't know why it's now but I feel like Gun Control isn't an issue that's going go away like it did with Parkland. And these events are occurring so frequently that it's going to start having an economic impact - people will stop going to school, events, concerts, malls, etc. if they don't feel safe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:My point is comparing car ownership to gun ownership is not the clever comparison people think it is. ........you do understand that guns are severely less regulated than cars, right? You can't just pretend like gun ownership exists only on private property and then use that as a baseline of comparison..... Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Jumping in with a slightly different topic, "gun confiscation" mostly exists as a fundraising line for the NRA. That said, I believe several countries that implemented type-based gun restrictions were able to do it without issue; I believe in the form of buybacks that accompany the ban. Unlike normal buybacks, which have debatable efficacy and depend on how well they're designed, buybacks accompanying a ban straight up reduce the gun supply. Pro-gun speakers frame the issue to talk up how different and atomically worse America is to make the concept of removing guns by any means sound futile or perverse (or they use the jeopardy appeal which has gotten a real workout over the last few pages). fake edit: A quick google gives this summary of the Australia process, which links to specific studies. There's also reason for a degree of optimism on gun control over the next few years; the NRA's doing very poorly and the industry is as well, harming its ability to mobilize politically. This is part of why you're seeing broader traction with gun control bills. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
This push for gun control is going to be exactly what gets the gun industry out of the slump, you realize. The last couple made them billions. Every time someone in Washington talks about another AWB the marketing guys at Colt and Bushmaster do a bump. The AWB was an enormous windfall as it was massive free advertising for producers of banned weapons, who immediately started marketing 'compliant' versions with a couple of cosmetic features removed and appealing to American self-image as rebels against government oppression. Since then every election year is a sellers' frenzy as the militia-types get themselves whipped up over inevitable incoming gun control creating a potential windfall for them like people who owned pre-86 machine guns after the registry closed, so they buy AR's out of stock and pile them up to resell later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 03:14
|
|
|
weird gun hoarders are going to hoard guns regardless, what they waste their disposable income on is of little consequence when it comes to public health this is a bit like saying encouraging vaccines just puts more money into the pockets of big ivermectin. so what? more lives will be saved than not, and the people who were going to eat horse pills to spite the government will find something else to totemically wave about in the name of freedom. maybe we can convince more gun dudes to point loaded pistols at their scrotums
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:weird gun hoarders are going to hoard guns regardless, what they waste their disposable income on is of little consequence when it comes to public health The laws we are most likely to get aren't the ones most likely to benefit public health. We aren't getting handgun bans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:weird gun hoarders are going to hoard guns regardless, what they waste their disposable income on is of little consequence when it comes to public health Discendo Vox wasn't talking about public health, but rather about the NRA and gun industry having the money to lobby. Selling weapons faster than they can actually produce them tends to generate proceeds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:This push for gun control is going to be exactly what gets the gun industry out of the slump, you realize. Nah, this is "this is good for Bitcoin!" magical thinking. If gun control is so great for gun manufacturers, why do they fight it tooth and nail?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The laws we are most likely to get aren't the ones most likely to benefit public health. We aren't getting handgun bans. Handgun bans aren't the only thing that would benefit public health. We can pass measures less restrictive and it will still help dramatically. See: Australia. Kalit fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Nah, this is "this is good for Bitcoin!" magical thinking. If gun control is so great for gun manufacturers, why do they fight it tooth and nail? Effective gun control would be bad for them. Nobody in power has yet so much as presented a bill for effective gun control, much less put it to a vote. All we've really seen so far is the libs trotting out the same AWB rehashes that are their version of the right's 'thoughts and prayers' mantra.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Effective gun control would be bad for them. If AWB laws are good for Bitcoin, why did gun manufacturers fight those bans so strenuously? You're dancing around what "effective" means here. Effective at reducing AR sales? Yeah, those laws definitely did that until they ended. Effective at helping people? I'm skeptical. But you're not gonna distract from the vagueness of your argument by grumbling about "the libs". Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Assault rifle bans are chiefly a product of Democratic strategist thinking that they need to be seen to do something, but any gun regulation that would actually reduce gun crime or gun death would be more intrusive and thus more politically untenable. So they just try to ban some really noxiously unpopular guns that are marketed with thinly veiled "own the libs" marketing and are popularly associated with murdering random people outside of gun enthusiast circles. AWB laws are not especially useful laws from a public policy standpoint, but the fact that even very unpopular guns can't be banned shows how completely captured American politics are. The US gun industry and the minority of gun enthusiasts don't have to make even token concessions, even in the face of showy massacres. The cool thing about that "own the libs" marketing is that it dual-codes very nicely for the sort of leftist who falls for this particular conspicuous-consumption-as-praxis narrative. Both John Brown Gun Clubs and the fudds can own the libs together! Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
Xombie posted:A private transfer of title ownership has to be done at a DMV, actually. Sure, if you want to operate the car on a public road. If you are buying or selling it for use on your own property you don't need to transfer the title. You can even build your own car if you want to and it doesn't have to follow any regulation as long as you are building it for private use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 04:45
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Discendo Vox wasn't talking about public health, but rather about the NRA and gun industry having the money to lobby. This is the most opposite-of-reality perversity claim yet. The NRA has been fundraising off of the same panic, continuously, regardless. Fear that the NRA will promote guns in response to gun control, an ever-more-popular cause, as they are actively in bankruptcy and increasingly isolated, is completely unfalsifiable. By this logic, it would be a bad idea to do any good thing that has an opposing constituency, ever, unless it was a permanent, absolute solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
Vox you seem really optimistic that the NRA collapsing means the tables are about to turn, but it hasn't led to any actual legislation so far as I know. And New York State Rifle is almost certainly about to significantly limit any possible gun licensing laws. I feel like the chilling effect of Heller far outweighs any supposed momentum from one lobbying org falling apart.
Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Jun 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 04:54
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:This push for gun control is going to be exactly what gets the gun industry out of the slump, you realize. Did Obama run on gun control? I don't remember it being a significant part of his 2008 campaign (in fact, I recall him shying away from gun control, given that Heller was pretty recent). "I'm not going to take your guns away" was an oft-repeated line of his on the campaign trail, and he actually praised the Heller ruling. Despite this, gun sales shot through the roof as soon as he was elected. Yes, the perception that gun control is coming drives gun sales...but this perception is largely independent of whether there's actually any gun control coming. Obama's campaign was largely devoid of gun control rhetoric, yet the NRA called him "the most anti-gun president in history" and created websites like gunbanobama.com. They claimed that he would totally ban gun ownership if elected, and they accused him of plotting to stack the Supreme Court with judges who would overturn the Second Amendment. Chain letters were circulating claiming Obama promised at a campaign event that he would pass a "national no carry law". Obama's actual policies and actual campaign platform didn't matter. What he said on the campaign trail didn't matter. Whether or not he was going to propose anti-gun legislation didn't matter. What did matter was that the NRA was in bed with the GOP, and they were willing to say whatever it took to make sure the GOP won - even if it meant making poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Obama's actual policies and actual campaign platform didn't matter. What he said on the campaign trail didn't matter. Whether or not he was going to propose anti-gun legislation didn't matter. What did matter was that the NRA was in bed with the GOP, and they were willing to say whatever it took to make sure the GOP won - even if it meant making poo poo up. Ironically this paralysis for fear of RW backlash that Liquid Communism is pushing is a common liberal failure, one Obama in particular suffered from badly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Vox you seem really optimistic that the NRA collapsing means the tables are about to turn, but it hasn't led to any actual legislation so far as I know. And New York State Rifle is almost certainly about to significantly limit any possible gun licensing laws. I feel like the chilling effect of Heller far outweighs any supposed momentum from one lobbying ground falling apart. I don't need to be "optimistic". We've already discussed several bills, including one likely to pass the senate, a BATF rulemaking that accomplished significant goals that were part of past bills, and the actual concentration of public opinion on the issue. Cease to Hope posted:Ironically this paralysis for fear of RW backlash that Liquid Communism is pushing is a common liberal failure, one Obama in particular suffered from badly. It's not paralytic fear of RW backlash, it's just RW talking points, period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 05:12
|
|
|
I read the thread, yeah. What I don't see is any bill with 50 votes in the Senate to remove the filibuster or 60 votes to overcome one, nor any state legislature willing to waste time on a law that could be used as a test case for another Heller-esque ruling guaranteeing a constitutional right to large-cap magazines or open carry in schools or some horrendous poo poo. The ATF reshuffling the deck on some technical points seems minor, since admin law is temporary at best and the Supreme Court also seems poised to gut admin law in general with the EPA case. You need to be optimistic because nothing good has happened yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, the perception that gun control is coming drives gun sales...but this perception is largely independent of whether there's actually any gun control coming. . Don't know if I would go quite as far as this. I don't think you're going to be slipping any gun control bills past them without their perception picking it up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 12:26
|
|
|
I think the approach of the anti-choice crowd (which itself, was modeled off of the civil rights crowd) should be taken. While passing "do nothing" bills seems like putting an eye-dropper on a fire, the fact of the matter is we just need to get the republicans to agree that yes, gun control is something that should exist, and yes, gun control is constitutional, the same way that republicans got democrats to agree with their fetal protection laws that fetuses should have rights. From there you can take the next step towards getting them to agree that it would be constitutional to have universal background checks or a federal gun database with mandatory registration, and so on. This approach is slow and methodical but is proven to work eventually. What we need is for the gun control crowd to understand that progress is progress and you're not going to find one weird trick to suddenly convince all of the GOP to do an about face on gun control or to give up their structural advantages in the legislature, instead of making GBS threads all over and trying to remove the politicians that advance these policies as do-nothing democrats because they didn't waste political capital advocating for laws that will never pass in the current climate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Fear that the NRA will promote guns in response to gun control, an ever-more-popular cause, as they are actively in bankruptcy and increasingly isolated, is completely unfalsifiable. Wait, they refiled? When did that happen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Wait, they refiled? When did that happen? Sorry, you are correct, the bankruptcy was rejected so they couldn't discharge their debts, which is worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
I thought the NRA filed for bankruptcy to dodge a lawsuit in New York? And, like Trump, have filed for bankruptcy multiple times?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Jumping in with a slightly different topic, When the UK got rid of a lot of guns there was a campaign advertising the incoming laws, regulations for storage and legal penalties along with a series of firearm amnesties where you go and drop them off prosecution free even after the laws changed. The amnesties went on for years afterwards periodically. I can't remember any drama/protest/violence attached to it and we still have gun clubs and private ownership if you have secure storage and can get a license. The public view was generally thank gently caress for that after the Dunblane massacre triggered the changes. A school shooting in 1996 with 17 killed 15 injured. No mass shootings involving handguns since. Shotguns spree's have happened since but are just not as deadly as it's all over and under or side by side not pump action. Legal rifle owners (farmers, pest control, competition/club shooters) haven't proven to be a problem possibly due to strict checks to get one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I thought the NRA filed for bankruptcy to dodge a lawsuit in New York? And, like Trump, have filed for bankruptcy multiple times? I am not sure about prior filings, but you are correct about them filing to dodge the litigation in New York. This resulted in a trial (in the Northern District of Texas, for what that’s worth) over the legitimacy of the filing. The judge in that case ruled that it was exactly what it looked like, a case to get an improper advantage in the New York case so they could avoid regulations and not because of the actual reasons they were asserting, and threw it out. My surprise at the thought they might have filed again was because the judge in question was obviously very sketched out by the actions of NRA leadership, particularly Wayne LaPierre specifically, and indicated the court was more than ready to dig a lot harder if they came back. decision conclusion posted:There are several aspects of this case that still trouble the Court, including the manner and secrecy in which authority to file the case was obtained in the first place, the related lack of express disclosure of the intended Chapter 11 case to the board of directors and most of the elected officers, the ability of the debtor to pay its debts, and the primary legal problem of the debtor being a state regulatory action. The Court agrees with the NYAG that the NRA is using this bankruptcy case to address a regulatory enforcement problem, not a financial one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2022 20:01
|
|