Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by BenjaminW, Feb 19, 2018.
.......that's one way of putting it
I'd say it's a significant number of states. Here in VT, we are one of, IIRC, two states in the nation that doesn't take away the right to vote for felons. Everywhere else I've lived long-term has had some process or other to get suffrage rights back after incarceration is over, but some places, like Florida, I think, you basically never get your voting right back.
I mean, it'd be one thing if "felonies" were some sort of horrible crime, like murder, for example, but it's way more broadly defined than that, especially in places like Florida, where a man was once charged with a felony for letting go of some helium balloons he bought to impress a woman. A felony. Meaning that he would have lost his right to vote for the rest of his life and would have made it nearly impossible for him to find employment. For balloons.
I find it so interesting that we Americans brag nonstop about being the land of the free and how much freedom we have and how bald eagles with AR-15s in their talons and the Bill of Rights tattooed on their backs freely shoot out of our asses daily, yet any time someone farts in a church or makes a silly face at a police officer, it's off with their heads. At least places like Saudi Arabia don't lead you to believe that you can do whatever you want.
And the fact that many of the people who are most vehemently opposed to banning automatic weapons and high capacity magazines also happen to be holy rollers...it just highlights the hypocrisy inherent in American culture so well, that there's nothing else left to say.
If Jesus owned a gun, what would he have?
a) An AR-15
b) An Uzi
c) A Desert Eagle
d) All of them
e) What are you talking about?! He's Jesus; "turn the other cheek" means non-violence. The question is insane.
Frankly, I know more than a few Christians who take every opportunity to talk about how Christian they are, who would answer the above question with "d". Not all, probably not most, but a significant portion. And, like I said, it's just indicative of how much hypocrisy there is in mainstream American culture. Even if these folks are in the minority, they make sure that the vocalizations of their opinions are the most noticeable out of all of the noise you see and hear out there.
Since Trump is now suggesting taking guns from the mentally ill, will the anti-gun-control members in this topic now state that this group is indeed low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing gun violence?
If not, what's the argument against?
Also, what would be the argument against a background check... especially since onlu criminals will be barred from buying at the end?
The canned response tends to be "criminals would just find a way to get them anyway."
I've been curious to see how this would pan out since you have a group of people who both cited Trump's judgement as infallible and also the second amendment as being unimpeachable. Unstoppable force meets immoveable object.
So far all the people I know that fit into those categories have been silent, I'm assuming they're either waiting for his reversal or they don't like the taste of crow.
“Marriage blessed with a ‘rod of iron’”? Sounds like my wedding vows.
Da dum tishhh. I’ll be here all week.
So that's why your wife was walking funny for about a month a few years back...
Curious: why do you think school (and workplace etc) shooters opt for those AR bean shooters instead of real military grade guns and/or related gadgetry? This is mainly for the 'if there is will there is a way' crowd. Those AR's seem like toys compared to full auto weapons.
Cost and ease of access.
Consumer AR15 derivatives have the potential to be objectively better than actual military hardware. The enthusiast market has driven a ton of innovation and market for "boutique" rifles.
I mean, I think pretty clearly because it is extremely difficult, and extremely expensive, for a private citizen to get their hands on a M-16, but in certain states it takes little more than a pulse and a couple hundred bucks to get an AR-15.
So, yeah, it seems fairly obvious that gun control helps, I'd think.
I mean, the AR-15 modified to fire full auto is essentially the same as the M-16.
But if you are planning to hunker down in one spot and shoot at people until doomsday, why stop at an M-16? Why not get an M134D and a tripod or a bazooka or an M142 HIMARS with a few neutron bombs and a flamethrower?! Or, just go for broke and order a couple of Tsar Bombs off of AliExpress and mount them on an LGM-30 ballistic missile?!?!
It all boils down to availability.
Sadly, as time goes on, the chances of the wrong people getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction get higher and higher. With a nation like North Korea holding onto large scale nuclear weapons, it's basically already happened, arguably, but, realistically speaking, some day, NK will fall apart under its own weight, and then the weapons in the hands of the Kim family might "disappear." I can joke around about a private citizen arming himself with an ICBM as if it's an absurd idea, but in practice, we are not far off from that becoming a potentially real situation.
Yeah, some angsty teens who think the world is out to hurt them can grab a semi-automatic weapon or a few, and shoot up the school, and it's really bad, but, hell, when I was in school, I had a classmate who scared the crap out of me. This guy was a full-blown anarchist, and I didn't know until I went to his house and saw him lighting up home-made thermite and napalm and stuff. How do you stop someone from blowing up the school like that?
Well, it hasn't happened in a long time, because most kids who are smart enough to figure out how to build their own weapons of mass destruction by applying what they are learning in 11th grade Chemisty also know the cause and effect of blowing up their friends and having to live with themselves afterward, but if these sorts of kids get indoctrinated enough, it'll for sure become a problem again. While Mr. Anarchist guy was playing around with science for the sake of developing anarchy tools, most of us other geeks were playing around with some dangerous things for the sake of science. I built plenty of things that went "boom" myself, but I never ever threatened to hurt anyone with them, and I always did everything I could to avoid irresponsibly putting any people or animals in any sort of danger. Looking back, of course, nothing about a teenager building his own firecrackers and setting them off in the woods is the least bit safe nor responsible, but anyway, my point is that the perfect combination of determination, know-how, and hatred for humanity rarely manifest all at once. But we have come very close in recent years. The knucklehead who shot up the movie theater in Colorado seemed like he was just a few bytes of know-how away from making things much much worse than he did, for example.
So, keeping weapons out of people's hands is not the answer, but it has to be part of the answer, whether the NRA likes it or not. But the world won't be safe with a single pronged approach to curbing homespun terrorism. Just like a single-pronged approach has been doing bupkis in terms of addressing Islamic extremism, globally.
And, in general, this is what happens when we culturally marginalize our clever people, instead of setting them on an important task and trusting smart people to be smarter than the idiots leading policy in our country.
Pfft, despite the listings, those knock-offs use Chinese-processed Uranium and are only like 5 megaton yields in reality.
I don't have an issue with law abiding Americans having access to (some) guns, but I think there should be more extensive background checks, wait periods, tests and certifications, and limits on caliber and rate of fire. That common sense stuff, ya know?
I guess the discussion is where to draw the line.
Guns basically have the following purposes, by my reckoning:
1. Waging war
2. Defending one's home
4. Shooting targets for sport
I think the first and last purposes really don't benefit from limits in weapon power. But, I don't see why full auto is really going to help you hunt for food or deter the lowlife trying to steal your silverware. I'm not sure about caliber, though. Obviously, there are vast differences between the power in the casing of a round that goes beyond the bore of the barrel.
Looking at the Second Amendment, I don't think we can say that waging war was not in the framer's minds, but the context in 2018 is not at all what it was in the 18th Century, you know?
Even as someone who is a huge fan of personal liberties, I think that education in firearm safety and making sure that we are not arming people who will simply gio shoot up our children while they are in school need to be highest priorities.
The reason I brought up caliber had to do with the most recent shooting in Florida. Trained police officers were reluctant to engage with the gunman because their body armor would be effectively useless. When the average citizen has enough fire power to force a police officer to second guess taking action, I think we should probably take a harder look at what we are making readily available. I suppose we could treat guns the same way you treat driving restrictions. Everyone that passes a basic test can have access to gun x, but if you want a higher caliber weapon (gun y), you would need to pass a more difficult test. The idea of a driver license (x) versus a CDC license (y).
Yes I should think cost (price, risk, effort) is a huge factor in this case, as with everything else. Price of a gun comes up surprisingly sparsely in these discussions, which is rather strange as it is a very real constraint for especially impulsive people. It's one thing to go buy the most lethal legal weapon available, if only for vague reasons, but getting something more powerful requires quite a bit more dedication and skill. If a lot of these school shootings, for example, are carried out with the most powerful legal weapon, but not with a 'next level' illegal weapon - well there's your gun control demarcation
Guns and credit are pretty easy to get in the States. Banks love lending money to people who can't afford things. It wouldn't take long for someone wanting to do some evil to get lines of credit, max them out, and proceed. Most of them don't worry about having to make payments, because they are probably expecting to die in the process.
We already have restrictions on anything "above" what you can get at your average gun store.
You'd need a mountain of credit and go through a lot of paperwork to get a legal NFA firearm.
The "cheapest" automatic weapons are tens of thousands of dollars.
Those that are cheaper, and illegal, aren't going to take credit cards.
The fact we see so few full automatic weapons involved in these tragedies is proof that legislation can work. Heck, you don't even see too many modified-to-auto weapons used. That's what makes stuff like bump stocks, cranked trigger actuators, and newer glove style devices so dangerous.
Understood. I wasn't talking about specifics in any regards. Simply, I was stating that it is easy to get a line of credit and purchase weapons.
Guns are absolutely stupid cheap right now.
You can get a new handgun for under $200. Granted, it's not going to function too great, but it'll still be deadly.
But new ones aren't the problem. The $300 AR15 on ArmsList being sold by the melvin who isn't even going to look at an ID is the problem.