And yet the Federal government reaches its long arm of the law into each of those regions.
You've failed to draw a connection between diversity and gun control. Please elaborate.
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
And yet the Federal government reaches its long arm of the law into each of those regions.
Yeah, but it's not happening to them (hopefully). Hence, they don't care.Chaz wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:43 pm That swathe of the nation? They think the current state of affairs, with mass shootings happening every other day, and schools being shot up to the point where it's a common occurrence, is just fine and that no changes can or should be made. If that chunk of the country thought this wasn't fine, they'd be willing to find ways to fix it. They'd propose something, any goddamn thing. Instead, all they do is shoot down any proposals from the gun control folks saying "that won't help" or "that isn't realistic". They're unwilling to propose any solutions or make any personal sacrifices to stop this, because the violence and killings they see is a reasonable price to pay for their freedom to own guns.
Human violence has been around for millions of years. It would be easier and more effective to get rid of the guns.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:51 pm If people want to make a difference in the larger issue (gun violence), then the dramatic, sweeping changes that need to happen (and could happen) are in a solution to violence itself. Available mental health care, destigmatizing mental illness, poverty, education, law enforcement. Fix those, and violence will decrease (as it already has been for a long, long time.) In the meantime, you can start looking at how to make guns less attractive to people in ten years, and more so in 20, and perhaps in another 40 we can start talking about broad-reaching bans.
It isn't fun to say, but it is reality.
This is an excellent suggestion.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:04 pm You know what might work in the here-and-now? A gun control lobby with the same resources as the NRA. Let's call it the NoRA. There are a lot of anti-gun groups out there, but they are too small and fragmented to be effective. What if they banded together to buy congressmen the same way the NRA does? Some of the measures that enjoy widespread popular support might actually be enacted.
Why is political power so lopsided? Why isn't there a NoRA?
Thank you. I made it up myself.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:20 pmThis is an excellent suggestion.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:04 pm You know what might work in the here-and-now? A gun control lobby with the same resources as the NRA. Let's call it the NoRA. There are a lot of anti-gun groups out there, but they are too small and fragmented to be effective. What if they banded together to buy congressmen the same way the NRA does? Some of the measures that enjoy widespread popular support might actually be enacted.
Why is political power so lopsided? Why isn't there a NoRA?
I'm not at all against gun control. I'm just tired of spending time repeating arguments for plans that can't work, the same 'would-have, could-have, should-have' we've been cycling through after every shooting since OO was founded.
And the simple fact is that you're not going to pass legislation in the US until a significantly larger portion of the population either supports it (or more likely, doesn't care enough to oppose it.)
Then many of you are fucking monsters, if you value what the NRA has sold you as "personal liberty", over dead kids...again and again. Fuck your gun love.
Kinda funny since I don't currently own a gun. Perhaps someone else will let me love on theirs.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:51 pmThen many of you are fucking monsters, if you value what the NRA has sold you as "personal liberty", over dead kids...again and again. Fuck your gun love.
I 80 to 90% range for some regulationsKraken wrote:Thank you. I made it up myself.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:20 pmThis is an excellent suggestion.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:04 pm You know what might work in the here-and-now? A gun control lobby with the same resources as the NRA. Let's call it the NoRA. There are a lot of anti-gun groups out there, but they are too small and fragmented to be effective. What if they banded together to buy congressmen the same way the NRA does? Some of the measures that enjoy widespread popular support might actually be enacted.
Why is political power so lopsided? Why isn't there a NoRA?
I'm not at all against gun control. I'm just tired of spending time repeating arguments for plans that can't work, the same 'would-have, could-have, should-have' we've been cycling through after every shooting since OO was founded.
And the simple fact is that you're not going to pass legislation in the US until a significantly larger portion of the population either supports it (or more likely, doesn't care enough to oppose it.)
There are already clear majorities for sensible gun controls among the public. The trick is persuading congress to go along with them. If the root problem is the NRA's outsized influence, then countering it is the solution.
Now it's up to the rest of you to put that into effect. I've done my part.
Exactly. Much like how our Corporations are sociopathic so has become our Government with respect to protecting the lives of the majority of its citizens. I suppose it comes down to the citizens who matter don't realistically face this threat so why bother.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:51 pmThen many of you are fucking monsters, if you value what the NRA has sold you as "personal liberty", over dead kids...again and again. Fuck your gun love.
+1Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:51 pm if you value what the NRA has sold you as "personal liberty", over dead kids...again and again. Fuck your gun love.
They went the full licensing route. I'm fine with that. In fact I live under a similar state-implemented system right now (Illinois FOID).GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:14 pmWhich of those options did Canada do?LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:46 pm
Not really. They don't try to ban a specific aesthetic. They just ban all semi-auto rifles or handguns or both.
Vain?gameoverman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:15 pm There are people who'd like to take that right way. What else do you call this kind of struggle?
Style being the operative word. Last thing we want is weapons with the wrong kind of style.hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:50 amVain?gameoverman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:15 pm There are people who'd like to take that right way. What else do you call this kind of struggle?
Regulations arise after a demand from the public or a safety concern is proven. Your forbearers lost the right to drive a car without getting a license, the right to buy liquor before they were 18...then 21, the right to buy cocaine from your corner grocery store, etc.. Stop trying to turn this into some noble struggle. It's not.
If more people want more regulation and they vote for it, then you lost a political fight. Not a moral one.
p.s. the majority of folks calling for reform aren't demanding a complete ban. Just more/better regulation. So unless you have a history of mental illness, routinely threaten to use a gun on people, need a specific type of gun that the majority considers too dangerous, or can't wait for a background check, then you're crying wolf.
Some of those are already on the books. Reform wouldn't be adding them, but actual enforcement and perhaps more restrictive definitions.hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:50 am
p.s. the majority of folks calling for reform aren't demanding a complete ban. Just more/better regulation. So unless you have a history of mental illness and want to buy a firearm, routinely threaten to use a gun on people, need a specific type of gun that the majority considers too dangerous, or can't wait for a background check, then you're crying wolf.
No, I didn't. I make it very clear in my post that it's about how dangerous a gun is, not how it looks. Nice try, though.
The latter at least is often fought against by the NRA and their bought politicians in Washington.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:01 amSome of those are already on the books. Reform wouldn't be adding them, but actual enforcement and perhaps more restrictive definitions.hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:50 am
p.s. the majority of folks calling for reform aren't demanding a complete ban. Just more/better regulation. So unless you have a history of mental illness and want to buy a firearm, routinely threaten to use a gun on people, need a specific type of gun that the majority considers too dangerous, or can't wait for a background check, then you're crying wolf.
No, it's driven by the fact that reality isn't a math problem, and that the children being murdered in Wood Shop aren't acceptable losses in a spreadsheet.Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:27 pmSimilarly, the chance of dying by mass shooting is incredibly small, and the chances of dying in a mass school shooting is orders of magnitude smaller than that. Yet, there seems to be a growing sentiment that we should be fortifying our schools or even home-school our kids in order to keep them out of a dangerous and scary environment. Why? It’s driven by irrational fear.
To the best of my knowledge the registry was a boondoggle with little to show for the billions spent on it. The conservatives nuked it from orbit by deleting all the data in a scorched earth approach.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:31 am
Canada also has a firearms registry for restricted firearms, which includes all handguns and most semi-automatic rifles. I'm ok with that too, but that one would be a tough sell in the US. Many see that as a come-get-me-first list.
My recollection was that the registry requirement for prohibited firearms was scrapped but it was still in place for restricted firearms. I could be wrong though.GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:28 pmTo the best of my knowledge the registry was a boondoggle with little to show for the billions spent on it. The conservatives nuked it from orbit by deleting all the data in a scorched earth approach.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:31 am
Canada also has a firearms registry for restricted firearms, which includes all handguns and most semi-automatic rifles. I'm ok with that too, but that one would be a tough sell in the US. Many see that as a come-get-me-first list.
It's gone and wasn't very effective when it existed.
Perhaps Max as ex-military knows more. Not being a gun owner I admit I didn't pay it much attention.
I don't really get this. Actually, I guess I kind of get it. If we were saying, "all things being equal," I'd rather prevent kids dying from mass school shootings than I would kids dying from random drive-bys. While drive-bys are awful and tragic in their own right, it could be argued that school shootings are even worse because schools should be a place where kids should feel safe and need to feel safe in order to produce a decent learning environment.
We could, but again, given the risks involved, do we really want to turn our schools into fortresses? Also, if we have $15B to $25B in extra funding for education, I'd much rather see it actually go to, you know, education.LawBeefaroni wrote:Why can't we secure school like we do courts and banks? I've seen estimates from $15 to $25 billion a year to put metal detectors, their operators, and sworn officers (cops) in all public schools. Not armed teachers, cops. Cops trained specifically for the nuances of the job.
I don't mean resource officers. And definitely not SBLEs.I mean a dedicated officer for each school who's only job is to protect students from threats. Often resource officers have multiple schools on their patrol. And they're there to deal with a little bit of everything. That won't work.msteelers wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:34 pm Schools in Florida already have armed cops. There seems to be some confusion over whether the cop in this latest shooting was actually on campus. I’ve heard sound bytes of the sheriff saying he was, but he never encountered the shooter. Some news reports online question that though.
Still, I grew up in Orlando and we had cops on campus every day. It might have been a response to Columbine, which happened at the end of my freshman year in high school. I don’t remember cops on campus during middle and elementary school.
Our airports and courthouses are fortresses. Don't kids deserve the same protection?Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:39 pmWe could, but again, given the risks involved, do we really want to turn our schools into fortresses? Also, if we have $15B to $25B in extra funding for education, I'd much rather see it actually go to, you know, education.LawBeefaroni wrote:Why can't we secure school like we do courts and banks? I've seen estimates from $15 to $25 billion a year to put metal detectors, their operators, and sworn officers (cops) in all public schools. Not armed teachers, cops. Cops trained specifically for the nuances of the job.
They're allowed if you owned them before they became prohibited. There's a lot of grandfathering up there.