Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Baffler]

You forgot to include the number of deaths from firearm accidents, which is much more than any kind of homicide-relate death.

What about suicides?

Did you even read the post? He is talking specifically about murder. Suicides and accidents are not murder, and were therefore not counted. It's right there, even.

Did you even read the post? I was clearly not talking about murder. Accidents and suicides are obviously not murder, so it shouldn't be hard to figure out that's not that I was talking about something else. I was talking about suicides, the word I posted. It's right there, even.

You quoted the post talking about how accidents were forgotten when you said that, so I assumed you were adding to the objection that things were left out. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption to make.

[Graknorke]

You forgot to include the number of deaths from firearm accidents, which is much more than any kind of homicide-relate death.

What about suicides?

Did you even read the post? He is talking specifically about murder. Suicides and accidents are not murder, and were therefore not counted. It's right there, even.

Did you even read the post? I was clearly not talking about murder. Accidents and suicides are obviously not murder, so it shouldn't be hard to figure out that's not that I was talking about something else. I was talking about suicides, the word I posted. It's right there, even.

You quoted the post talking about how accidents were forgotten when you said that, so I assumed you were adding to the objection that things were left out. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption to make.

I wasn't saying it was left out of Morrigi's post, I was referring directly to TDS' post. If you're going to mention accidents it seems odd to leave out suicides along with them.
And then in my second post I had to fit that into the structure of your post that I was replying to you, in order to be a passive-aggressive dick.

[Baffler]

I wasn't saying it was left out of Morrigi's post, I was referring directly to TDS' post. If you're going to mention accidents it seems odd to leave out suicides along with them.
And then in my second post I had to fit that into the structure of your post that I was replying to you, in order to be a passive-aggressive dick.

You should be proud.

[SalmonGod]

The problem is not in guns, it is in people who abuse them.

Nah, guns actually do make quite a lot of things worse, by virtue of being considerably better at killing than most other things. Take guns out of the equation, or make them a considerably smaller part of it, and suicide rates go down, a lot of violent crime becomes considerably less likely to result in fatalities, accidental gun deaths obviously drop, etc., so forth, so on.

Part of being a responsible gun owner is realizing that, yes, by owning this object you are making the world a categorically more dangerous place. Calling guns "not the problem" is not part of that.

I'm very conflicted on the subject of gun control (why I don't chime in on it very much)... but I mostly wish they just didn't exist, along with every modern technology that exists only for the purpose of killing.

Of course the other reason I don't chime in on it very much is because the amount of death and overall effect on quality of life from direct violence is almost non-existent compared to indirect systemic violence.

[Angle]

Eh, I don't mind that gus exist, I just wish people wouldn't be so dumb about them.

[Graknorke]

I wasn't saying it was left out of Morrigi's post, I was referring directly to TDS' post. If you're going to mention accidents it seems odd to leave out suicides along with them.
And then in my second post I had to fit that into the structure of your post that I was replying to you, in order to be a passive-aggressive dick.

You should be proud.

Not really, it was poorly executed. To be honest I don't think it was even any better than just straight pointing out your dickery and leaving it at that.

[Baffler]

I'll grant it would have kept this exchange a lot shorter. Let's make this the end of that.

[Reelya]

There's definitely a spiral effect: the population has guns, therefore criminals have guns, therefore you NEED the guns to protect yourself from them, and the police, well of course they need freaking assault rifles and shit, because everyone's so heavily armed that that's the only way they stand a chance of combating crime.

Without that first step, the rest aren't such a big problem, and you can even get away without arming your regular police at all like in England, which reduces systemic problems. e.g. you're not seeing Ferguson happening in the UK any time soon.

Obviously disarmament is not easy, but I do believe you could gradually reduce the number of guns down towards normal international levels. You'd need rigorous background checks, and preferable registering firearms as a start. I think it's crazy that the USA doesn't at least have the ballistics of every legal firearm on record somewhere.

[GavJ]

I think it's crazy that the USA doesn't at least have the ballistics of every legal firearm on record somewhere.

some steel wool and a stick = now I have "proof" it wasn't me that shot you...

[Owlbread]

Actually Ferguson did happen in the UK. Remember the London riots? Those riots started because at the time there were unconfirmed media reports of the police pinning down a black youth suspected of carrying a firearm and shot him in the head in police custody.

Not all police in the UK are unarmed - there's various units and dedicated squads and all sorts that carry guns. In Glasgow Airport the police have semi automatic rifles and you regularly see cops walking around sensitive buildings in London with MP5s.

[smjjames]

Well yeah, you'd expect airport security to have weapons.

There's definitely a spiral effect: the population has guns, therefore criminals have guns, therefore you NEED the guns to protect yourself from them, and the police, well of course they need freaking assault rifles and shit, because everyone's so heavily armed that that's the only way they stand a chance of combating crime.

Without that first step, the rest aren't such a big problem, and you can even get away without arming your regular police at all like in England, which reduces systemic problems. e.g. you're not seeing Ferguson happening in the UK any time soon.

Obviously disarmament is not easy, but I do believe you could gradually reduce the number of guns down towards normal international levels. You'd need rigorous background checks, and preferable registering firearms as a start. I think it's crazy that the USA doesn't at least have the ballistics of every legal firearm on record somewhere.

Only problem is that the instant you start trying to force people to give up their guns (law abiding citizens that is), people will start shouting bloody murder at the government.

As for at least having the ballistics of every legal firearm, you're looking at the people who did that Fast and Furious operation.

Of course though, the REAL barrier here is political willpower. Every time the government tries do do something, it's either bogged down in the debate or isn't particularily helpful.

[Frumple]

Only problem is that the instant you start trying to force people to give up their guns (law abiding citizens that is), people will start shouting bloody murder at the government.

So, y'know, you don't force people to give up their guns. Certainly not at first, anyway. Voluntary hand ins alongside a persistent media campaign, incentive programs for registering and keeping firearms at a gun-range instead of at home, programs such as the gun locks/lockers we already do in some places, mandatory goddamn safety training (and hell, don't even confiscate for failure to perform -- just drop a fine on non-compliers, use that to help fund the training)... there's a whole host of soft ball stuff we could start doing to get the ball rolling towards less and/or safer guns. Shit, just toning back the violence fetishism and gun porn in general media would be nice.

Very very few people involved on the +gun control side of things want a total ban. Certainly not an immediate or forcible one. Just, y'know, deescalation. Soften the raging gun boner. Put the fifty foot dakkadick back in the pants. Would/will take years, decades. That's okay. Less bodies, less injuries, a less violent culture -- is a good cause. One folks can wait for, so long as it's actually a goal, and actually something we're working towards.

[Lord Shonus]

That's only a "good plan" if you agree that less guns is a good thing. For someone who considers weapon legislation as "light" as Canada's to be an abomination and a crime against humanity, they will look at that sort of plan and see exactly what it is, a prelude to much greater weapon restrictions, particularly any form of "voluntary" registration*.

Of course, that also runs aground on the hard fact that you'ld be forcing something on the electorate has repeatedly and loudly stated they DO NOT WANT.Despite some popular claims, the gun control movement has NEVER had the support of a majority of the population for longer than a month or two, and even in those cases the support extended only to very, very limited measures.


*Many programs (the 55 MPH speed limit, 21+ drinking age, and several other laws past and present that are universal despite being state laws rather than federal) have already been forced through by the government through "voluntary incentives" that were either so lucrative that local governments simply had to comply, or were quite literally an "offer you can't refuse", in that refusing would be economic suicide. It would be extremely easy to craft a registration program of that sort, where access to gun ranges, ammunition, or new guns is prohibitively expensive or effectively impossible without "Volunteering" to go on the registry. MOst people view a comprehensive registry not simply a long step toward confiscation, but practically confiscation's roommate.

[GavJ]

What are you talking about Shonus? I can't think of any reasonable scenario where offering people money or tax breaks or whatever on a voluntary basis for guns to be handed in could possibly escalate to mandatory anything.

If you don't hand it in, you make and lose $0...

Also several of the suggestions weren't even about number of guns. There's no good argument for not having mandatory safety training, and media fetishism being reduced makes for a healthier culture without affecting actual number of guns.

[Strife26]

Sure there is. Your mandatory safety training will be used as both an unfunded mandate against states, a check against the basic federalist principle of State's rights, and a defacto gun limiting scheme to stop people from practicing their rights to firearms (like getting permits in certain large cities. They exist, but they're slightly more difficult to acquire than photos of bigfoot, or as forms of "yeah, the mandatory safety classes are once a month, during working hours, on the other side of the state).