Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Bay12 Presidential Focus Polling 2016

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


Pages: 1 ... 240 241 [242] 243 244 ... 667

Author Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party  (Read 832173 times)

ed boy

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3615 on: October 18, 2013, 07:06:42 pm »

One major difference -- lot harder to kill someone with a book.
Oh, I have a few that could do the trick, but it would take some effort.
And there are lots of people who would consider some books to be dangerous. Not necessarily in the sense of "read this and your head will explode", but in the sense of "read this and you'll be filled with dangerous ideas" or "read this and you might fall under someone's propaganda".

There's also a sense of wastefulness. After all, if someone is looking to buy a gun, under this law they would either buy a new one or buy a pre-owned one. If confiscated guns were all destroyed, it would just mean more people buying a new gun instead of buying an old one.

I'm still very unhappy with the law, though. "resell and preserve guns always" is a strictly worse policy than "resell and preserved when that's best, destroy when that's best".
Logged

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3617 on: October 18, 2013, 07:12:04 pm »

I don't think there's been a rash of overzealous cops destroying great-great-great-great-grandpappy's musket what he done used in the War. For one thing, the number of musket-related (or muzzle-loading rifle, or whatever else) crimes is not really a thing. I'd wager the majority are cheapass .357s (the infamous "Saturday Night Special") and 9mm like the TEC-9.

I wasn't talking about muskets at all, there's no question about them being safe. You'll notice I didn't mention muskets for that exact reason. There's guns that are just 10-20 years old however that are historical and do have great significance for collectors. I'm going to go into this again later on, but you have to remember that these laws do not discriminate well enough between what is a historical weapon and what is not.

Indeed, even then it can be ineffective because what is plentiful then can often be extremely rare and significant in the future - examples include all the WW2 bolt action rifles that were floating around in the UK prior to our laws being tightened. Nowadays they're rare and super expensive - take the K98. Since restrictions increased, shooters just stopped firing them in competitions because it was too difficult to jump through the hoops and handed them in for destruction or sent them away somewhere. Nowadays they cost up to 1000 pounds (1600 dollars). In the USA they cost 200 dollars, around 123 pounds. A good example of a Springfield 1903 rifle with a sniper scope would cost £10,000 in the UK, AKA $16,000. In the USA they cost around $2,000 dollars or $1237 pounds.

I know you laugh at it and can't believe it but that is a very possible future for American gun owners. I know your frustrations lie with the gun lobbies which are far, far too powerful in the USA, but we have our own gun lobbies in the UK. They just stopped caring as much about certain guns. We actually have our own NRA in the UK but as soon as they said "we don't need semi automatic rifles" all the SLRs, SKS's and Garands went out the window. Rather, our lobbies have got their little niche that they're comfortable with - shotguns, .22LR rifles, bolt action/straight pull rifles for hunting. The American gun lobbies are getting themselves comfortable around a different set, specifically one based around handguns and shotguns. The handgun lobby is the most powerful of course and the one that has the most to answer for, that's why they're distracting Americans by trying to focus their attention on scary-looking "black rifles" like AR-15s rather than the guns that are used in the most crimes.

The guns that are used in crime, including mass shootings, are primarily handguns like Hi Points, Saturday Night Specials or some kind of Glock if the person intends on "using" the gun a bit more than holding up a petrol station, as you say. They don't really need to be destroyed, but that's not such an issue for me. My concern is that the law that is going to be created in the place of the Protect the Guns law or whatever it's called will be too broad-sweeping and involve destruction of guns that other people could keep comfortably, or would be very valuable to collectors now or in the future.

Quote
And quite a few guns might have emotional significance to the victims, who would be upset to see them resold to the public.

I think they need to get their heads sorted if their beef with the tool rather than the perpetrator is so great to the point that they can't cope with them being resold to a collector elsewhere who, we can generally assume, won't use it in a similar crime. Tough I say, I'm sorry. I'd prefer to protect potential victims in the future by ensuring that background checks and other forms of gun control are more effective rather than bending over backwards to appease a distraught family. I always say that victims' families should be the last people to decide any kind of legislation because, frankly, if a member of my family was murdered I don't think I'd be in any frame of mind to be influencing legislation for 10 million people. That goes for any crime, and I've thought that way for a very long time for a number of reasons, well before I started looking into guns more before you accuse me of being an insensitive gun nut.

Quote
The thing is, you're looking at this from the standpoint of the UK, where guns and gun purchases are indeed rare and privately owned firearms thus have a much higher chance of being an heirloom weapon.

Actually I'm looking at this from the standpoint of a person who takes an interest in collecting firearms of any sort. There are people like me all over the world, the vast majority in the United States. Practically every single person who owns more than one gun will have one with emotional or historical significance to them - whether it's because it's the "first gun" they had, or because it's their favourite (don't underestimate that), or because it belonged to their friend/brother/sister/uncle/mother/father/grandfather, or finally because it has a particular history. As an example a friend of mine has a Swedish Mauser bought by the Finns who used it in the Winter War against the Soviets. It's been deactivated in the old specifications so that means it's as good as live, but there's a little bar in the barrel or something. That means it's been passed around, changed hands for a long time and accumulated history like any other antique, and it's also around 10 times more valuable than the price that he bought it for. That's the kind of thing that you might see in a crusher somewhere in 2070, if not a bolt action then a handgun or, most likely, a semi automatic equivalent.

Quote
This is America. Like most every other product we consume with gusto, our guns are mass-produced and nearly disposable. People buy a new shotgun like they'd buy a new tennis racket or bowling ball. For fuck's sake, they might be on the same aisle as the tennis rackets and bowling balls! They're considered a "sporting good" by most retailers.

As they are in the UK also, albeit a heavily regulated one. I'm afraid though you aren't as familiar with the US gun scene as you think - some guns are disposable, mass produced tools for hitting targets, shooting deer or committing a robbery. The people though that like guns enough that they will own more than one however tend to look beyond the cheap, 100-dollar handguns and the like and tend to buy things that are a bit more expensive, put more thought into it and so on. It stops being like buying a tennis racket at that point and becomes more like buying a new car, games console, PC and so on.

Those are the guns that will get destroyed along with all those dollar-a-piece crime facilitators that you're concerned about as soon as gun restrictions tighten, just as they did in the UK. These laws don't tend to discriminate much because legislators often don't think them through, as you've just done by just concentrating on one particular characteristic of the US gun scene rather than taking in the wider picture.

Of course if this was actually a serious problem and there was an enormous surplus of Hi Point handguns that were accumulating in warehouses somewhere, rusting away because the state couldn't give them away or destroy them, then by all means recycle them. I believe that there should be a degree of protection however for these guns to ensure that the vast majority of those that people could put to good use won't get scrapped.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 07:31:14 pm by Owlbread »
Logged

lue

  • Bay Watcher
  • [PREFSTRING:missing right bracket
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3618 on: October 18, 2013, 09:35:26 pm »

I just wanted to remind everyone that the gun buy-back programs that the "Protect FIrearms" law works against are voluntary programs. That is, people are willingly giving up their firearms. The general historical value of a firearm is worth protecting, sure, but the personal historical/sentimental value is irrelevant to this discussion of the law, because when people give up these firearms, whatever personal value they had is gone.

In general, though, the issue with the law isn't the law directly. Rather, it's the alarming zealotry with which the NRA lobbies for any law change that would be seen as an improvement in the gun-rights camp. The reason why I had never even thought of historical weaponry being voluntarily donated by some idiot who doesn't know its value, and then destroyed by cops who also didn't know it, is because that's not how this is framed. It's framed rather more like this:
  • Pro Guns: We must protect firearms from government crackdown at all costs!
  • Anti Guns: We must stop the NRA from making yet another reckless move in increasing the availability of weapons!
Again, I would support rules to ban the destruction of certain historically valuable weapons (although it could be argued that most, if not all, historically valuable weapons are already preserved somewhere).

And don't forget, nothing about the buyback programs nor any other viable gun control measure actively takes away peoples' firearms against their will. Hell, you can buy machine guns from before they were banned in the 30's, legally, because they weren't grandfathered in. As far as I'm aware gun control legislation, at least in the US, doesn't have much of a history in forcibly removing now-illegal firearms from peoples' possessions.
Logged
Post not guaranteed accurate or pristine for all of time.
Sigtext. Enticing, yes? If you do not know where things I have "sigged" go, this page will explain.

RedKing

  • Bay Watcher
  • hoo hoo motherfucker
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3619 on: October 18, 2013, 10:56:50 pm »

most people have no need for extended hole poking apparatus.
The gentlemen who fill up my spam filter with penile enlargement offers beg to differ.  :P



@Owlbread: I've a degree in history and archaeology. I utterly understand and appreciate the importance of preservation. But your concern for the emotional attachment of the shooter is where I'm flabbergasted. I would never support confiscating someone's heirloom weapon and destroying it just for the hell of it.

However, if you choose to use that same heirloom weapon to hold up a liquor store or mug somebody or murder someone? Then FUCK your sentimental attachment. You forfeited my giving a rat's ass (as well as your legal right to ever own a firearm again) when you chose to use that weapon to commit a crime.

Let's be clear on this: the "Save the Guns" legislation is applying to guns confiscated because of their criminal use. If it were just buyback programs (which, to my knowledge, no NC local or state government has ever done) I could see your point. But for guns confiscated because of their illegal use, spike 'em and melt 'em down.
Logged

Remember, knowledge is power. The power to make other people feel stupid.
Quote from: Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3620 on: October 18, 2013, 11:05:57 pm »

I'm just curious what they'd do to illegally modified guns that aren't museum pieces. Fix them before reselling? Sounds expensive.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3623 on: October 19, 2013, 10:36:02 am »


@Owlbread: I've a degree in history and archaeology. I utterly understand and appreciate the importance of preservation. But your concern for the emotional attachment of the shooter is where I'm flabbergasted. I would never support confiscating someone's heirloom weapon and destroying it just for the hell of it.

However, if you choose to use that same heirloom weapon to hold up a liquor store or mug somebody or murder someone? Then FUCK your sentimental attachment. You forfeited my giving a rat's ass (as well as your legal right to ever own a firearm again) when you chose to use that weapon to commit a crime.

Let's be clear on this: the "Save the Guns" legislation is applying to guns confiscated because of their criminal use. If it were just buyback programs (which, to my knowledge, no NC local or state government has ever done) I could see your point. But for guns confiscated because of their illegal use, spike 'em and melt 'em down.

They don't need to be spiked and melted down though unless there's an enormous surplus and they can't be sold, or it's some kind of weird punishment thing you're doing to the gun community. As I've been saying though my concerns about getting rid of that law are that they protect guns that may become illegal in the future due to tightened gun restrictions.
Logged

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3624 on: October 19, 2013, 10:53:02 am »


@Owlbread: I've a degree in history and archaeology. I utterly understand and appreciate the importance of preservation. But your concern for the emotional attachment of the shooter is where I'm flabbergasted. I would never support confiscating someone's heirloom weapon and destroying it just for the hell of it.

However, if you choose to use that same heirloom weapon to hold up a liquor store or mug somebody or murder someone? Then FUCK your sentimental attachment. You forfeited my giving a rat's ass (as well as your legal right to ever own a firearm again) when you chose to use that weapon to commit a crime.

Let's be clear on this: the "Save the Guns" legislation is applying to guns confiscated because of their criminal use. If it were just buyback programs (which, to my knowledge, no NC local or state government has ever done) I could see your point. But for guns confiscated because of their illegal use, spike 'em and melt 'em down.

They don't need to be spiked and melted down though unless there's an enormous surplus and they can't be sold, or it's some kind of weird punishment thing you're doing to the gun community. As I've been saying though my concerns about getting rid of that law are that they protect guns that may become illegal in the future due to tightened gun restrictions.
Owlbread, bear with me when I say police should not be wasting time and resources protecting guns on the off-chance they hold  historical value, when there are no laws protecting any other item seized or given to police.. It's simply gun festishism. Which we have a lot MORE of in the US then any other country. It's not healthy, and believe me whenI say that this initiative is closer in sentiment to fetishism then protectionism, especially given, of course, that it doesn't discriminate based on historical value, no, in fact it  saves all guns equally, regardless of value. Most of them will be resold or kept, of course.


Furthermore, I do believe there is a point in that the Americans of the board, who have a far better understanding of our more, gun enthusiastic country men, are arguing it's not a misguided sense of protecting for collectors then a general desire to prevent the government from reducing the gun population is any way, shape or form. In fact, the new act won't even protect historical guns at all, since they are more rarely the type to be confiscated by police. Police here only confiscate weapons when the owner has been involved in a crime, and in voluntary gun buy back programs in gang-prone areas(Which apparently don't exist in the south at all).


Ask a american how many of their guns have been confiscated by the government, and if so for what reason, and this will explain. Hell, the most restrictive states in the country do not take them outside of criminal proceedings, or perhaps a mentally ill person who owns them.
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3625 on: October 19, 2013, 11:15:51 am »

Once again you are missing my point. I'm taking a perspective here that the law can be used as a pre-emptive form of protection - in the event that gun restrictions tighten, historical weapons could be seized and this law will protect them from being destroyed.

I have already said that I don't really mind the Saturday Night Specials and Hi Points getting melted down as long as examples are kept, but I don't think there's much reason to do so unless there's a surplus of them taking up valuable space or they really are a lot of bother to keep around. In that case they should be sold elsewhere or recycled. The law in general however should remain in a revised, less extreme form built around clauses to protect most guns from being destroyed unless there's actually a reason for it i.e. they take up too much space, they can't be sold or whatever. "To get one over" an irresponsible gun owner by melting his gun is just spiteful and a waste of parts.

Furthermore - I agree that the legislature in North Carolina fetishising guns and giving them more protection than any other item seized is appalling. However, my response to that is that you should give more protection to all items seized by the police across the board, that includes vehicles, computers, phones, any possession.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 11:24:04 am by Owlbread »
Logged

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3626 on: October 19, 2013, 11:41:02 am »

So the cop's stockpiles of illegal guns will save us from the cops declaring guns illegal?

Also, why is everyone afraid of new gun laws? We had a massive shooting a few months back, all the political momentum in the world, and yes, some democrats did say "you know, we shouldn't have let a crazy guy get dozens of guns..." and nothing happened.

Why are conservatives so afraid that Democrats will suddenly declare martial law and seize all the guns?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 11:44:48 am by PTTG?? »
Logged
A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.

Bauglir

  • Bay Watcher
  • Let us make Good
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3627 on: October 19, 2013, 11:42:49 am »

But this is the recycling option that's being made illegal. What exactly do you think they're going to do with the scrap metal?
Logged
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky. “I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied. “Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky. “I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes. “Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3628 on: October 19, 2013, 11:43:00 am »

So the cop's stockpiles of illegal guns will save us from the cops declaring guns illegal?

Yes. Yes it will, though they shouldn't remain as stockpiles for long if the police are handling their fates properly.

But this is the recycling option that's being made illegal. What exactly do you think they're going to do with the scrap metal?

I advocate a change in the law to allow for recycling (that's what I prefer to call it rather than just "melting it down", it's also more inclusive of other processes that don't necessarily involve lots of melting and crushing) of guns that nobody wants and cannot be resold. What I have seen up until now are people calling for the law to be done away with altogether, that is what I was objecting to.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 11:45:39 am by Owlbread »
Logged

lue

  • Bay Watcher
  • [PREFSTRING:missing right bracket
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Vote Kony 2016
« Reply #3629 on: October 19, 2013, 12:24:02 pm »

I advocate a change in the law to allow for recycling (that's what I prefer to call it rather than just "melting it down", it's also more inclusive of other processes that don't necessarily involve lots of melting and crushing) of guns that nobody wants and cannot be resold. What I have seen up until now are people calling for the law to be done away with altogether, that is what I was objecting to.
For what it's worth I've been saying I'd be OK with a "protect historical guns" law. Where you and I differ is that I would go for default melting OK, exceptions to prevent it. You would instead go for default melting not OK, exceptions to allow it.

Furthermore, I do believe there is a point in that the Americans of the board, who have a far better understanding of our more, gun enthusiastic country men, are arguing it's not a misguided sense of protecting for collectors then a general desire to prevent the government from reducing the gun population is any way, shape or form. In fact, the new act won't even protect historical guns at all, since they are more rarely the type to be confiscated by police. Police here only confiscate weapons when the owner has been involved in a crime, and in voluntary gun buy back programs in gang-prone areas(Which apparently don't exist in the south at all).
I wouldn't say misguided sense of protection :) . But yes, this law almost certainly wasn't passed to protect guns from destruction for the guns' sake, but rather to protect them from the government itself.

I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm a gun control guy, but this prevention of smelting weaponry into scrap material is simply nothing more to me than a way to "stick it" to those dirty red gun-hating Commies. At absolutely no point did it look like it had any purpose beyond getting hoorahs from the NRA, which is why the point of concern that is historical weaponry never came to mind.

damn you people for introducing me to right wing watch
Quote from: RWW
Yes, that’s right, she cited the Crusades as an example of anti-Christian persecution.
That's a neato party trick, I'll have to remember it.
Logged
Post not guaranteed accurate or pristine for all of time.
Sigtext. Enticing, yes? If you do not know where things I have "sigged" go, this page will explain.
Pages: 1 ... 240 241 [242] 243 244 ... 667