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

[Chaoswizkid]

What I don't understand is why we can't just freaking regulate guns. Gun-controlists point to the lack of regulation but their key argument is "guns are bad so we should ban them, if no one had guns there wouldn't be a problem." It goes straight to gun bans. Anti-gun-controlists aren't any better, because they have very weak arguments considering it's mostly "but I like guns!" and "well-armed militia! It's in our constitution!" There are rational arguments for either side, but it's so polarized around gun bans.

We need a solution that A) maintains gun ownership and B) stops mass murderers from having guns. How about a license granted only after a mandatory psychological evaluation, which requires a 5-year renewal and you are fined if the license is not renewed and you still possess a firearm (and if you continue past a certain point to possess one with an outdated license legal action can be taken)? Everyone at a gun trade show must be registered at that trade show and must show these licenses. If no one puts their fat political dicks into it (pretty close to a 0% chance), only the hardliners on either side will complain and it should go through.

There's also a lot of debate going on (elsewhere) about taggant chemicals in gunpowder, and I feel like I'm the only one to come up with a decent solution to that. Taggant chemicals in ammunition will help identify the specific ammunition (and therefore person) that shot the bullet. Taggant chemicals included in gunpowder cause the bullets not to fire as efficiently and can produce unwanted results and may even damage the gun because they aren't designed to handle the modified ammunition.
Solution: gun manufacturers build new generation of guns to specifically handle taggant ammunition, government offers buyback of older guns and ammunition, non-taggant ammunition is still sold but much more closely watched (and better records should afford similar boons to police investigations), taggant ammunition is automatically watched through retailers and the manufacturers. There. Done. No bans. Everyone wins. Hardliners complain that it's not enough regulation or that the new guns will suck, but fuck 'em.

We need better regulation, not just flat-out bans. Bans aren't the answer (at least not for the United States), and the sooner both sides stop arguing about them, the sooner we might find actually effective solutions to our problems.

[PTTG??]

Tags don't make a lot of sense to me. The whole reason we're doing this is to prevent murder-suicides... people who aren't expecting to get away with anything.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There have not been significant gun ban proposals above the city level. You are inventing an opposition. Gun-control proposals on the federal level have been quite reasonable, and got shot down.

[mainiac]

\\
We need a solution that A) maintains gun ownership and B) stops mass murderers from having guns. How about a license granted only after a mandatory psychological evaluation, which requires a 5-year renewal and you are fined if the license is not renewed and you still possess a firearm (and if you continue past a certain point to possess one with an outdated license legal action can be taken)? Everyone at a gun trade show must be registered at that trade show and must show these licenses. If no one puts their fat political dicks into it (pretty close to a 0% chance), only the hardliners on either side will complain and it should go through.

Congratulations, in your quest to come to a reasonable compromise, you came up with an idea that is far, far more stringent than what the gun control advocates are asking for.  Not even in DC had requirements as strict as those you propose prior to DC vs. Heller, and the requirements are even looser now.  Ending the gun show loophole has been a pipe dream of control advocates for more than a decade.

But hey, remember to blame the gun control advocates for being unreasonable.  It's not like they're asking for even less than what you laid out as a compromise.

This is why american politics is so damnably frustrating.

[smirk]

What the hell, folks. I step away from the internet for one day and the world goes to hell in a banana clip handbasket.

Minor update: shooter was a 23-year-old originally from New Jersey, though recently of L.A. He was not a TSA agent himself so far as I can tell.

There have not been significant gun ban proposals above the city level. You are inventing an opposition. Gun-control proposals on the federal level have been quite reasonable, and got shot down.

Hardliners on the right talk about any regulation like it's a ban, and hardliners on the left talk about all regulation like they want it to be a ban. And they both yell really loudly. Like any other "productive political debate" these days, really. I'm throwing in one more vote for 'it sickens me how much these events don't sicken me anymore'.

Also, one more relevant Onion article.

[Chaoswizkid]

Tags don't make a lot of sense to me. The whole reason we're doing this is to prevent murder-suicides... people who aren't expecting to get away with anything.

Tags don't make a lot of sense in this instance since it doesn't deal with murder-suicides, it's just an example of something that is control vs. anti-control.

There have not been significant gun ban proposals above the city level. You are inventing an opposition. Gun-control proposals on the federal level have been quite reasonable, and got shot down.

This is not historically true. Also, that's not an invented opposition, considering that gun ban proposals at any and all levels are what I'm talking about, and I don't think for a second that gun control activists don't want nationwide gun bans, they just know they'll lose if they pursue them.

Congratulations, in your quest to come to a reasonable compromise, you came up with an idea that is far, far more stringent than what the gun control advocates are asking for.

Because there is a fear that if you give gun control an inch, you give them everything. Gun control gains momentum and then you have a bunch of gun bans. See:

If no one puts their fat political dicks into it (pretty close to a 0% chance), only the hardliners on either side will complain and it should go through.

Not even in DC had requirements as strict as those you propose prior to DC vs. Heller, and the requirements are even looser now.

Prior to DC vs. Heller, there was a gun ban. I don't see how a proposition that is not banning any guns is more strict.

Ending the gun show loophole has been a pipe dream of control advocates for more than a decade.

Well, this is something that even as a support of anti-gun-control I can get behind. From what I can tell, the argument against more regulation to gun shows is that guns obtained from gun shows are rarely, if ever, used in violent firearm crime. Even so, no one is really hurt by extra regulation, and it's mostly a provision of needing a psychological evaluation (which is also just an inconvenience as long as money isn't made into an issue and the checkup is mostly to make sure no major emotional or psychological upheavals occurred), since if that went through then gun shows would be the only place that'd be easy enough to get a gun without having to worry about the license.
Again, it comes down to getting better regulations without the eventual threat of gun bans.

But hey, remember to blame the gun control advocates for being unreasonable.

Yup. I even remembered to blame anti-gun-control advocates for being unreasonable!

Anti-gun-controlists aren't any better, because they have very weak arguments considering it's mostly "but I like guns!" and "well-armed militia! It's in our constitution!"

Aren't you proud?

Hardliners on the right talk about any regulation like it's a ban, and hardliners on the left talk about all regulation like they want it to be a ban. And they both yell really loudly.

This.

[misko27]

I'm not even going to involve myself in this one. I've decided that the gun-control debate is pointless in this country because we will NEVER regulate guns sufficiently. I think mass shootings are just part of our culture now, like baseball and apple pie. Being gunned down by a paranoid schizophrenic with a semiautomatic is just an environmental hazard of living in the United States, like obesity.

What the hell, folks. I step away from the internet for one day and the world goes to hell in a banana clip handbasket.

Minor update: shooter was a 23-year-old originally from New Jersey, though recently of L.A. He was not a TSA agent himself so far as I can tell.

one more relevant Onion article.

I suggest you demand royalties. Suing people is american.

[Frumple]

[snip]I don't think for a second that gun control activists don't want nationwide gun bans, they just know they'll lose if they pursue them.

Just... I don't think you actually know what the majority body of gun control advocates in the states want, then. There's a reason MSH used the word "significant". Most -- a massive, tremendous margin -- of the ones I've met and talked to (definitely including myself) don't want gun bans. As a rule, even people that want stronger -- sometimes much stronger -- regulations are fine with gun ownership as a general thing. We just want better controls on who gets them, probably where and how they use them, and maybe a reduction in overall gun circulation if we're really lucky*. The most I've seen for legitimate consideration of a gun ban has been re: handguns, generally leaving most other sorts untouched. The assault weapon ban bullshit is generally just that; even fairly staunch supporters of regulation are aware of how damned little it'd actually do.

*Because that'd go a hell of a long way in cutting down criminal ownership, to say nothing of undercutting some of the out-of-country gun running that's going on. I totes bet you Mexico and central/south america in general would really love if we got some of that shit under control.

[mainiac]

Not even in DC had requirements as strict as those you propose prior to DC vs. Heller, and the requirements are even looser now.

Prior to DC vs. Heller, there was a gun ban. I don't see how a proposition that is not banning any guns is more strict.

There was a ban on some kinds of guns but there was hardly a gun ban.

[Hotfire90]

.

[misko27]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/02/suspect-in-lax-shooting-apparently-had-suicidal-thoughts/
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/02/us/lax-gunfire/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/02/3726816/gunman-with-evident-hate-for-tsa.html

The FBI said had not yet interviewed Ciancia about the shooting because he was still hospitalized but expected to speak with him as soon as possible.

The suspected gunman was detained after being shot in the chest multiple times, according to an intelligence source briefed by Los Angeles police.

Airport police officers shot the gunman four times, including in the mouth and leg, during a shootout in front of a Burger King in the terminal.

I don't think Ciancia will be able to talk.
Also this is interesting.

The materials found on the suspect included a rant that appeared to reference the New World Order as well as anti-TSA and anti-government claims, a federal law enforcement official said Saturday.

Oh, interesting. Typical though, Government institutions are just bigger targets for those who think things like that.


On that note, did you know there are more mentally ill people in prisons then Mental Institutions? That might more a product of the prison system then the institution system, but whatever. (Actually it's Reagan's fault. When he was shot and the shooter got "off" due to madness, Congress heavily tightened laws regarding the defense, shifting the burden of proof to the defense and removing multiple avenues of argument, including that the attacker or murderer "could not help themselves")

[Sheb]

Actually, it's mostly an institution problems. Back in 1963 Kennedy though (not entirely unfairly) that mental institution were cruel to their patients. With new drugs looking promising, he decided to promote community care of the mentally ill and allocated money there. The number of people in mental institution plunged from ~600,000 to 160.000 in 1977. Then the new drugs weren't as cool as promised, and Reagan cut the fund for community care, letting the mentally ill with no one to take care of them. Nowadays, there is only around 30.000 beds for the mentally ills nationwide.

[mainiac]

To be fair to Kennedy, people were institutionalized on very flimsy grounds in the 60s.  It's actually a problem that goes back to colonial times.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I guarantee that if Kennedy hasn't reformed the system, people would be far more skeptical towards mental health than they already are. It was this close to becoming a place to get rid of dissidents and personal enemies.

[10ebbor10]

US drone strike causes major setback in peace efforts in Pakistan. Chances for a diplomatic solution have gone up in flames.