Print

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

[smjjames]

Theres also a heck of a lot of other stuff going on at around the same time, so, theres a bunch of noise that keeps it from being absolutely attributed to the shooting. As for the shooting having a noteworthy impact, I'd say the new variable is the existence of Trump, but it's hard to say what the new variable that makes this so different. Yes, the students at Stoneman Douglas are keeping it out there, but other high schools have had shootings and I don't think Stoneman Douglas is unique in any particular way from high schools elsewhere.

Seems like one of those metaphorical dam break/straw that broke the camels back/equivalent metaphor events that are turning points.

Also, one of the students said that the shooter drills have been a part of his life for as long as he can remember, so, the fact that these are kids who grew up during this period is definetly a major factor, it'd just be a matter of time before kids who grew up during this period became politically active.

edit: I think the NRA lady may have spoken earlier but didn't stick around, way for the NRA to chicken out.

edit2: Oh, the spokeswoman is still there, just wasn't her turn to take questions.

[Lord Shonus]

Just one of those turning points perhaps. Seems to be attributed to the activism of the students from that highschool. The exact reasons why this one seems different despite not being exceptional in any way are probably complex.

It would be nice if the, to use a jargon term, hegemony surrounding the issue finally cracked. It could not possibly last forever like this. If so we can finaly start having a real discussion.

Hell, to a large extent the discussion's been had, it's more or less done and over with on a few subjects. The issue for a bit now hasn't been the yammering, it's been drumming up a bloc of individuals sufficiently motivated to offset the influence of the very active and vocal minority of anti-sanity advocates typified by NRA lobbyists and their ilk. A majority of this ruddy country wants tighter gun laws, and has for a good few years now.

Fun recent poll, actually. There may be more people in this country that support universal, presumably federal level, background checks on firearm purchases than there are that will agree the sky is blue. Support near enough across the board within margin of error distance of 100%. Let it never be said the NRA or the GOP give a fuck what the people want.

Support for expanded background checks has been that high for a long time, and a clean-bill version of it would almost certainly pass. The primary reason it hasn't happened is that every such bill has had much less popular measures tacked on.

[Frumple]

Happen to be aware of any such bills off the top of your head, sho? Mildly curious where those extra bits have been coming from, or at least have apparently forgotten if I had noticed previously.

[smjjames]

Happen to be aware of any such bills off the top of your head, sho? Mildly curious where those extra bits have been coming from, or at least have apparently forgotten if I had noticed previously.

I can easily guess where the extra bits are coming from, either Republicans trying to force Democrats to vote on something that they wouldn't vote for otherwise or Democrats have been adding on other measures that aren't popular with Republicans.

[Lord Shonus]

Happen to be aware of any such bills off the top of your head, sho? Mildly curious where those extra bits have been coming from, or at least have apparently forgotten if I had noticed previously.

Not offhand, and I'm a bit too drunk to go researching right now. As I recall, the most notable recent one was tied to the Terrorism Watch List - which has been roundly criticiced by elements of both parties for being much too easy to get on to, and far too hard to get off of.

There's two promising bills in play right now that both sides of the debate are likely to favor. The Fix NCIS Act, which closes the "Charleston Loophole" (in which the database used for background checks fails to get updated due to sloppy record keeping at the local level), and a bill that raises the age of purchasing certain firearms from 18 to 21 (which most gun-rights advocates have little objection to, as it is a reasonable restriction). IIRC, the NRA has endorsed both bills, just as it endorsed the stalled bump stock ban before an analysis of the language showed it to be critically flawed.

[smjjames]

Most gun rights advocates have little objection to the age increase? The NRA did put out a statement saying that they weren't in favor of that. The age increase does seem reasonable enough and could have helped this specific case, but it wouldn't have prevented lots of other shootings and on it's own it wouldn't be enough to help gun violence in general.

[Lord Shonus]

The NRA did put out a statement saying that they weren't in favor of that.

Did they? Last time they called to try to get me to join, the guy on the phone spoke in favor of it. I also haven't seen any significant criticism of it anywhere other than the same ones you raise.

It isn't a major regulatory proposal, as all it does is put "black guns" on the same regulatory level of handguns instead of the current "same as any other rifle" classification.

[penguinofhonor]

From yesterday: NRA Opposes New Age Limits on Gun Purchases

“Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20-year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals,” she added.

Any law that requires an individual to be 21 or older to buy a firearm “effectively prohibits” adults aged 18-20 from buying a firearm, Baker said, “thus depriving them of their constitutional right to self-protection.”

[andrea]

can't that be said for any age?
I mean, we are denying people aged 0-18 their chance to buy assault rifles for self protection as well.

[Akura]

Any law that requires an individual to be 21 or older to buy a firearm “effectively prohibits” adults aged 18-20 from buying a firearm, Baker said

YOU DON'T SAY.


Also, forget the supposed need, how would a single mother afford "the most effective self-defense rifle"? A quick look-up puts AR-15's at around and above $1500 and me on some watch list somewhere. That generally goes above what I, a single man with money handling-skill still living his parents, can afford for something with a self-contradicting description.

[Jopax]

BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN OF THOSE SINGLE MOTHERS!!

At this point does anyone really expect anything but "REEE!! MUH GUNS!!" from the NRA?

[Frumple]

Well, of course I expect something other than that from the NRA! After all, their shtick is "REEE!! MUH GUN SALES!!"

[McTraveller]

My personal stance on gun control is, be wary of giving up personal responsibility for things.  You can't have freedom without personal responsibility - so in abdicating responsibility for safe gun use to the outside agency there is a corresponding loss of freedom.

Now some people may think that loss of freedom is worth it, but that's different from being unaware that there is a tradeoff there.

[sluissa]

I would just rather any restrictions have thought put into them and make sure they have a real effect. Not just "these guns look scarier, so we should ban them."

Plenty of weapons out there that are mechanically the same as the AR-15 just with less plastic decorations attached so they don't look quite as scary.

Want to consider real policies that work? Start with magazine sizes. Semi-auto isn't going to mean a whole lot if you're limited to about the same number of shots as a revolver. Want to go full on semi-auto ban? Fine, but gonna need to consider the fact that there are already millions out on the open market.

Any policy you enact today is not likely to have a huge effect on the availability of guns for decades. So make sure it's thought out. Make sure you're looking ahead. Make sure it's not just an emotional knee-jerk reaction the gun industry can find a loophole in that won't effectively change anything and will just make a lot of people mad. And make sure you're not making the situation even worse in the long run by incentivizing a stronger black market.

[Doomblade187]

We also need to do an audit as to where our current systems are not being enforced- as we have seen, there are instances where it *should* have but didn't.