Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
Yes, you were arguing that the existing rules would be enough if they were actually used the way they should. And we are trying to explain that no, depending on the state they are not enough.
Here are the areas which need to get addressed regarding gun control:
1. For starters, the rules need to be more or less universal. As Chicago shows, it is pretty useless if you have stricter rules if the areas surrounding you don't.
2. Every single purchase needs to get registered. There can't be any gun show loophole or similar nonsense.
3. Also, there has to be a waiting period of one week. Some Staates already have this and it has done wonders for the suicide numbers.
4. Certain groups - meaning criminals and mental instable people - have to be excluded from legal gun-ownership.
5. There needs to be some sort of gun licence - meaning that you are only allowed to purchase a gun if you have made a test showing that you can actually use it.
6. And there need to be rules for storage - and punishments if an owner ignores them. Guns should NOT be anywhere near children.
And this is just the basics. There also have to be consideration which kind of guns should be open for purchase and which one should be limited to the military and the police, the permits to carry them need to get sorted out, you can even have different gun licenses for different kind of guns.
Though the US issue doesn't end with gun laws, either. You need to change the whole narrative around guns.
Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 6:55:30 AM
![]()
All guns are designed for war zones, and the vast majority of gun crime involves just a few shots being fired. In fact, the vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns which are never something people propose for type regulations. I’ll also point out that there’s no evidence that fire rate makes crimes worse.
All regulating by gun type does is lead to the current situation, because gun manufacturers can build around regulations faster than we can write them. That’s how you get things like stabilizing braces and AO Ws.
For those who aren’t aware, a stabilizing brace is a piece of bullshit hardware that allows people to own a short barreled rifle without doing any work. In the US you have to pay $200 and go through a heightened background check to own a short barreled rifle, so gun companies designed these: [1]
◊
Despite looking and functioning exactly like a stock, due to a clever bit of legalese (theyre “designed” to be braced against the arm) they’re not legally considered stocks. Because of this, that rifle is considered a pistol, and can actually be bought more easily than a rifle with a regular stock in a lot of jurisdictions.
Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 7:08:38 AM
They should have sent a poet.![]()
You can easily counter that by wording the law in a way that either every new model needs to get approved and categorized or by having specific rules for what the weapon can do and not what they look like (meaning they are allowed to have x-many rounds and fire x-fast, period, any technology which enhance the performance of a weapon is automatically forbidden).
See, done.
Also, there are guns for hunting, for sport shooters, for police officers...so no, not every gun is designed for a war zone.
Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 7:11:41 AM
There’s no law you could possibly write that the gun industry couldn’t circumvent. That’s just the nature of the beast. Any attempt to regulate by type or feature will necessarily get sucked into the weeds.
We can beat that whole thing by just regulating the act of owning a firearm from the very beginning, basically the stuff you proposed above.
And where do you think those hunting and police guns came from?
Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 7:17:22 AM
They should have sent a poet.... Do we have a gun control thread? Because if so we should probably move this discussion there.
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
The biggest problem with gun violence is clearly not accidental shootings and you know it. This as I know someone who died due to exactly that. Kids have absolutely no reason to be handling guns at age 10 unless they live in the middle of the woods and have to deal with wild animals or something.
Say, what do you guys mean when you say that an election candidate is ahead of another by X points?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.We don't have a gun control thread but we should probably create one. Not reuse the gun thread, though - my impression is that the tropers who frequent that one are not generally interested in gun control debates.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
We’ve taken the gun control debate there before, it’s not a bad place for it. The debate just tends to get mixed in with more generic gun-related news. A more specific gun control thread would definitely be a good idea.
Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 7:38:12 AM
They should have sent a poet.Please take a look at this thread
listing mass shooting incidents resulting in 10 or more dead. In particular:
1984 .
1986
.or even:
1984 .
1986
. . .
1990
1991
. .
assault weapon ban becomes law
. . . .
1999 .
. . .
assault weapon ban revoked
2005 . 2007
. 2009, 2009 . . 2012, 2012 2013 .
2015 2016 2017, 2017 2018, 2018, 2018, 2018
Edited by wisewillow on Nov 9th 2018 at 10:46:09 AM
Claims that the AWB expiring drove up mass shootings are based on heavily flawed data. We have no evidence the ban affected mass shootings in any way, since most mass shootings are committed with handguns which are not covered under the ban.
Assault weapons are almost never used in crime. Their regulation is a red herring, it gives conservatives something they can easily fight democrats over without talking about the actual issues.
They should have sent a poet.Centralize gun control discussions here
, please.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 'up and working' after a fall that broke her ribs
Ginsburg, a ground-breaking liberal jurist who at 85 is the oldest U.S. Supreme Court justice, was hospitalized on Thursday after falling at her office at the court, a court spokeswoman said.
"The last I heard she was up and working, of course, because what else would she be doing, and cracking jokes," her nephew Daniel Stiepleman said at the premiere of the film "On the Basis of Sex", about a gender-based discrimination case Ginsburg tried as a young lawyer in 1972.
"I can't promise they were good jokes but they were jokes," said Stiepleman, who wrote the script for the film with input from the justice herself.
Edited by sgamer82 on Nov 9th 2018 at 9:27:46 AM
Seems like Florida is heading for a recount-and-recrimination
, complete with the usual suspects whining about voter fraud. Maaaybe Georgia will see a runoff as well.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Nov 9th 2018 at 5:28:20 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanHang on, why do we have a "General" politics thread if we can't talk about general U.S political things? Why have it if discussion should be moved to threads specifically about that topic?
I think a "general" thread should mean we can discuss anything related to politics. It's inclusive, not exclusive.
Edited by Friendperson on Nov 9th 2018 at 8:30:25 AM

Except the federal background check system is full of holes, and again the regulations on the nature of gun ownership and type of guns that can be owned are a total mess.
They should have sent a poet.