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
To be fair, like with many other debates in the United States, there are plenty of people in the middle, it's just that they aren't any fun for the media to talk about. Therefore we get the unfortunate impression that the country is much more polarized than it really is, which has the effect of causing more polarization.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Doesn't help either that there are plenty of people convinced that the second any kind of gun regulation is passed, FEMA's gonna haul everybody to concentration camps. (FEMA???)
...I'm kinda worried to check Facebook, you just know some conspiracy theorist's going to claim the shooting was orchestrated to ram through gun legislation.
@ Kostya: It's called being an Accessory to whatever crime is perpetrated by the criminal. And it's very easy to say that the gun was stolen when the pressure is on the prosecution to prove that it was done on purpose. Even if it was really stolen, it can still be a crime to have a gun not stored properly in the first place. Again, it's harder to prove in property crime.
I can't speak for the Nordic model, but what I know is that most males in the United States are eligible for conscription because of the Selective Service Act. There's some 60 million Americans fit for service fit for the 2nd largest army in the world (which only has about 3 million active and reserve). What exactly, would everyone do if set to serve in conscription roles? Even in rotations of a few years at a time?
Much of the military is already considered bloated in the budget. The long-term effects would be Cost-prohibitive, etc.
The real problem with gun control is just where lines start and where lines end. What is appropriate? What is not appropriate?
What might be appropriate for a person on farmland, in the middle of nowhere, might have different needs than someone in an urban environment. Should that make a difference in whether someone can own a gun or if it determines just what a person should be allowed to have?
You then have a correlation between haves and Have-nots, and that's where all the politics get involved. It's already present in the gun world, where legally owning a machine gun is immensely cost-prohibitive to the typical american.
edited 14th Dec '12 2:51:49 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Oh... excuse me, I'm getting emotional. Let me get a tissue.
I'm a skeptical squirrel
Again, it depends on where where you want to draw the line, and that's the polarizing part of the conversation.
Rosie O'donnell, noted anti-gun activist, has a bodyguard with concealed carry weapons permit in order to make her and her family safe. What makes that okay, and not for someone else who isn't a "celebrity"?
There's lots of lines you can draw.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
It doesn't help to know that you can legally make your own gun, as long as you don't try to sell it or transfer it, and there's no serial numbers or anything that has to be registered anywhere.
Ammunition? Same thing. You can make your own, and reloaders often do.
The problem is technology and the law can't really find a common ground. There's a lot of people in the middle, and when you get to the nitty-gritty, you either have to make broad laws or very specific laws that leave a lot of interpretation and around which, people get very creative.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!There's nothing hypocritical about advocating gun control and having an armed bodyguard to protect you from the people who might want to try to kill you with the guns that you want to ban.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Maybe there is hypocrisy if there is no suitable alternative being offered as well as advocating some sort of disarmament of lethal force. Ban guns, what is there after that? Doesn't stop criminals who now know that a law-abiding citizen is no longer carrying the most effective means of preventing harm to themselves.
edited 14th Dec '12 4:46:39 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!There's hypocrisy in having an armed bodyguard if you are calling for total disarmament of everyone, including properly trained and licensed bodyguards. But if you're okay with trained and licensed bodyguards existing then there is nothing hypocritical about using them.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWho is calling for all individuals in the world to be stripped of their guns? Bodyguards, officers, and soldiers should always be allowed to have them because that's part of their job and they went through the required safety courses and training to be trusted with one. Some of us just think everyone should go through that if they want a gun which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Most people that have body guards are public officials of some sort and are likely going to be targets of various attacks. They're in much greater danger than the average person.
edited 14th Dec '12 5:07:32 PM by Kostya
From The Onion: Fuck Everything, the Nation Reports.
I would like to note that the second amendment was passed during a time that southern states feared slave uprisings. I would like to note that in 1963, before the Civil Rights Act, the NRA came out in support of gun control after the assassination of JFK. I would like to note that gun control in California really started under Ronald Reagan's watch when black people with firearms began protesting in the state capital.
(If right-wingers are going to accuse my end of the political spectrum of "always playing the race card", then dammit I'm going to have the fun of getting away with what I'm accused of.)
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
Thank you. It's the same thing we did with tobacco and alcohol. Personally I think they should all be banned but I know that would never work so I'm perfectly fine with regulating them and placing limits on who can use them.
And they wonder why atheists hate them so much. Hey, maybe if God wasn't such a jackass more people would like him.
edited 14th Dec '12 5:12:43 PM by Kostya
While this whole shooting is tragic and all, I kinda feel that it deserves its own thread (especially since it has very little to do with US Politics)
edited 14th Dec '12 5:17:41 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016So what happens when someone thinks they're being threatened and shoots an innocent person? Look I am not saying take away the guns, as much as I'd like that to happen. I'm saying you regulate the shit out of them.
They aren't the only ones but suggesting every single person in the country carry a gun as a deterrent does not solve anything and only risks making it worse. Take this shooting for example. Under this logic the teachers should have just shot the guy and probably wounded more children in the process.
I totally support the idea that Americans have a right to bear arms.
But you don't need or deserve anything capable of killing a lot of people quickly. A semi-automatic rifle is not something anyone who isn't a soldier needs.
All you need for self-defense is the ability to kill one person. Not the ability to go on a rampage.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

It seems to me that the main problem with gun rights in the US is that at large it's either "NO GUNS FOR ANYONE EVER!" (Which I think is stupid) or "SECOND ADMENDMENT MEANS I CAN MAKE A NUKE IN MY YARD!" (Which is even stupider), with no middle ground in-between. In other words, for too polarized for a proper talk to take place.
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.