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
It's not how it works. There's a lot of things going on there that would make guns ridiculously easy to manufacture.
@ Ace: I think you're not quite understanding this. A straw purchase means that there's a person buying the gun, a law-abiding citizen who will pass the background check. After the purchase, the gun is given to someone else. It is illegal. If they get caught, they can become a criminal, and they can no longer buy guns as a straw purchaser.
edited 18th Dec '12 2:40:49 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Thorn, just because people would do illegal things once a law is in place doesn't mean you don't put the law in place. There's one article I read on the issue recently that basically said this in response: "That's like saying if we make murder and rape illegal only murderers will murder, and only rapists will rape." Part of the purpose of a law is to put a significant punishment in place to act as a deterrent, and to address injustice after it's happened.
@Fighteer: that sounds fairly reasonable to me, but I'm not fully versed in the legalities of the private sale of anything. I'd say that at the very least if you buy a gun from a private individual you have to take the time to get yourself officially registered as the new owner at some sort of registration office; the police station perhaps, or a gun store where they probably have all that stuff anyway.
by the way, since we were just talking about her, Megan McArdle is a bit a prick
Fighteer, if you want guns to be banned, then answer me this. What makes banning guns any different from banning alcohol, marijuana, abortions, and other stuff that people have tried to ban and failed spectacularly at doing?
edited 18th Dec '12 2:58:03 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyIn a word: utility. More later after I drive home.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Looking at that list, it seems that what we think of as school shootings (essentially Columbine, a massacre rather than a violent crime that happened to occur at a school) didn't start until the Fifties, and picked up from there.
It also seems like it's risen steadily until about the mid-Nineties, where it's hit our current (intolerable) rate.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.![]()
![]()
So are cigarettes, and we were more successful at eliminating them by making them look uncool than trying to do an outright ban of them. Yeah, there are no smoking zones like there are gun-free zones, but if you are going to try to fix the problem the United States has with shootings, you need to change the view citizens of the United States have concerning guns first. The love of guns is practically ingrained in the culture, much like everyone in The '50s could be seen smoking a cigarette. Until the view of guns are changed, there is never going to be a real solution to the issue, which is the real tragedy.
edited 18th Dec '12 3:07:48 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyGuys. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The explanation for school shootings is not easy gun access, or other gun-friendly countries would have as many as we do.
Now, gun control is a different matter, and I believe no civilian needs an assault rifle, but that's different. Banning assault rifles may be a good idea (banning all guns is stupid and unfeasible) but it won't stop the underlying problem, which is that these kinds of crimes keep happening.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Personally, I think it is more an issue with mental health care myself. If we could get these would-be shooters the help they need before they massacre people, we could prevent these shootings from ever happening.
Wizard Needs Food Badly
It's also the reason why guns are the most effective means of self-protection out there. There are many millions of law-abiding gun owners who have them, and only a small fraction who pervert their use. The issue is whether to punish the millions for the few thousands who act inappropriately.
![]()
![]()
The problem here is that the definition of assault rifles has been perverted. The Department of Defense, and other definitions have always been that of a select-fire weapon capable of fully or burst fire. Under US law, a real assault rifle is a "machine gune." And getting a machine gun is extremely difficult.
The issue with trying to pick out assault rifles is that there is no practical difference between the semi-automatic rifle and that of many hunting rifles. Hunting rifles are also capable of holding scopes and large magazines.
The Clinton Assault Weapon Ban was seen as nothing more than a ban of cosmetic features in different configurations. It did nothing to stop bad guys from getting guns.
It's very easy to demonize "assault rifles" because they don't look like hunting rifles.
edited 18th Dec '12 3:19:34 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I think we should be willing to sacrifice semi-automatic capability. It's too easily abused, and I don't think it's necessary for anything. You don't need multiple shots to hunt, you don't need them for self-defense. Why do you need them? That's a sincere question. Is there any reason?
@Lawyerdude: Plenty of things make it easier to kill people, many of which I have access to. And yet I've never killed anyone. And completely disarming all civilians makes life easier for lawbreakers. Plus, the Adam Lanzas of the world will simply go back to arson and bombs.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
That's also the issue of trying to ban magazine size. For self-defense, the questions readily and quickly escalate.
How many shots do you need to defend your self? Are you only being attacked by one person? What if you miss? What if you're being attacked by several people?
Semi-automatic also applies to older guns like revolvers.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I think mostly people want to use them for recreational purposes.
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

Good, let them revolt. Then we can remove them from the gene pool and get on with a sane national firearms policy. Also, while it is easy to make a gun, most street criminals don't have the necessary skills or resources to do so.
edited 18th Dec '12 2:38:08 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"