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
Except many of them seem to be in the "Obama/The librulz are gunna take our guns!" camp. Nobody with clout is suggesting that and gun control is not synonymous with taking them by force like they seem to think. In this scenario our options are either ignore them and try to regulate things or do nothing. Since doing nothing probably won't fix anything I think we should at least try something. I fail to see how it could make things worse.
edit: Basically it's the same problem with the Tea Party. There comes a time when you just have to piss them off because tiptoeing around them is not solving a damn thing and their concerns have no basis in reality.
edited 23rd Dec '12 8:27:32 PM by Kostya
The thought that they can defend themselves from the government with shitty rifles is one that I find ludicrous. And you answer that list of things that are categorically wrong with the list of things that are categorically wrong with how guns are regulated, and also with the other list of how having guns doesn't and can't protect you from the list of fears you have. And that they're being part of the problem.
We've already demonstrated that we know what they fear, Pykrete, so you don't need to repeat it at us. Once you get to people listing those fears that's when you pull out the list you should have prepared to argue for gun control.
Also, Braeburn, you're just being silly now instead of contributing.
One of the articles that got linked earlier showed that while just saying "gun control rawr" is gonna spark a lot of angry, a majority of Americans overwhelmingly favor certain individual bits such as enforcing registration, checks, and safety courses.
Just do us all a favor and never say this. Never.
Pyrkete you do not just roll over and let idiots have their way. It's part of why we're in this financial mess right now. Honestly they're already pissed at the Democrats because they think they're going to bust down their doors as soon as Obama passes some fictitious piece of legislation. He might as well give them some semblance of a reason to be afraid because if he doesn't nothing will ever get fucking done.
edit: What would they do? I already explained why an armed revolution would get crushed easily. Heck the police could probably handle them even without the military being brought in.
edited 23rd Dec '12 8:35:29 PM by Kostya
I was never saying to let idiots have their way. I was saying the exact opposite, but without an expressed intent to needlessly antagonize them and "give them a reason to be afraid" because fucking seriously now. We could probably ram through tighter regulation in most states, and we could have even before recent shootings — just carefully outline exactly what's involved, because even among people generally not wanting more regulation
◊, they're usually okay with the more important parts
◊ — sometimes overwhelmingly so.
edited 23rd Dec '12 8:45:07 PM by Pykrete
What you don't see or hear much about is the massive panic-buying that's erupted since all the talk of banning guns started. Stop by a hunting or gun store anywhere, and there are empty shelves where there used to be guns of those types.
And it's not by gun nuts or people who normally shop for guns, but by people who are suddenly realizing that they are going to miss out.
That first link that Taoist had is pretty clearly written by someone who has no idea what the concept of guns are supposed to be used for. Again, one of those people who are on the outside looking in and doesn't quite understand them. (#11 is completely impossible because of the prevalence of reloading - people will just start making their own bullets - it's really not that hard to do)
You can do more regulation around the use of a firearm than it's existence.
To buy a firearm, passing a written test, demonstrating safety with a practice firearm. These things are more than recommended, and wouldn't be a problem with most people who are either thinking of or already buying guns.
The hardest gun laws in the United States are in the District of Columbia, which can't ban guns, but have a far larger number of things that they have tried to do to combat murder committed with handguns. Not only is there registration involved, but you also have to present your fingerprints, photos of yourself, and a spent shell and bullet to the police (so they can track the bullet's origin if they need the forensics, etc.) You also have to tell them where the weapon will primarily be stored (not that they will check) and what it will be used for.
Now, you can't force a psychological check for owning a gun, but you might for anything related to their use. A concealed carry permit, for instance, in the state of Michigan, and in other places, assumes that you grant permission to be checked for illegal narcotics. It would not be hard to automatically approve the same permission for psychological testing there.
Dare I say this, you might be able to apply this if you make it necessary for there to be a License to Purchase. It doesn't prevent you from owning a firearm, but it only enables you to make the transaction with a dealer in order to obtain it, and you might be able to apply the above permissions for testing. I'd stick mostly with the safety check and written work here. And if it's really your claim, you can make it so that each license is a one time deal, and you can only apply for one license every 30 days or whatever time period you think is reasonable. This is an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and current gun laws at its most "legalese," which should deter people who aren't aware of their rights or laws as well as they could and make it very difficult for straw purchasers.
I would make CCW owners exempt from this for handguns (since they'd be held to higher restrictions and more tests and range time and tighter background checks)
As for insurance, it will only work with registration, and even then, you can't force someone to have insurance if they don't intend to use it. You only have to register a car each couple years if you intend to use it on a public road, though it's existence is on the record. Now you might try some things like range licenses or tying the above permissions for hunting licenses, but you might get a lot more people telling you that they have their guns at home for "collecting" and don't need to register or insure them.
edited 23rd Dec '12 9:57:01 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!![]()
If they're a careless impulsive idiot, then that means they will not be responsible with it, so... no, they kind of can't.
The reason we want to make sure they'll be responsible is to prevent accidents, prevent giving psychos guns, and to prevents as many deaths as possible. That's the whole point of regulation, not to deny rights. Not that you deserve the ability to use a gun. It's something we should know you can use properly.
Quest 64 thread![]()
![]()
It could mean anything, it only means that they're late to the party. There's many reasons that drive people to buy now - like that they're only now seeing the value of having a weapon or anything. They could also have been planning on buying one in the future, but are afraid that there won't be any if they wait (and now it's true - most of the companies who make them are now back-ordered through to 2014. Based on this last week alone.)
edited 23rd Dec '12 10:52:38 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!What makes them stupid for believing the BS rhetoric they hear? It's more than likely that most people that want a gun but don't have one are of the "I want one, but I should get one later after [procrastination target of choice]"? It's not like people who support Assault Weapons bans who should be disenfranchised for supporting feel good laws
.
![]()
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. In fact, that dodged entirely what I said.
I don't have a problem with people wanting a gun. I have a problem with handing them out without proper regulations like candy. That is just a bad idea.
edited 24th Dec '12 12:24:44 PM by Hydronix
Quest 64 threadApparently Fred Phelps is a Democrat.
edit: Apparently he actually is a Democrat. Still doesn't change anything.
edited 24th Dec '12 8:39:07 AM by Kostya

Wow, I found a blogger with whom I agree on almost everything
regarding
gun policy
.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.