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
Man I'm for gun-rights and even I realize the 'Gun = Car' analogy is stupid. Especially since cars are more regulated than guns.
Poll: Allyson Schwartz beats Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania
@Maxima: All I'm seeing is fully missing the point here.
Banning weapons to try and curb violence is not the same thing as banning healthier activities. Now, safe sex is a given, yeah.
But banning regular Cars when they have no purpose beyond transportation, something that is beyond helpful to many? Like getting things efficiently done? That's just a giant strawman in itself.
Again, none of these are weapons(specifically) or are made for violence. This isn't a video game where Cars(any) are generally weapons to be used against enemies. This is real life where their intended purpose is to help people get around. Your analogy just doesn't make sense because we're not talking about banning something besides a weapon.
@Barkey: I still see that as a violent use regardless. Because of the design of the item being used. I agree that there are uses that might not hurt anything living, but it's still a weapon first and foremost and a Car is a transport vehicle first and foremost.
There are some types of vehicles that are comparable to guns. Regular cars aren't one of them. -_-
edited 8th Jun '13 10:14:54 PM by Irene
Shadow?![]()
I think reading things on the surface and Completely Missing The Point is stupid. But that's just me.
Well, the problem is that you keep getting hung up on this "Guns are weapons but cars are tools" shtick. It's not relevant to the overall point, so yes, focusing on it and harping it will lead to confusion.
My point is, there's a certain level of common sense regulation for anything. The internet, cars, booze, porn, whatever. Crossing that line into paranoia under the guise of "But we'll be safer" is a logical fallacy. That's the point.
edited 8th Jun '13 10:16:20 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor^^^
Is that really a good enough reason? Why don't we ban knives too?
I think the big issue here is where the boundaries are supposed to be. Me, for instance, I don't support citizens having fully automatic weapons or RPG's. Most other things I give a thumbs up to though.
There has to be some sort of line. Pro-Gun folks don't compromise because we don't know when the anti-gun folks will be satisfied and stop. Nobody having any guns isn't an option for a variety of reasons. Self-defense, hunters, enthusiasts, cops and soldiers who want to shoot off-duty, people who believe it is a constitutionally defended right(which it is, it's just that the degree to which it is protected is made really unclear).
edited 8th Jun '13 10:17:48 PM by Barkey
Your entire analogy was a fallacy from the start, Maxima. You compared weapons to transport vehicles. That did not do anything but miss Midget's point. The point was that getting rid of weapons in one area specifically curbed violence. The fallacy is that you're saying that regular transport vehicles being will make the place better. It won't. It'll just make people late for their jobs and slow progress. Guns being gone doesn't really hurt that place.
@Barkey: Now that's a legitimate comparison. Note how I never said we should ban guns. But we shouldn't compare those to transport vehicles. I'm fine with guns existing and fully agree with you on that.
I don't necessarily like them, but I do find them necessary to keep the peace. I don't much like war, but I know it has to exist currently.
I wouldn't ban either of them, but I do agree some regulations are a must. Many of what you said, actually. Like backgrounds checks, a good enough training and some bi-monthly(not sure what amount of time is necessary) mental checks. You know, stuff like that. Make sure the users are fine.
Shadow?I mentioned a very specific parallel between risk from guns and risk from cars and how banning both isn't a feasible answer in any case. That you latched on to seeing 'cars' and 'guns' in the same sentence and ignored everything else is a recurring problem I find a lot in OTC and not just from you. (If anything, you're one of the lesser offenders in that regard)
Now please understand, nobody is disputing what you're saying about guns being weapons while cars are mostly tools.
I'm saying, there is a certain type of person out there who believes in 100% safety at all costs. Such people would have us live in padded rooms and never leave so as to drive the risk of being injured or killed to near 0%. The point of that analogy isn't to compare cars to guns, but rather to say that at a certain point we find an acceptable level of risk and learn to live with it.
Alcohol isn't necessary like a car is, but I don't want it banned. Skydiving isn't necessary, except for maybe paratroops, but I don't want skydiving as an activity banned because yes, sometimes people die from it.
In like manner, I'm against banning guns as a means to making people safe. Especially since it's not lack of gun restriction that's the issue, since the gun violence is happening in the places with the tightest restrictions.
edited 8th Jun '13 10:24:27 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorYou'd have an idea of when we'd be satisfied and stop if you'd stop being so damn stubborn and listen. Or, you know, helped get rid of folks like La Pierre who are clearly in it for the money and junk. This "never compromise" bull is exactly why we can't get any sensible legislation in the first place. Like I've said before, one side of the debate is refusing to sit down in good faith to try and figure something out, so nothing is getting done.
Hell, I can think of maybe one person, if that, who's said they want to get rid of all guns everywhere in this thread. And I can't think of a single politician that's said they want to outright take guns away from people who already have them. But you act like that's all we've said.
And that article, holy shit that photographer got both those people looking a little crazy.
Yeah, Maxima, you specifically seem to like taking what we say to an extreme that we didn't say or intend. It's... kind of stifling to the discussion.
And cars are regulated fairly tightly, so your analogy just makes it sound like we should regulate guns just as tightly rather than as loosely as we do now.
Here's my deal, what I want. I want an avenue, I want a way to show that I'm ok to have what I want.
Give me a license to own the guns I want. Let me certify with a mental health professional once per year, or whatever, that I'm good to go and responsible. I can easily sign off any training because of my profession, but here's essentially what I want:
I want to be able to own an AR 15 with all the silly scary cosmetic features, such as pistol grips, flash hiders, sliding stocks, et cetera. I'd like it with a 30 round standard(30 rounds is not high capacity, 30 rounds is actually the standard magazine size. 10 and 20 rounders are consider "low capacity". Anything above 30 is "high capacity") magazines, but I could live with 10 or 20.
I want a regular ass normal AR-15 with the cool bells and whistles. Something I can't have in commiefornia. Let me PROVE that I'm good to own one, just like I proved that I'm ok to have a carry permit. And you shouldn't have to demonstrate need, you shouldn't have to pay a cost prohibitive tax to do it(essentially saying poorer folks aren't fit to have guns, that's just classist bullshit). Let me pass some sort of test or do some sort of thing to show that "Hey, Citizen Barkey is good to go to own this rifle and to have a carry permit. He's done the paperwork, done interviews, had his background checked, he's a responsible and sane citizen and is fit to have these things."
That's what I want. I don't want my rights to those things taken away, and I refuse to sit by and let them be taken away because OTHER people are fuckups, because I am not a fuckup. That's my hangup on this.
I've hated group punishment in the Military since boot camp, and I've been in for the better part of a decade now. I hated it when I was a young troop who was doing the right thing and minding his own business, and one asshole drove drunk or drank underage and my whole unit was banned from leaving the base for a weekend. I hate this entire concept. You can imagine how I feel about this on a national scale.
I have a large gunsafe that my guns are locked in when I'm not home. I carry concealed, but I have a lawful permit, I have proper training in Use of Force, and I have training on how to shoot bad guys while avoiding collateral damage. I'm of sound mind psychologically.
I earned these things by doing the right thing and being responsible. I'm not giving them up because some other assholes abuse those rights. I refuse. If the government ruled that guns that I owned were suddenly illegal, I'd keep them anyway. If they said "All California conceal carry permits are now invalid." I'd start carrying illegally.
I'm just done. I'm over it. I'm putting my foot down. I'm drawing the line in the sand and I refuse to give up any more of my rights over other peoples actions. I've been doing the responsible thing and only being punished for it my entire life where guns are concerned. I'm just over it, and that's why I feel the way I do.
edited 8th Jun '13 10:37:34 PM by Barkey
It was Midget who mentioned Australia banning guns and having their gun violence rate plummet. I then took that to say that yes, we could ensure safety by wholesale banning a ton of things.
But....sometimes, we're just not fans of wholesale banning.
That was, um, visceral. And even though I'm not a military man or a gun owner....I completely get the sentiment expressed above.
edited 8th Jun '13 10:33:15 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorMidget didn't say anything beyond banning Guns only doing some good where he was. That's not an invitation to make a strawman about banning non-weapons here. -_-
@Barkey: I'm with Ace on this one a bit. I agree with you that there needs to be careful regulation and so on. But negotiation is not bad and I don't think Pro or Anti-Gun should assume either is out to get eachother. That accomplishes nothing.
Shadow?You never said what would satisfy you here. But on the other hand, do you know enough about guns to make any reasonable requests?
If you want to cite nutcases like La Pierre, I want to cite your politicians. Ones like this woman, Feinstein, Boxer, or Clinton. They don't even know what it is they are regulating, and you wonder why we don't listen or want to pay any attention to your suggestions?
If your leaders aren't even willing to educate themselves on what they are scared of, why should we have any desire to listen?
I mean when it comes to you personally, do you know enough about guns to articulate why certain things should be banned? Any cosmetic features on guns that you're going to say constitute an "assault weapon"? Assault weapon has no definition. Nobody has ever said "This is the federal definition of an assault weapon." The goalposts just keep on being stretched and extended. First it's this, then it's this. Then it's pistol grips. Then it's certain stocks. Then it's barrel shrouds. Then it's flash hiders. Then it's magazine counts. The goalposts just keep getting extended, and usually not for good reasons.
Do you know enough about pistol grips or stocks or flash hiders to be able to tell me a good reason for why they shouldn't be allowed? There is such a supreme lack of faith that anti-gun folks have a fucking clue what they are talking about, that of course we don't want to listen to you, because more often than not you don't know dick about guns.
That's like letting someone who doesn't know anything about cars write automotive safety standards, who goes on to say that spoilers, rims, and hood scoops cause car accidents. They don't, reckless driving causes accidents. THAT is the only gun-car analogy that actually works here.
edited 8th Jun '13 10:40:36 PM by Barkey
![]()
Seriously, if we're going to stay hung up on this after I already explained the point, then I fail to see what else I can say to make it clearer.
I'm not advocating the banning of cars. I'm advocating against excessive and paranoid regulation and using "increased safety" as a justification for said over-regulation.
Also....this. Again, everybody knows what the Republican/Tea Party crowd have done wrong (and that list is LONG, for sure), but everyone ignores that these Dim-ocrats keep making a lot of noise and riling people up, and the base of what they're saying is straight bullshit.
I've touched a firearm maybe 12 times in my life and even I knew customized grips and sights don't have shit to do with the massacres and drive bys that account for 80% of gun violence.
edited 8th Jun '13 10:42:39 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorNobody is ultimately talking about applying it to all places, Maxima.
We just have proof that it did work for one place, that's all. And that's the only place that's proven so far. And that may not work forever.
I think some areas could be better off with no weapons, and I would love it if no violence existed. But realistically, I would not force that on people. Nor would violence ever realistically disappear.
Nobody is actually holding the position you're fighting. Again, we're asking for a better regulation of weapons to prevent a lot of injury and death. Not to ban it at all, since that's not necessary. You're been arguing against a serious strawman the entire time. -_-
Shadow?You're asking that like I should automatically care what you think when you've made it clear you wouldn't even sit down to explain what that stuff is. And for the record I happen to like Clinton, for reasons unrelated to gun issues. (Positions on education and worker's rights and such take precedence on my list of things that matter, so gun rights are not a wank issue for me the way they are for you.)
Meanwhile, on your side, there are people who are representing you that are excessively callous and uncaring about the people who've suffered because of gun crimes and saying their opinions don't matte r and should shut up. Because people who've suffered from gun crime have nothing valuable to say in the matter, except perhaps the ones that agree with them. They automatically block anything from Democrats as part of a larger plan to keep them from governing. (which just feeds into my general distrust of the party.)
For the record, I don't care about customized grips. I care about regular background checks, (which I have said many times, you either weren't here at that point or just ignored it) low capacity magazines, and making sure households with the mentally ill and known felons don't have guns. (I don't care if you yourself are healthy or not a criminal, you've chosen to live with someone who has that history.) Regular tests to make sure you're not going to shoot yourself in the foot and renew the license. I've never said take everyone's hunting rifles away, or take away useless cosmetics. But Republican representatives? Have tried to block even the weakest of regulations simply because it's a way to keep Obama and the Democrats from governing. None of them actually appear to care about discussing the issue. (And really it's the party's positions about things I worry about than yours.)
@Maxima, you are nearly always overzealous. Especially when using incredibly unclever puns of "Dimocrats". Great way to insult literally millions of people.
edited 8th Jun '13 10:57:43 PM by AceofSpades
Come now Ace. Okay, I'll grant that "Dim-ocrats" was a bit on the immature side, yes. But then in your own post you claim Republicans block anything Democrat as part of a larger plan to keep them from governing.
That, sir, is an insult against millions of people. Do some Republicans do that? Yes. But you just read that many Democrats are proposing legislation that affects the country, both victims of gun violence and the countless millions of gun owners who obey the law faithfully, and have no fucking clue what they're talking about. That brings the process of government to a halt. And it's irresponsible.
edited 8th Jun '13 11:10:33 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorOh no, Republicans do in fact halt Democrats, and are in fact the ones who pick on them. Tell me, have you actually paid attention to anything that's currently happening in Congress, not in just this past year, but for the past decade or so?
Especially what with all this filibuster shit and the antagonism against anything Obama tries to introduce or support.
Republicans are usually the ones that are "picking" on Democrats. Come on, tell me with a straight face that Republicans aren't the ones who antagonize in this situation.
Also, this. Fuck the NRA.
edited 8th Jun '13 11:16:08 PM by cutewithoutthe
Personally, I believe the NRA has been pivotal in enabling quite a few shootings. The NRA lobbied to keep out a bunch of measures which would allow federal authorities to track guns more easily. They lobbied to keep the BATF from establishing a centralized database for gun purchases, and has lobbied to keep technology allowing tracing elements to be put into bullets to track who purchased them. The NRA has lobbied successfully to allow domestic abusers and the mentally ill to purchase guns and carry them concealed. They have prevented the CDC from researching gun violence, after it found that a gun in the house was more likely to be used in a murder than to protect the home.
Fucking this. Mitch Mc Connel has specifically said that their goal was to make Obama a "one term president" right at the start. They block most any nomination that the president has tried to make. They have used racially charged language and adds to portray Democrats as wasteful.
edited 8th Jun '13 11:16:17 PM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryI guess I can't find it "picking on" when the ideas many Democrats come up with are dumber than giving Sarah Palin a reality show and thus anybody with a half-brain would shoot it down.
And yes, I heard about those ideas. Tracking for bullets, the CDC's greatly hyped research about guns in the home increasing gun violence.
No one said the Republicans and their NRA bedfellows were blameless. I know I didn't. But Barkey is quite right, I've personally seen the definition of "assault weapon" change no less than a half dozen times since Sandy Hook. When you can't even get your own story straight, well, I strain to find how you wouldn't get picked on.
EDIT:
& ![]()
Seriously? And when W. Bush was in office, the Democrats likewise didn't want to make him a one-term president? Are we really blaming a political party for....being a political party?
edited 8th Jun '13 11:19:58 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorI'm nearly always talking about the Republicans in Congress. Who are doing exactly that and have been recorded and reported as saying exactly that, Maxima. Which Cutie and Enkufka have already said, but more informationally. If anything my frustration is also fueled by the Democrat's inability either through not having enough numbers or not enough balls to get things done anyway.
Also, for like the dozenth time on this forum (but first in months so it's weird) I'm a woman. I'm not ragging on you about it, it's just weird that people keep calling me a guy.
Edit: Dude, I don't recall anyone specifically saying they were going to block every bit of legislation during a WAR TIME presidency to make him a one term president. If anything a whole lot of stuff got passed specifically because it was war time that wouldn't in a more peaceful situation.
edited 8th Jun '13 11:22:22 PM by AceofSpades

Then maybe we need to work on giving people their rights back. A lot of self-proclaimed liberals seem pretty keen on giving them away continuously.
@Irene:
I have a shotgun and a bolt action rifle that I hunt with. I also shoot clay pigeons with said shotgun for fun and sports. I shoot competitively with my rifle and my handgun. I have a carry permit(here in California of all places, that took some doing) and it's so that I can defend myself and others. I don't see a problem with any of those uses. Not to mention that I enjoy going to the range just to shoot and get better at shooting, the same way someone plays a guitar just for the hell of it to get better at playing guitar. I don't see the problem.