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
They have the knowledge base to look at gun violence from an epidemiological standpoint, which is often a useful tool. Not as insane as it seems.
The CDC is also a one of the most powerful governmental organizations in the US. They've got a lot of people and resources they can bring into investigations, far more than any new organization we could create or even any private study group.
edited 13th Jun '16 2:28:14 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?![]()
I don't know the makeup of alphabet agencies in the States aside from the more famous ones, but I'd assume that whoever does statistical work for the police — no, wait the American police is more fragmented than a bad hard-disk. I really don't know, then.
Okay, since gun prohibition will never happen, can't we at least make it a lot harder and far more tedious to obtain guns? Like, triple the paperwork and amount of tests, require people to take an entire semester of night classes (complete w/ homework and exams) or something like that?
edited 13th Jun '16 3:54:26 AM by PhysicalStamina
i'm tired, my friendTo your first, "making it harder" is what the states are doing with abortion. They're going out of their way to add restrictions (constitutional or not) to abortion and abortion clinics in the hope that they can make it too expensive or difficult and force a woman to go through with the pregnancy. This is what your "let's make it horribly tedious to get a gun" measures would be targeted at doing for getting a gun.
It smacks of harassing people who want to own guns, instead of actually trying to come up with reasonable regulations to ensure that people who own guns are qualified to do so. That's petty.
edited 13th Jun '16 4:09:30 AM by Ramidel
I made my own proposal a page back. Reasonable regulations that the majority of gun owners themselves could get behind - background checks, gun licensing, mandatory training and safety courses. Not to harass gun owners or make it too tedious to get a gun, but to make sure that they can be trusted to use a firearm before they get a license to carry.
Same. Making it as hard as possible to obtain a gun, for the sake of making it as hard as possible to obtain a gun, has its own issues.
Rules for gun ownership should be intended to create responsible gun owners that are not a danger to themselves and others.
edited 13th Jun '16 4:28:52 AM by Eschaton
I really have a hard time calling an assault rifle a "gun". And I honestly don't think it would be that hard to just ban automatic weapons. It's not even useful for self-defense: there is no situation in real life where you die because you had a gun on you yet you would have survived had you carried an AK-47.
That's movie or video game issues.
Just ban the fuck out of all those death engines. Next time Homophobic Douche #101 decides to make history, he will have to do so with one bullet at a time. I am pretty sure it will make the death count lower.
edited 13th Jun '16 5:00:21 AM by Julep
That's what he did. The Orlando shooter was using a semi-automatic rifle. Automatic weapons are regulated at the Federal Level
.
edited 13th Jun '16 5:04:47 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnNo, nobody has 100 round magazines for an AR-15. None that work at any rate, not even anyone in the military.
People don't wanna hear it but he would have passed every test and background check, the weapons he purchased were semi automatic and not even terribly excessive.
Nothing but a blanket ban on purchasing firearms could have stopped him from buying them.
edited 13th Jun '16 5:10:29 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?IIRC the AR-15's standard magazine contains up to 30 rounds.
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.So that's about two or three times what most guns carry. Which means the asshole has to reload twice as often, which gives twice as much windows of opportunity for bystanders to run away.
But I won't insist. I will never understand the urge some people feel to own rifles that are not used to hunt big game, and if I ever do, I really think I will have lost part of my humanity.
30 is actually the general standard across almost all military spec weapons across all nations. NATO or not.
Modern handguns are usually around 17 if you're not stupid and using something other than 9mm
His weapons really weren't too out of the ordinary, the AR-15 is one of the most popular civilian owned weapons in the country with countless variations and derivatives. Our military uses AR-15 offshoots for almost everything.
Nothing but a blanket ban would have stopped him, the things he bought were pretty normal.
edited 13th Jun '16 5:17:57 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?
