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
I brought this up in the gun thread before the conversation derailed and was shut down by the mods, and since we're talking gun control here I thought I’d mention it. People who oppose gun registration and/or gun control in general often talk about the unbearable hardship it would impose upon them and how difficult it would make their lives. They often too act like those of us who want gun control just don’t understand it.
My father, at the height of his collection, owned one hundred and fifty guns. We could have armed a small militia out of our basement. He sold most of them at my mother’s insistence but we still have twenty guns in the house, enough to arm every member of the family four times over. My father and brothers are all licensed to use guns (I am not because I’d blow my feet off) and used them as part of a WWI re-enactment last summer.
Every one of my father’s guns was registered (including the rifles as this was back during the long gun registry). Every one of them met the federal regulations on magazine sizes, barrel length, ammo type, whatever. He still had a collection of 150 different weapons. Strict gun control rules were not a hindrance to him as an enthusiast or collector.
So for those of you who think Canadian style gun control will stop you from owning a variety of weapons, or a lot of weapons or what have you, just remember that there was a point when I could have armed every person I know out of my dad’s collection and still have weapons left over.
@Jovian
The reason I favour smaller magazine sizes is in part because of the combat situation you describe. If the cops and a shooter are exchanging fire then I want the cops to have to reload less often. I want them to have the advantage and not him.
Secondly, sure having to reload doesn’t take long. But in a situation where you are trying to kill as many people as possible then every moment in which you are not shooting is a chance for one of the people you are trying to kill to get away. And every second spent reloading is a second in which you are not firing at your victims. If even one person escapes during a reload than that is one person who is not dead or crippled, and that makes the law worth it to me.
I’d add too that, unless your goal is to shoot up a crowd or engage multiple people in combat, there’s no real advantage to a larger magazine. If you’re hunting and you don’t hit your target within five shots, I sort of doubt you’re going to hit them on the thirtieth (not least because they’ll have run anyway). If a guy is breaking into your house and you don’t put him down with the first few shots you fire at him, you again probably aren’t going to. And if you are the kind of person, like Mister LA Riots, who anticipates having a mob of thirty or more people attack your home than you are either very paranoid, or have made some poor decisions in your life.
edited 15th Jun '16 10:21:47 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
You're going to have to point to the part where my above post replies to anything that was said to me in the other thread (a hint—it doesn't). We've been having a discussion of gun control here as well. A fairly long one in fact. I mentioned that I said it in the other thread as well (a good six or seven hours before the conversation went so off the rails the mods jumped in) because some of the people in this thread also frequent that thread and I wanted them to know there was going to be repeat information in this post.
If Fighteer or any other mod has a problem with my above post, I've no doubt they will tell me. Given that what I've said in it directly addresses things said in this thread I doubt there will be an issue, but if there is, I'm sure they will again, tell me. Why you felt the need to hop threads to try and shut down discussion here is a whole other question, but luckily one I don't want an answer to.
edited 15th Jun '16 10:22:22 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Slate has a running timer on the Filibuster, which is currently 14 hours and counting
. NPR pointed out, however, that it's not actually a filibuster because it's not blocking passage of a bill - it's simply talking at length on one particular topic, which Sen. Murphy is doing an admirably good job of sticking to (as opposed to reading from Green Eggs and Ham).
For my part (and I wrote to my own Senators in NY about it), the one reform I'd most like to see is mandated training in order to buy a firearm. It's one that I doubt even the NRA would object to (at least in the conceptual sense - the details are where there'd almost certainly be clashes), and it could help weed out both "twitchy" people and irresponsible ones alike.
Precisely - it'd also limit instances of "Little Timmy playing with his dad's gun" situations, too. Of course, part of the reason I'd love to see it proposed is as something of a litmus test - if the NRA and/or Republican legislators object to that, then they've hit the Moral Event Horizon on the issue, in my eyes, and can't be made to see reason whatsoever on the topic at large if they can't even admit that such a small measure would be an all-around good idea.
Edit: That issue, in the case of legislators and the NRA, would outwardly be "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", but at its core, it'd be fear of giving so much as an inch of ground at most charitable, or wanting to make sure the gun manufacturing industry can continue nigh-unrestricted despite the mass shootings.
edited 15th Jun '16 10:41:40 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Mandated training courses also make sense when it comes to issues beyond mass shootings. The number of accidental deaths every year from firearms might well drop if people were made to better understand basic safety.
EDIT: Agreed. If you have an issue with the concept of a training course (as opposed to what's in it) then you've got some sort of issues I don't know how to help you with.
edited 15th Jun '16 10:36:12 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I don't think most people in the United States are against sensible gun regulation/gun control. The issue comes up in how both sides go about it. Guns, like every controversial issue in the United States, is very divided in that the loudest factions are "No regulations!" and "Ban Guns!" crowds which are both too extreme to be viable in practice. A more moderate approach would be best, but a more moderate approach generally favors the Democrats at the moment.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyActually, no, the job of the police is to apprehend criminals, not to protect civilians. They can protect people if they want, and their presence is likely to act as a deterrent to crime by people who don't want to be immediately arrested, but "protecting the innocent" isn't technically on their list of job duties.
This kind of case has come up more recently, iirc with an officer who was unwilling to put himself in danger to protect a hostage. It was ruled that he wasn't required to.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:28:30 AM by Clarste
That's insane. We're talking about police, not bounty hunters. Their job is to protect the helpless, and if that's not enshrined in law, it should be. And that does include risking their lives.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Warren v. District of Columbia: even if you call 911 because someone broke into your home and is about to rape you and your friend, the police can comfortably sit on their thumbs because they aren't legally obligated to prevent crimes from happening to you even after being called.
The police can just sit and wait to draw the chalk line or decide not to do anything if you call them.
There is also Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, where the police isn't legally liable for their failure to enforce restraining orders.
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
I'm told that they act like that in Japan, Sweden, the UK, except the Met. The Met are scum.
![]()
![]()
So that's where Sam Vimes got his ideas...
Holy shit. That does make one want a gun.
Could be a movie. A man and a woman attack a police precinct with heavy weaponry. They take the captain hostage, among other high profile individuals, because they want to tell their story to the media. Which is that those very cops had sat on their butts while their children got murdered and their house robbed. They sued, they lost, they wouldn't get justice, so they got revenge, and they sent a message. That négligent police would be made to pay, one way or another.
DOOM. (Fade to black, credits)
edited 16th Jun '16 5:54:26 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.All cases of There Should Be a Law, though. Nothing in constitutional law that says these things can't be done, just that the law as it reads contains no obligation to protect.
Peelian principles would, among other things, require police to give up custodial interrogations. Which is such a good idea that it will never fucking happen (the whole Miranda v. Arizona ruling was an attempt, in the words of attorney Nathan Burney, to create a rule against police coercion that still lets police coerce routinely).
And if There Should Be a Law but isn't, and the absence of such a law (or more pragmatically, the absence of actual protection) creates a situation where someone reasonably fears that they may be targeted by violent crime, then in that situation, a reasonable person will want a weapon for self-defense. And there are places in the US where a reasonable person is going to want such a weapon (and yes, often that's because unreasonable people in that area have weapons, but it doesn't change the situation for everyone else who has to live with it).
Well, as you just said, the problem is that "unreasonable people have weapons", which seems like it should be the thing getting addressed.
Look, when I call for a ban on public carry of firearms by private individuals, I'm not doing so under the belief that it is a thing that would pass Congress in any imaginable near future. The current Democratic push in the Senate, backed by their historic filibuster from yesterday, is to get two measures — universal background checks and a ban on gun purchases by individuals on FBI watchlists — passed that have near-unanimous public support. There is no sane reason why we cannot at least take these steps, which would not affect "law-abiding citizens"' exercise of their right to bear arms in any way.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"A pertinent Wikipedia page
. Noting this here because it indicates to me that there is a bit more than "cosmetics" to the definition.
![]()
I am well aware, but popular support for the measure is overwhelming. I wouldn't want to be a politician who voted against it and have to face my constituents after someone on said watchlist bought a gun and killed some people.
There comes a point in time when calling for nuanced analysis of due process issues is a Chewbacca Defense — a form of the Perfect Solution Fallacy that invokes distrust of government as a reason not to attempt "common-sense" regulatory measures. What we want to see in an ideal world and what is practical to achieve are so far apart that we can't reconcile them, and attempting to do so just stalls the process indefinitely.
Edited to add: On reviewing the principles on that Wikipedia article, I would say that Mr. Peel was a very smart individual and his ideas make a great deal of sense. We have plenty of evidence of what happens when a police force loses sight of those principles.
edited 16th Jun '16 6:54:01 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Quick rundown of other parts of the definition: collapsable stock (theoretically useful for concealment, but mostly an advantage for storage rather than usage), pistol grip (makes literally no difference), bayonet lug (makes literally no difference unless you're planning to stab people with your gun), threaded barrel (allows you to mount barrel accessories, may theoretically make a small difference but actual practical effect is pretty small, and individual types of accessories are often subject to their own legislation), grenade launcher (already covered under laws regulating explosives), barrel shroud (makes literally no difference).
So yeah, it's basically "stuff that looks scary" rather than "stuff that's actually dangerous".
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I'm happy she made a point to say that the military should still be volunteer only.