11mm

full

metal

jacket

6/24/2015 5:40:39 PM

fuck all of you pieces of shit that use guns

7/1/2015 10:28:15 PM

Quote :

"Afterall, to drive a car you need to: Get it registered and and inspected regularly Obtain a license to drive, and retest regularly to ensure we understand the laws Have insurance to cover damage, injury and loss of life Face a range of charges for failing to follow the law"

Where's that Constitutional amendment regarding the right to own a car with no govt interference? Oh, right, it doesn't exist

7/2/2015 12:18:20 AM

is there a such thing as a "chit chat edition" anymore? Chit Chat is not The Soap Box #2

7/2/2015 12:20:51 AM

^^ oh so you're against any gun control whatsoever. OK.

7/2/2015 12:44:21 AM

is that a strawman or a logical fallacy or a false equivalency, synapse? i personally don't resort to nullifying a post by simply posting some philosophy/debate industry term like you and others like to do rather than address the content of the posts, but I see you're not above using them

tell me, does throwing out terms like logical fallacy make you feel better about your own fear and lack of understanding of firearms? ibt"i have shot guns a bunch, i just want more laws"


[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 2:46 AM. Reason : ]

7/2/2015 2:32:46 AM

imo we need to work on enforcing the laws we have before debating new ones. big one that just came up, why did background check not show his felony charge when dylann roof bought that .45

7/2/2015 5:29:08 AM

Quote :

"is that a strawman or a logical fallacy or a false equivalency, synapse?"

None of the above, dummy. But technically the first and third are types of the second. Did you even read Burros post? I wasn't even reaching with that assessment.

Quote :

"tell me, does throwing out terms like logical fallacy make you feel better about your own fear and lack of understanding of firearms?"

You tell me. You're the only one one "throwing them out" ITT.

Quote :

"why did background check not show his felony charge when dylann roof bought that .45"

Charges != convictions.

7/2/2015 10:29:55 AM

i control my guns well i think.

they've not even harmed a single animal... just some steel an a few hundred sheets of paper.

7/2/2015 10:53:39 AM

The gubment can control them better.

Mandatory exchange of guns for knifes. If you want to kill, do it on a personal level, face to face, hand to hand.

[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 10:58 AM. Reason : ,]

7/2/2015 10:57:43 AM

yep...and criminals will totally abide by that...

TOTALLY!

7/2/2015 11:55:27 AM

I'd care more about the restriction of body armor.

If you want to regulate stopping power, you need to regulate juggernaut too, noobs.

7/2/2015 12:15:26 PM

Quote :

"I'd care more about the restriction of body armor."

Because of course you would

7/2/2015 12:19:06 PM

Came across an interesting article on Market Watch about gun violence.

Top states per capita (1-10): Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Montana, Arkansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Tennessee.

Not surprisingly, the overall violent crime rate of these states were all in the top quartile with the exception of Montana.

7/2/2015 2:08:10 PM

You must mean top *gun ownership* states per capita

7/2/2015 2:25:10 PM

No, gun deaths per 100,000 people..

Just found it interesting because of the idea thrown out often that less restrictions somehow has correlation with less violence (Chicago and Detroit often cited). Obviously I believe the crime and gun violence is more directly affected by socioeconomic forces..

[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 2:34 PM. Reason : Typo]

7/2/2015 2:27:19 PM

So top gun death states. Ok.

[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 2:36 PM. Reason : ^ agreed]

7/2/2015 2:31:46 PM

Quote :

" Where's that Constitutional amendment regarding the right to own a car with no govt interference? Oh, right, it doesn't exist"

Is this a serious response?

7/2/2015 3:07:19 PM

its not a terrible response; driving is not a perfect analogy because there is no constitutional amendment ensuring the right to drive

7/2/2015 5:53:51 PM

That doesn't make my argument any less valid though. Sensible restrictions on deadly instruments isn't that far fetched. My take on the response was similar to Synapse's, in that it sounds like he's advocating unfettered access to firearms.

Remember, the constitution isn't a perfect document and just because there's a vague amendment written over 200 years ago doesn't mean that we don't have the power or right to regulate firearms. We've already created restrictions to gun ownership in this country that most people agree with so its not outlandish to think we should have the same respect for gun ownership that we do for cars & trucks.

7/2/2015 6:45:20 PM

Quote :

"Remember, the constitution isn't a perfect document"

There is a process for changing and updating it.

That process is not "ignoring" or "circumventing" or "tortured interpretation."

7/2/2015 7:06:11 PM

I'm not sure what you're quoting there, seeing as I never implied it wasn't.

As someone who sits in the middle on this issue its frustrating to see so many straw man arguments against sensible gun laws.

My argument was that we place sensible hurdles to on owning or operating dangerous machines/instruments, we should have the same in place for guns, which are designed with the primary purpose of causing great harm.

However it seems like the most vocal 2nd amendment supporters want to split the discussion into those who want to strip guns out of the hands of owners versus those who want complete and unrestricted access to all firearms.

However, a lot of people just want to feel safe in their home. Not from the imagined thugs, but from their crazy tin-foil hat, chemtrail spouting neighbor, who owns several guns with enough ammunition to kill an entire police force twice over.

The counterpoint to my argument was what transpired above, in which it seems like users are implying that guns are untouchable since they are mentioned in the constitution, when in fact we already have several restrictions on ownership that have been upheld by SCOTUS and do not infringe on rights. There's a reason I can't go to Walmart and purchase a bomb, or a fully automatic rifle, or own military grade weaponry. Why can't we use that framework to create sensible ownerships laws? Is it really that much of an infringement to say you should have to prove yourself capable of owning a high powered rifle in the same way you have to to drive a Prius?

7/2/2015 7:23:38 PM

7/2/2015 7:35:29 PM

I was speaking broadly, not specifically to gun laws or even the 2A.

Regarding gun control, a lot of the problem is the rightful mistrust the pro-gun side has of the anti-gun crowd. There's an unwillingness to give an inch in many cases. Sure, there are the rabid, fringe loonies who nobody will ever placate, but you don't have to reach them. You have to reach people like me, who are generally relatively moderate and objectively consider both sides, even if we lean in one direction...and I don't trust the gun control crowd any further than I could throw them.

On a more concrete level, what sort of "sensible ownership laws" do you propose? The other issue we have is that there isn't a whole lot more to do that would neither be too much of an infringement nor simply ineffective.

Trust me, I'd love to do something that would help, primarily for the obvious reason of public safety, but also because I cringe for the prospects of preserving the ability to continue to legally exercise my own rights every time some shithead or idiot uses a gun inappropriately. There just isn't much to do that would actually do any good. Maybe some incremental progress in reporting disqualifying data to NICS...and/or I guess you could do a sort of watered-down "universal background check" law that would not require at least de facto registration, but then it wouldn't do much good, so fuck it.

7/2/2015 7:41:06 PM

Quote :

"the anti-gun crowd. There's an unwillingness to give an inch in many cases. "

I think that's easily more true with much of the pro-gun crowd. Eg: The NRA. Us in the pro-gun-control crowd will take what we can get.

That being said, I think:

Quote :

"reporting disqualifying data to NICS...and/or I guess you could do a sort of watered-down "universal background check" law that would not require at least de facto registration, but then it wouldn't do much good, so fuck it."

Would be a wonderful start.

7/2/2015 7:57:00 PM

Quote :

" that would not require at least de facto registration"

I've never understood this viewpoint. I see a lot of the extreme pro-gun talk discounted by the more moderate, but it seems pretty universal amongst gun owners that there should never be a gun registration requirement.

What is so bad about that? Even with the most inflexible interpretation of the 2nd amendment I don't see how this is an infringement.


To answer your question though:

Quote :

" what sort of "sensible ownership laws" do you propose"

Ideally I think taking on laws and rules that mirror vehicle ownership would be ideal.
I can buy & use whatever I want provided I've got some basic understanding of safety and the laws and have proven that through basic testing.
Every decade or so I'm required to prove I still have an understanding of those basics.
If I purchase a gun, through either a dealer or a private seller I'm required to register it through the state.

But to be honest, I'd settle for whatever laws will reduce gun deaths/Violence. That means giving teeth to the existing laws and funding programs/training used to enforce them. I also think creating more programs to help teach proper gun safety and addressing mental health concerns would be more help than most people give credit.

And while I don't think there's a magic bullet, I think improvements in mental health care would make the greatest future impact. Hopefully while we're at it we can remove the fear mongering that media seems to enjoy that fuels tensions on both the left and the right.

7/2/2015 8:52:00 PM

Quote :

"What is so bad about that? Even with the most inflexible interpretation of the 2nd amendment I don't see how this is an infringement."

it's illegal per the Firearms Owners Protection Act, for starters

7/2/2015 9:02:18 PM

That still doesn't answer my question though.

Having a registry is so off the table but I have never understood why. If its illegal, why was it made illegal?

Why is it that I can look up a whole bunch of tax information on my neighbor, but the government is not able to use methods of tracking guns like they do so many other non-killy things?

7/2/2015 9:09:03 PM

because gun owners are overwhelmingly opposed to it and as soon as legislators start talking about it, the gun owners show up en masse and those legislators lose their jobs.

7/2/2015 9:22:18 PM

Registration, explicit or de facto, is a non-starter. It's not even remotely politically viable, or up for any sort of discussion. That probably neuters any sort of universal background checks (the "gun show loophole", in "anti" terms, has very little to do with gun shows, where most sales are subject to background checks, and it isn't because anyone is opposed to background checks, per se. I think we'd all mostly like that if it came without an unacceptable cost. It's to avoid having a gun registry, because we have no trust that it wouldn't be used at some point for confiscation, harassment, or other nefarious or undesirable purposes. It is a privacy issue.)

I don't personally have much problem with proficiency testing (although I'd point out that vehicle and gun restrictions are not totally analogous, for multiple reasons). I've seen plenty of people with guns who have no fucking idea what they're doing...but they mostly don't hurt anything. They mostly don't know what they're doing, because their guns mostly sit unloaded, untouched, unfired, in the attic or closet or somewhere. I think that concealed carry classes should require MUCH greater proficiency in both handling and shooting; they are primarily legal classes with a very low standard of proficiency...but I want that not because we have a problem: CCP holders are by far a negligible contributor to gun violence and accidents. I just would support that to make sure it stays that way. Widespread support for CC hinges upon the data being overwhelmingly on our side. In fact, shitty firearms handling is a pretty small part of the problem altogether. I mean, I've known a Marine killed by his friend's totally piss-poor pistol handling...and a friend's dad who shot himself in the leg cleaning his 1911...and there are firearms accidents with kids, I know...it does happen, but the number of lives we'd save with a proficiency exam every 5-10 years would be awfully, awfully small. It's a very small % of shootings anyway, and of those, how many do you screen out with such a test? Prob only a few.

I do think teaching proper gun safety might help a little bit. The left has little appetite for teaching kids about guns, though. Improve the culture of KEEP YOUR STORED SAFELY, kinda like we've made it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. That might help a little at a pretty low cost ($ or otherwise). Still a tiny, incremental improvement.

Mental health care, and reporting psychological red flags to NICS, may be the greatest opportunity, practically and politically, but that's a balancing act too--both in terms of preserving civil liberties/privacy, and in practical terms of not discouraging people from seeking help, which would defeat the purpose and then some. It's also still not as big of a factor as most people think: it's just the only place left where we can do any meaningful good whatsoever:

Jeffrey W. Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine and lead author of the article in Annals of Epidemiology was quoted in the UCLA Newsroom saying ”but even if schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression were cured, our society’s problem of violence would diminish by only about 4 percent.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2014/06/28/the-myth-of-mental-illness-and-gun-violence/




The main thing I'm getting at is that the anti-gun crowd likes to conveniently view the pro-gun crowd as totally unreasonable, unenlightened, and sometimes even paranoid/yokel/sociopathic. Sure, there is that element, and they're fucking loud, but a LOT of the issue is what I'm getting at here: Great, I want to help on this issue too, but there isn't a lot of room to do anything that will actually help.

Don't forget who knows these issues and has spent time thinking about them. I'll give you a hint, it's generally not the anti-gun crowd. Most are well intentioned, but nearly without exception, they just don't understand the guns and the legal process surrounding them all that thoroughly. Things that seem like good ideas at a casual look are either fatally flawed or fatally poorly implemented (or usually both). The YouTube videos of elected officials saying totally asinine things about laws they wrote that they don't understand at all may be funny, but they are evidence of why we can't have nice things.





The key to solving gun violence has little to do with guns (and that's to include barring crazy people from having guns) and much to do with violence and what fuels it. I would argue that criminal justice and prison reform, and a dramatic shift in our approach to drugs, would be the things that would actually move the needle.

Economic socialization might help, too, but that medicine would be worse than the disease by far, and it's not even remotely political viable even if it were desirable.

[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2015 9:25:37 PM

If we treated them like cars and drivers licenses, could I then carry in NY, CA, and HI? Those states seem to think that a violation of states rights. Could I carry on an airplane and to public arenas, or even the state fair grounds?

7/2/2015 9:39:53 PM

...or could you do anyfuckingthing you wanted with any gun you wanted on private property?

at any rate, that's all beside the point. that's not really what anyone is seriously debating.

[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2015 10:23:26 PM

The gun ship has left the station and has achieved terminal velocity. No amount of legislation will fix our gun problem.

7/2/2015 10:34:56 PM

^^^ Thank you, that definitely helped clear my confusion.

Quote :

" No amount of legislation will fix our gun problem"

I think both sides see this as the problem. Gun violence looks like the giant overwhelming problem and there is no magic bullet (pun intended). I think the reason we can't solve it is the reasoning behind quotes like:

Quote :

" if schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression were cured, our society’s problem of violence would diminish by only about 4 percent"

I'm quoting to say I disagree, but rather it seems like anytime someone offers up a reform idea its greeted with "costs too much, solves too little" and we remain at status quo. The only time real change is made is when lobbying groups like the NRA can throw enough money at an issue. Unfortunately the only good that seems to do is remove any kind of teeth existing laws have.

7/2/2015 10:48:34 PM

Quote :

"it seems like anytime someone offers up a reform idea its greeted with "costs too much, solves too little" and we remain at status quo."

Well, I mean, "costs too much, solves too little" is exactly the description of something we shouldn't implement.


that said, if you'll re-read my post, see that I'm open to tweaks on mental health stuff. Just understand that the best case scenario is incremental, and there is a delicate balancing act to be mindful of there, too.

I maintain that guns are a red herring. Gun violence will take care of itself to whatever extent we can improve violence altogether, and the best way to make gains on that is to approach some of the things that fuel it.

7/2/2015 11:03:32 PM

Quote :

"Ideally I think taking on laws and rules that mirror vehicle ownership would be ideal. I can buy & use whatever I want provided I've got some basic understanding of safety and the laws and have proven that through basic testing. Every decade or so I'm required to prove I still have an understanding of those basics."

Out of curiosity, are you ok with reading and current events tests in order to make sure someone is reasonably intelligent enough to vote? Maybe we can administer those same tests every couple of years, just to make sure they are still intelligent, right?

Quote :

"That doesn't make my argument any less valid though. Sensible restrictions on deadly instruments isn't that far fetched. My take on the response was similar to Synapse's, in that it sounds like he's advocating unfettered access to firearms. Remember, the constitution isn't a perfect document and just because there's a vague amendment written over 200 years ago doesn't mean that we don't have the power or right to regulate firearms. We've already created restrictions to gun ownership in this country that most people agree with so its not outlandish to think we should have the same respect for gun ownership that we do for cars & trucks."

It actually does make your argument less valid. In one case, you've got something that says you can't do what you claim you want to do; in the other, you don't. Your other rationalizations after the fact don't change this simple calculus. Just because the Supreme Court has wrongly interpreted the 2nd Amendment and allowed infringement on gun rights doesn't mean that we should continue down the path of more infringement. Like Duke said: if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, change it; don't just ignore it.

Quote :

"The key to solving gun violence has little to do with guns (and that's to include barring crazy people from having guns) and much to do with violence and what fuels it. I would argue that criminal justice and prison reform, and a dramatic shift in our approach to drugs, would be the things that would actually move the needle."

This is pretty much hitting the nail on the head.

7/3/2015 12:21:25 AM

Quote :

"The key to solving gun violence has little to do with guns (and that's to include barring crazy people from having guns)"

That's like beatsunc arguing that corporations giving money to politicians is 100% not a problem...The problem is that politicians have enough power to make corporations want to give them money.

Quote :

"much to do with violence and what fuels it"

What fuels violence? Who the fuck knows?

Quote :

"the Supreme Court has wrongly interpreted the 2nd Amendment and allowed infringement on gun rights"

Thanks for confirming:

Quote :

"so you're against any gun control whatsoever. OK."

You realize there are a shitload of limits on your exercise of the 1st Amendment too right?



[Edited on July 3, 2015 at 1:05 AM. Reason : V thanks for finally making another appearance ITT after your similar stupidity last night]

[Edited on July 3, 2015 at 1:11 AM. Reason : V but yeah. educate yourself. http://bfy.tw/dZW]

7/3/2015 1:00:01 AM

like what? can't yell fire in a public place or yell bomb on an airplane or make death threats against people? that's not a shit ton.

7/3/2015 1:01:39 AM

I need guns to protect my family from Obamas Government.

7/3/2015 1:04:35 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "What is so bad about that? Even with the most inflexible interpretation of the 2nd amendment I don't see how this is an infringement." it's illegal per the Firearms Owners Protection Act, for starters"

not a valid response to his question. he is asking about a situation where there would be a new law, so in that situation they could easily amend or change FOPA

the reason it is bad is because there are too many examples when registration information has been made public or been used to confiscate guns even in situations that were later determined to have been illegal

background checks for all purchases is still the most supported proposal that has the most support from both sides

Quote :

"Registration, explicit or de facto, is a non-starter. It's not even remotely politically viable, or up for any sort of discussion. That probably neuters any sort of universal background checks"

it doesn't neuter it, it is still effective at reducing straw sales

[Edited on July 3, 2015 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

7/3/2015 10:29:55 AM

I've noticed that conservatives become liberal as soon as gun control comes up.

7/3/2015 2:36:08 PM

Less government restrictions = liberal, according to BJ ITT

7/3/2015 2:47:26 PM

Everyone should have guns == liberal.

Dumbass

7/3/2015 2:52:23 PM

Who has said that everyone should have guns?

7/3/2015 3:11:04 PM

Quote :

"We’re Just Haggling Over Price I am a southern, white, gun-owning male who worries that one day my family will have to pay the price for America’s unwillingness to stand up to the gun lobby. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but hear me out. I grew up bouncing BBs off the backs of the alligators in Lake Newnan outside of Gainesville, FL. I went to high school in Jacksonville, where gun stores outnumber hospitals. In college, my friends and I would go trap shooting on Sunday mornings before getting breakfast. I have four younger brothers that mean the world to me. One lives in Denver, a short drive from Aurora. The other three live in Jacksonville, just blocks from a hospitality district where days ago a young father of two was gunned down outside of the restaurant where he worked. I’ve worked for political campaigns and candidates that have faithfully stuck to the “we aren’t interested in limiting a person’s Second Amendment rights” line. We used to say “Pod 1 Loves Guns” when I worked for the Obama Campaign, a reference to the values of the North Florida region I was based in. Let me be very clear: I am not opposed to personal gun ownership. I own three guns of my own and enjoy shooting. What I am opposed to is the gun lobby’s stranglehold on our elected leaders that stops meaningful legislation which could save lives. Right now, over 90% of Americans support reforms like extended universal background checks. When’s the last time over 90% of Americans supported anything other than blue jeans and apple pie? But nothing has changed. There have been over 70 mass shooting just in schools since the Newtown Massacre in 2012 and Congress hasn’t passed any laws to reduce gun violence. I’m not talking about national registries or magazine bans; I’m talking about a five to six minute wait to determine whether a gun buyer is a threat to others. How much is one innocent life worth? Ten gun buyers waiting a few minutes longer to purchase a firearm? 25 buyers? 100? I’m not going to tell you about how other countries have faced similar crises and collectively made the decision to enact reform. We aren’t other countries. As Americans we deal with issues at our own rate based on our own values. Instead, I’ll point to an issue that the South just tackled: the Confederate flag. Since revisionist historians started to recast the role of the South in the Civil War in the late 1800s, it was pretty much an accepted fact that people were too divided over the flag for anything to ever change. …and then it did. In a matter of weeks, the Confederate flag was relegated to the dustbin of history in South Carolina and companies that understood its harmful symbolism to so many Americans began pulling products from their shelves. The change came at the cost of nine more innocent lives, but it happened. This all reminds me of an old joke that has been retold by George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, Groucho Marx, and others over the last century. Tell me if you've heard this one: The Gun Lobby walks up to the American People and asks “Would you allow me to sell as many of my products in an unregulated manner, including to the mentally unstable and criminally minded, if it only cost you a few tens of thousands of deaths a year?” The American People respond: “Of course. No one should limit our liberty.” The Gun Lobby then asks: “What if that included an average of two mass shootings a month in elementary schools, movie theaters, and places of worship?” The American People: “Of course not! We value the lives of innocent citizens. What kind of country do you take us for?” Gun lobby: “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over price.” It’s a bit different, but the punchline is still the same. Our lack of action as a country suggests that we don’t value the lives of innocent Americans over the minutes of inconvenience that potential gun buyers might face. So unless we are willing to start telling our elected leaders to pass background check reform, we might as well continue to just haggle over the price of innocent lives."

https://medium.com/@EricConradFL/we-re-just-haggling-over-price-185f80b79f07

7/25/2015 11:52:21 PM