[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump
- Thread starter thebobmaster_v1legacy
- Start date
Well, that's certainly common ground. We might differ on capital punishment, but eh.Kwak said:
Not a sole reason, but it's a major one in regards to my principles. I believe having the means to protect yourself and those you care about is important, and that relying on others is not a good idea, see: Parkland. I don't trust any central authority with a monopoly on power, because we've all seen where that goes.
Unrelated to anything of that sort, I equally enjoy firearms on a personal level for the three reasons you describe, but particularly as feats of engineering. I enjoy seeing where we're going in their creation, with 3D printing and whatnot. The day we can truly 3D print something like an AR-15 or the like from the ground-up is the day I scream like a little girl and try to 3D print something like a Burgess and probably kill myself in the process because 3D printing a folding shotgun is a lot more complex than an AR. That and, I just like guns. Pew pew.
Such is the duality of man.Kwak said:
I'm seeing this more and more as a lack of responsibility. As a country, we gave ourselves the right to bear arms. And shooter by shooter we are proving ourselves less and less worthy of that right. Gun ownership comes with social and moral (but sadly very little legal) responsibility to safely use and maintain those guns, lest we injure or kill others... who DO have the right to LIVE. It is becoming more and more obvious we aren't responsible enough to claim we deserve those rights we gave to ourselves.
And so the arguments, "gun control just takes guns out of the hands of law abiding gun owners, criminals will just ignore the law and keep guns." Yup, they sure will. And they will probably use them to commit crimes. It will suck for a while, maybe a long while. But eventually they will get caught, and they will lose that gun. Then they won't be able to buy one, and it will get harder and harder to steal one as fewer and fewer people have them to steal. No one said it would solve gun crime overnight, but eventually it works. And the eventuality of the alternative, everyone has a gun and everyone is one "cut off in traffic blowup" away from killing dozens. I prefer the eventuality of being relatively sure no one around me has the means to kill dozens of people in a few minutes, rather than the eventuality that anyone around me could at any time.
And lest we forget, gun deaths are only a small percentage of gun crime. Many, many more are death by suicide. I've personally saved a person who took a few handfuls of pills to kill themselves, would have been a lot harder to save my friend if he had shot himself in the head. The argument is "people will just kill themselves a different way." Yup, they sure will. In usually a more difficult to access and MUCH less efficient way.
I'm not even in favor of complete and blanket ban of guns. I don't mind if a guy has a 12-gauge for hunting. But different guns carry with them different potentials for killing. When the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms, they were talking about flintlocks and muskets... very low killing potential. A musket spree... not very effective and kind of obvious if you are carrying around 10 or 12 loaded muskets. Do I think we need any regulation on those... we could probably do without much regulation of that "level" of killing potential. An AR-15 with an extended magazine and made fully automatic with a slidefire or bumpstock, capable of killing hundreds every minute... maybe there's enough of a difference in killing potential to maybe warrant some legislation there? Just a little? Banning the bumpstock, a good start... implying that more does need to be done.
I'm just saying, there are degrees of how dangerous guns are and can be. And maybe going all in on "over 200 years ago they said 'shall not be infringed' and dammit, ya'll better not ever infringe on MY rights in ANY way" isn't the most evolved position. Maybe a measured response, with plenty of debated arguments guiding potential legislation... shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. And then the old slippery slope "well, you ban this, then you ban that... where does it end?"
Fucking somewhere. That's where it ends. Any time anyone says "where does it end? It ends somewhere. It ends before either of my above exaggerated "eventualities" too. And I want to see where this ends, because its way better than where we are now.
And so the arguments, "gun control just takes guns out of the hands of law abiding gun owners, criminals will just ignore the law and keep guns." Yup, they sure will. And they will probably use them to commit crimes. It will suck for a while, maybe a long while. But eventually they will get caught, and they will lose that gun. Then they won't be able to buy one, and it will get harder and harder to steal one as fewer and fewer people have them to steal. No one said it would solve gun crime overnight, but eventually it works. And the eventuality of the alternative, everyone has a gun and everyone is one "cut off in traffic blowup" away from killing dozens. I prefer the eventuality of being relatively sure no one around me has the means to kill dozens of people in a few minutes, rather than the eventuality that anyone around me could at any time.
And lest we forget, gun deaths are only a small percentage of gun crime. Many, many more are death by suicide. I've personally saved a person who took a few handfuls of pills to kill themselves, would have been a lot harder to save my friend if he had shot himself in the head. The argument is "people will just kill themselves a different way." Yup, they sure will. In usually a more difficult to access and MUCH less efficient way.
I'm not even in favor of complete and blanket ban of guns. I don't mind if a guy has a 12-gauge for hunting. But different guns carry with them different potentials for killing. When the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms, they were talking about flintlocks and muskets... very low killing potential. A musket spree... not very effective and kind of obvious if you are carrying around 10 or 12 loaded muskets. Do I think we need any regulation on those... we could probably do without much regulation of that "level" of killing potential. An AR-15 with an extended magazine and made fully automatic with a slidefire or bumpstock, capable of killing hundreds every minute... maybe there's enough of a difference in killing potential to maybe warrant some legislation there? Just a little? Banning the bumpstock, a good start... implying that more does need to be done.
I'm just saying, there are degrees of how dangerous guns are and can be. And maybe going all in on "over 200 years ago they said 'shall not be infringed' and dammit, ya'll better not ever infringe on MY rights in ANY way" isn't the most evolved position. Maybe a measured response, with plenty of debated arguments guiding potential legislation... shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. And then the old slippery slope "well, you ban this, then you ban that... where does it end?"
Fucking somewhere. That's where it ends. Any time anyone says "where does it end? It ends somewhere. It ends before either of my above exaggerated "eventualities" too. And I want to see where this ends, because its way better than where we are now.
The democrats have actually passed two gun safety bills through the house in the last few months.Silentpony said:
The Senate leader, Mitch McConnell has refused to allow a vote on either of them.
I like this post of concrete suggestions. You're like 8000 steps ahead of everyone who ever suggested "common sense gun reform".Lil devils x said:
1) This is mentioned a lot I'm not sure how huge a difference just having a registry makes. There's a real fear of the government's ability to do a mass round-up of guns using a comprehensive registry, and that's being counterweighted by just knowing who the owner is on paper? I feel like you'd need something prescriptive to make it worthwhile, like being able to use the information to hold gun owners responsible would sort of be a subversive way of punishing back alley gun sales, and that sort of law might justify a registry, but just knowing for the sake seems like a lot of intrusion and paperwork for little gain, and I suspect those who want a registry intend to use it for more heavy handed legislation in the future.
2) I don't know what constitutes ending open carry. If allowing police to stop and talk to someone for carrying a gun around constitutes ending open carry, I'm with that. Making carrying a gun publicly blanket illegal would probably be stupid, but people certainly already call the police when they see someone carrying a gun around, as it should be. And all those people who post videos of themselves walking around with rifles just because they can and pretending to be lawyers when the cops show up should be arrested for disturbing the peace.
3) I don't know how strict the requirements are currently, I assume it varies by state, so I can't really comment on this.
4) I don't think there are so many loopholes as people think, but I also don't think there's really anyone against this per se, unless they're against background checks in the first place. Close all the background check loopholes. I'm not sure how you do an extensive mental health check though, and some of the possible answers are problematic. Do we dig through people's medical history for a diagnoses and decide which can't have a gun? Do we put people in front of a psychologist every time they buy a gun? There's a minefield of ethical and logistical problems in implementing that.
5) For similar ethical and logistical problems to the mental health check, I think limiting gun ownership to violent people is sort of limited to those who have committed crimes. If we want to disarm people for being generally violent or threatening, I think we need to reform criminal justice so that people being violent or threatening have some kind of charge on their record. The old "call the cops so that they come over and mediate for a few minutes until people stop yelling and move on with their lives" is not a very good match for removing people's rights. We need a more concrete system than that.
6) This one I just don't like at all. Like, what if I buy a gun with the intention of hog hunting and then get busy and never get a chance too. Is my gun confiscated? Moreover, I really don't think the nature of the gun is the variable causing problems, so much as the nature of the gun holder. Someone who shouldn't have an AR probably also shouldn't have a handgun. Other than certain features designed only for mass death (namely fully automatic), the focus of gun legislation I think should be on the who and not the what.
7) Yes. Agreed. I cannot express how many guns were purchased by people I know between the ages of 18 and 25 because they thought it was cool, and then they never used it for anything so they just sit in hopefully a safe, possibly just a shelf, and then get sold off at a later date. Guns might be necessary to fight off tyranny, but 19 year olds aren't.
The demographic of mass shooter is young men with a hint of solitude. I'm not sure how you expect left-wing anime fans to avoid that.Dreiko said:
This is getting ever more deeply unsettling. The cult are disturbing knots of anti-intellectual hate begging to herded towards violent action. The gun fetishism given convenient targets and justifications for their sick release. They're not getting any better, they aren't going to calm down. They are becoming larger liabilities with fatal repercussions, groomed timebombs covered in American flags, chanting the constitution like the world's worst Wiccan spell. Anyone who claims the president of the US doesn't have any influence over their own unquestioning fanbase are either total fucking idiots or consciously lying psychos. Why do these killers hardly ever get shot on sight after murdering so many people in cold blood while so many harmless, unarmed African-Americans are killed for nothing but twitchy paranoid excuses?
It helps that the restrictions we have on what types of weapons are available in what calibre allow guns for very specific legal activities to be purchased, but have limited utility as weapons of mass murder, and justification must be given for every firearm a person owns in order to get a certificate. For example, it's legal to own a semi automatic rifle, but only if it's in .22 longrifle calibre, and you can explain what you intend to shoot with it and where when applying for your license.Baffle2 said:
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1158330512341164032"]
I, for one, welcome legislation to increase background checks, so good on you Mr. Trump.
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1158330513951735809"]
No, not like that! If the proposed legislative actions are in response to the recent mass shootings then marrying it to immigration reform is frankly stupid. Might as well marry it to laws regarding how to properly depose chemical waste for how much relation one of the subjects have to the other.
I, for one, welcome legislation to increase background checks, so good on you Mr. Trump.
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1158330513951735809"]
No, not like that! If the proposed legislative actions are in response to the recent mass shootings then marrying it to immigration reform is frankly stupid. Might as well marry it to laws regarding how to properly depose chemical waste for how much relation one of the subjects have to the other.
People can't shoot Hispanics if there are no Hispanics.Bedinsis said:
Truly a Rick & Morty fan's level of IQ.
Yup. He's essentially endorsing shooting Hispanics at this point. It's like he's telling them that if they don't want to get shot, they shouldn't live in the US.Abomination said:
Or, to encourage more restrictive immigration control, loyal republican voters should shoot more Hispanics.Adam Jensen said:
Trump is blaming the internet, video games, and immigrants for this.
-Video Game blame at about 6:04
He definitely did not write this speech, but it has his BS touch to it. Parts of it are hypocritical, hell a good chunk of it sounds like it is a condemnation of Trump's government.
-Video Game blame at about 6:04
He definitely did not write this speech, but it has his BS touch to it. Parts of it are hypocritical, hell a good chunk of it sounds like it is a condemnation of Trump's government.
I think I'm having a Poe's Law moment because I can't tell if that cartoon is suggesting Trump directly killed people with his word bullets or is mocking that notion. Based on the less than flattering portrayal of Trump I'm leaning towards the former but it still seems like a pro-free speech caricature of what they think anti-free speech people believe.09philj said: