Politics 2015

[Winston Legthigh]

 

Criminals would remove them as easily as they do serial numbers.  

 

Not if you hide them in the barrel! Put it in a place that would render the gun useless if someone tried to remove it.

 

And what about the 300 million chip-free guns that already exist?

 

Well, shit.

[Doug C]

Jesus Fucking Christ. People still drive illegally, so we should abolish all auto laws and regulations. If you consider it a terrible burden to take a legitimate gun owner course, pass a legitimate exam to get a gun owner's license and renew it, get your guns registered and renewed and have the title transferred to sell them, then you shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

[Winston Legthigh]

Jesus Fucking Christ. People still drive illegally, so we should abolish all auto laws and regulations. If you consider it a terrible burden to take a legitimate gun owner course, pass a legitimate exam to get a gun owner's license and renew it, get your guns registered and renewed and have the title transferred to sell them, then you shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

OK, but would all that have prevented the shooting in Oregon (or any of the other recent mass shootings)? I don't think illegal gun ownership was an issue in any of those.

[Doug C]

No. In truth, there are so many guns now, the only thing that could possibly make a real difference would be to ban guns, take them and start over, which would be impossible. But what is wrong will taking sensible steps that could at least make some degree of difference? The fact that we've never had the gun regulations that I described is inexcusable, shameful and insane.

[Doug C]

Also, the fact that your insurance company can't give you a higher rate if you're a gun owner is crazy. It increases their risk. Having gun locks, a safe and taking an advanced safety course could lower the gun owner rate. Why are guns sacrosanct, therefore basically untouchable?

[Hixter]

But what is wrong will taking sensible steps that could at least make some degree of difference?

The problem is that your suggestions wouldn't make any measurable difference, other than perhaps saving a few lives that might have been lost to accidents if everyone were forced to take classes in gun safety. It would literally cost billions of dollars and not even come close to addressing the problems at hand: (the rather rare) rampage killings and gun crimes committed by drug dealers, gang members and street criminals.

 

Also, the fact that your insurance company can't give you a higher rate if you're a gun owner is crazy. It increases their risk.

By an almost imperceptible amount. 

[Doug C]

The reason they should happen is simple. They are the right thing to do. Just because it wouldn't have a huge effect doesn't make it any less right, moral and proper. Anything that can help change the culture that guns are special, unlike any other product, is good.

I'm not against gun ownership. I grew up with guns, but I no longer have a personal desire to own them, but other's should be able, if they follow the reasonable regulations that I have described.

[bleedorange]

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.

Old, but still good.

 

 

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

 

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

 

[tinnitus photography]

Or we could just stop selling bullets. People could still have their precious guns. Everybody's happy.

Chris Rock had it right.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

[KevinG]

It would literally cost billions of dollars and not even come close to addressing the problems at hand: (the rather rare) rampage killings and gun crimes committed by drug dealers, gang members and street criminals.

 

And there it is.  

 

Of course you have seen this graphic right?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

 

We are willing to spend a trillion plus dollars on "the war on terror" which about 3,000 Americans have died from.  But spend very little to try to prevent gun violence which 400K have died.  

 

Or how about spending millions of dollars on a political witch hunt to bring down Hillary Clinton (aka Benghazi) in which 4 people died.  

 

Or how about all of the time and tax dollars (75 million according to some) wasted on repealing a law that actually helps people and saves lives (aka Obamacare).  Now all of sudden you are throwing down it would cost too much money BS.  

 

Hey I am glad to see that you have your priorities straight.  

[Doug C]

Here in Florida, it is illegal for a doctor to discuss guns with a patient. It is part of a pediatrician's job, if they see fit, to discuss guns in the house and gun safety. If you don't want your doctor talking about guns, fine find another doctor. But they can lose their license and be fined for discussing guns with a patient. Madness. Guns uber alles is destructive.

[Hixter]

Anything that can help change the culture that guns are special, unlike any other product, is good.

I think that notion only exists in your beliefs, not reality.

 

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.

But it didn't work that way for England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

 

Hey I am glad to see that you have your priorities straight.  

I'll pretty much always be opposed to massively expensive government programs that don't accomplish what they're promised to do.

Here in Florida, it is illegal for a doctor to discuss guns with a patient. It is part of a pediatrician's job, if they see fit, to discuss gun in the house and safety. If you don't want your doctor talking about guns, fine find another doctor. But they can lose their license and be fined for discussing guns with a patient. Madness. Guns uber alles is destructive.

That's a stupid law and it's a reminder that additional legislation is rarely the answer to our problems.

 

Time to head down the street to drink a few beers with the fellas. One of them has a new rifle that he wants to show me.

[Doug C]

But it's a good belief. Where would we be without believing that we can bring positive change. I honestly feel for you, sir.

Oh wait. You mean that guns are not really special. Seriously? It is quite clear that guns are not to be fucked with in the USA.

[Atticus]

And there it is.

 

Of course you have seen this graphic right?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

 

We are willing to spend a trillion plus dollars on "the war on terror" which about 3,000 Americans have died from. But spend very little to try to prevent gun violence which 400K have died.

 

Or how about spending millions of dollars on a political witch hunt to bring down Hillary Clinton (aka Benghazi) in which 4 people died.

 

Or how about all of the time and tax dollars (75 million according to some) wasted on repealing a law that actually helps people and saves lives (aka Obamacare). Now all of sudden you are throwing down it would cost too much money BS.

 

Hey I am glad to see that you have your priorities straight.

 

Have you made a single response to Hixter that doesn't contain petulant sarcasm? Do you never get tired of sounding that way in your own head?

[KevinG]

 

I'll pretty much always be opposed to massively expensive government programs that don't accomplish what they're promised to do.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are a supporter of increased military action in the Mid-East, a supporter of finding the truth about Benghazi, and anti-Obamacare.  

[KevinG]

Have you made a single response to Hixter that doesn't contain petulant sarcasm? Do you never get tired of sounding that way in your own head?

 

Thank you for adding to the conversation in such a positive way, your comments are duly noted and filed appropriately.  

 

You may not like my tone, but I stand by what I say and how I say it.  

 

But I guess we should derail the conversation with a lengthy discussion on internet etiquette. Yippie!  

[twoshedsjackson]

Have you made a single response to Hixter that doesn't contain petulant sarcasm? Do you never get tired of sounding that way in your own head?

Are you seriously calling someone out for sarcasm? Glass houses, man.

[Atticus]

Are you seriously calling someone out for sarcasm? Glass houses, man.

 

There are different forms of sarcasm, and certainly different intents behind them. If you would like to discuss it further off-line, I am one click away.

[lost highway]

Aw guys, can't we get pissed that either a. Everyone still has stupid guns, or b. Everyone thinks they should take my stupid guns away, without getting pissed at each other?

 

I would like to melt your guns down to make a bicycle. Does that make me a bad person?

 

But seriously, I think the analogy between red tape on a car to possible gun measures is somewhat apt. If you measure the utility to danger ratio it about evens out with guns being much less useful and cars being responsible for many more deaths. Why not treat firearms as an optional risk that indebts the owner to certain routine obligations? You get pulled over they check your car registration, why shouldn't we be checking some 'gun registration' and empounding unregistered guns at a great cost to their carrier?

[Hixter]

You get pulled over they check your car registration, why shouldn't we be checking some 'gun registration' and empounding unregistered guns at a great cost to their carrier?

The simple answer is that it won't do anything to address the problems that we've been discussing: gun crime and mass shootings. It'll cost billions and it'll require legit gun owners to jump through hoops, and they'll do so if the law requires it. But the guys who are doing all the killing will ignore the law just as they do now. They'll continue to carry illegal guns illegally and kill people illegally when they desire.

[lost highway]

I'll admit that 'common sense' measures are neither cheap nor fool-proof if you'll admit you have a cognitive predisposition to attack any gun control measure.

 

Like the energy discussion this situation has become oversimplified to a polarity. Fact is, America has a problem with this stuff that is incomparable to anyone neighboring us in the Human Development Index. This is coupled with a compulsive fear of doing anything about it that is stoked by a faction of the government coupled with a rich lobby that has made many on its side into fanatics.

 

We could never (and shouldn't ever) take 'all the guns away', but stopping the conversation there is voiding it of nuance. Systemic and cultural problems usually require large and clumsy efforts that may only improve the situation by degrees (see also ACA). Love for guns, their tradition and use in our country is an emotional orientation, not a logical platform- much like fear and hatred for a device designed to release a lead pellet at high speeds.

[uncool2pillow]

The simple fact is, if the U.S. took on handguns the way the U.K. and Australia did, lives would be saved. The statistics are unquestionable. There would be small social costs to do this. The U.K. has seen a rise in burglaries, probably due to emboldened criminals. Again, lives would be saved.

[lost highway]

Handguns are shitty for hunting, easier to conceal, harder to fire accurately... why not become a rifle only nation?

[Hixter]

I'll admit that 'common sense' measures are neither cheap nor fool-proof if you'll admit you have a cognitive predisposition to attack any gun control measure.

I won't do that because it's not true. I am in favor of many gun control measures. I have no problem with background checks. I have no problem with restricting handgun sales to adults. I have no problem with preventing felons, drug abusers and the mentally ill from owning firearms. Those truly are common sense measures.

 

I have a problem with knee jerk laws enacted by politicians who claim that they'll solve our problems. So-called "assault rifle" bans are ridiculous, as they're used in less than 1% of shootings -- more people are killed by bare hands than by rifles. I'm against arbitrary limits on magazine capacity; my pistol was designed to hold 16 rounds, but if I were to cross the border with it into California I'd become a felon, serve jail time and lose my right to vote. Hell, the same thing would happen if I were to bring a mere magazine into California, and it's just a harmless, inert piece of plastic with a spring inside.

 

The simple fact is, if the U.S. took on handguns the way the U.K. and Australia did, lives would be saved. The statistics are unquestionable.

You simply can't compare one nation with another. The UK and Australia have had low murder rates for a century or more and they've greatly restricted handguns for a similar amount of time. As it stands, the number of firearms in the United States has increased dramatically over the last decade or two (as has the number of concealed handgun license holders) yet our murder rate has dropped drastically.

 

Handguns are shitty for hunting, easier to conceal, harder to fire accurately... why not become a rifle only nation?

Again, how are you going to get the criminals to turn in their handguns? I'd be curious to hear how many handguns were turned in by criminals in the UK and Australia, but my gut tells me that it was probably close to zero.

[Doug C]

 

That's a stupid law and it's a reminder that additional legislation is rarely the answer to our problems.

 

 

Yes, it is. And it's a law coming to a state near you. The NRA played a major role in getting the law passed and in winning the court challenge. Guns are sacrosanct in America.