Gun Control
 

I want to make a general discussion thread on this, but I ask that any participants please read this post first, because I want everyone to be on the same page before proceeding, and that requires some background info. Feel free to correct any inaccuracies, and I'll update.

I'd first recommend watching this video. It's 40 minutes long, but it does a terrific job at explaining all the basics of how firearms work, and a lot of this information is still very much relevant today.



Now for some main points. I'm not going to get into a bunch of stats, but rather just try to summarize things to help guide initial discussions. I'm rather intentionally being loose with my language here.

1. Manual weapons require you to reload manually between shots. You pull the trigger and fire the bullet, but now you have to manually eject the spent casing and then load the next round into the chamber yourself before you can pull the trigger and fire another bullet again.

2. Semi-automatic weapons do the ejecting/reloading for you, but only once per trigger pull. So one pull of the trigger = one shot fired.

3. Automatic weapons allow you to hold the trigger down and continuously fire bullets. You might also hear these get called "machine guns."

4. There are other modes of fire such as burst-fire (e.g. 2-3 rounds fired per trigger pull) and selective-fire (the ability to switch between modes such as semi-automatic and automatic).

5. Weapons with automatic fire capabilities are heavily regulated in the US to the point where most civilians may as well consider them functionally banned. It's a very lengthy and expensive process to get your hands on an automatic weapon. It'll take thousands of dollars, extensive background checks, and many months of waiting. There are several restrictions, and this is even before we get to the ways that individual states might make you jump through additional hoops. In some cases they are outright illegal no matter what.

Additional information if you are curious:

http://blog.adamsarms.net/blog/how-d...-nfa-tax-stamp

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-fo...ifle-in-the-US

https://www.quora.com/In-which-state...tomatic-weapon

6. An "assault rifle" is a real term that usually describes selective-fire (i.e. capable of automatic fire) weapons that you might see in the military. However, due to point (5), assault rifles are not being used by civilians to commit homicides or mass shootings. In addition, it doesn't help that the media often uses "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" interchangeably, which is also confusing because...

7. An "assault weapon" is a completely politicized, bullshit term. It's basically used to describe big, black, scary-looking rifles. In other words, the features being included here are mostly cosmetic. To illustrate:





From Wikipedia: Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:

-Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine
-Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock, which reduces the overall length of the firearm
-A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
-Bayonet lug, which allows the mounting of a bayonet
-Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor, compensator or muzzle brake
-Grenade launcher
-Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device.

You'll also find that a lot of people legislating against this stuff don't even know what they're legislating against:

"What is a barrel shroud?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
"30 magazine clip in half a second" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0

So there's a lot of bullshit flying around here when it comes to "assault weapons."

8. In short: Trying to ban "assault weapons" means you are basically banning cosmetic features that have no real impact on one's ability to participate in gun violence or mass shootings. And banning "assault rifles" is technically useless because, again, see point (5). When participating in this thread, mention a fruit somewhere in your first post to show that you've actually read this far. I want to gauge how many people actually read this shit.

9. The point of these terms, in my opinion, is to control language and perception, and therefore control thought. It's meant to deliberately obfuscate the issue and lead people to see firearms as strictly a tool of murder and assault. It's meant to confuse people into thinking that semi-automatic rifles are somehow the same as military-grade automatic machine guns. A lot of people see this as an attempt to make a stepping stone that will later make it easier for the anti-gun crowd to push for broader gun control / possible bans. For more info please see http://www.assaultweapon.info/

10. "But what about weapons like the AR-15 I keep hearing about?" It's just a popular semi-automatic rifle that's been around for many decades. "AR" is not short for "assault rifle." It's short for "Armalite rifle." Again, to be explicit, it's not an automatic. And while we're on the subject, rifles are very rarely used in homicides.

11. So if you've read this far you're probably realizing that the only guns we need to focus on are semi-automatic handguns. Focusing on "assault weapons" or "assault rifles" or "automatic weapons" or "machine guns" is arguably a waste of time because none of these things address any real issues our society is actually facing in terms of gun violence / homicides / crime / mass-shootings. The Virginia Tech shooter, for instance, carried out a mass shooting by using two semi-automatic handguns. And more broadly...

12. Virtually all mass shootings have been done with semi-automatics. And in most cases, the weapons were obtained legally. However, mass shootings are a very small fraction of gun homicides / homicides overall. Most deaths from firearms come from suicides and violence committed with illegally-obtained handguns (especially in gang violence or poor urban areas).

13. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Whether you like guns or not, this can't be ignored.

14. So now we can finally get to the real meat of the discussion (and where things start to get a lot more opinionated): What should we do about semi-automatic firearms? Any meaningful discussion on gun control has to start here.

Re: Gun Control
 

good thread

Re: Gun Control
 

yeah but if we don't ban guns how will we have a one world government in the future

Re: Gun Control
 

it's not explicitly about the weapon it's self
and it's not about banning them either
like i have stated before a couple of times

not all of us have the same goals pertaining to Gun Control.
you think it's about SA Firearms
I think it's more about the person who uses it
my argument is less specifically about semi-auto weapons, and more of regulating all weapons(guns) so i do apologize if this isn't the type of discussion you wanted, because I believe the issue is about all firearms.

I think we can start simple, like ...
Obama, Jan. 5: You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm.

I believe everyone has a right to bear arms, just as everyone else and as the second amendment suggest.
but if you have broken the law before hand, you have therefore lost your legal right to purchase depending on the crime.
Say you started a business illegally, or suffered copyright infringement issues, those do not pertain to violence or harming citizens much, so you wouldn't be too restricted from your purchases.
It would be handled on a case by case basis i believe.
I also believe professional training for a gun owner's permit to be needed, as well as needing a gun owner's permit to purchase any type of firearm, similar to needing a drivers license to buy a car.
but
regardless of my personal view on training
Are you opposed to, or do you support, background checks for purchase of all firearms? If so, why?


also lmfao ormix

Re: Gun Control
 

Yeah it's definitely more about background checks than any kind of ban.

i have mixed feelings about arguments over magazine size. if I'm ever in a situation where there's an active shooter, i'm counting rounds to plan the best time to run/fight. I'd prefer them to have to reload as frequently as possible.

Re: Gun Control
 

slavery and prohibition were also amendments guess what they changed them to adapt to modern society maybe guns aren't a good idea

Re: Gun Control
 

those amendments werent included in the bill of rights, and nullifying the 2nd amendment would never happen, nor should it

Re: Gun Control
 

America doesn't have "A Gun problem" it has several gun problems. Mass Shootings, while a problem aren't nearly as big a problem as general gun violence, gun homicide, and guns in suicides.

The biggest problem in the USA surrounding positive and useful gun reform isn't 2nd amendment rights, it's that organizations like the CDC are expressly forbidden from actually conducting research into the issues surrounding gun violence and gun suicides etc. They are actively prevented from trying to discover what kinds of changes would have what effects on the rate of gun use and gun deaths in the US. When they were able to research cars, they developed a number of measures that dramatically reduced the rate of car fatalities. But the NRA is so powerfully against allowing anything that might lead in any way to legislation that limits anybody's right to have as many guns as they want as easily as they want, that it will never happen.

So the real answer to the gun problem in the USA is "Stay away, and hope that enough people who care this much about having guns kill each other off or die of old age that they become enough of a minority to actually be able to act even remotely in the self-interest of all Americans."

For every point that Arch made in the Orlando thread about entrenched cultural norms, the point is made that Gun Culture in the USA is even more thoroughly entrenched than any of the other sentiments he's brought up. An attempt to actually circumvent the NRA lobby and try to get some research done to propose realistic and effective controls on the ownership and use of firearms will almost certainly result in actual civil war in America.

As long as that entrenched culture is present, there's basically no point in talking about gun controls. There are counters inside that culture to anything proposed no matter how reasonable.

I feel like, as gun controls go, none of these are limiting to law-abiding citizens, and all make pretty logical sense in terms of having a better sense of the state of guns in the country and how they are used with a goal to prevent the absurd number of gun deaths each year:

1/ To own a gun, you need to apply for and receive a licence
2/ To own a gun, you need to pass a basic training course in safe operation and handling
3/ To own a gun, you need to register that gun

At that point, I would consider something along the lines of:
1/ If you commit a crime with a gun, and that gun is unregistered or stolen, we add 5 years to your sentence.
2/ If you commit a crime with a gun registered to you, any guns you have registered to you are taken away and you lose your licence to own guns for 5 years.

This is easier, faster, and cheaper controls than are applied to drivers, with weaker penalties for committing crimes with guns than say, driving drunk as applied to drivers. There are arguably more guns per person in the USA than there are vehicles, so applying even a weaker version of the licence and training process for cars to guns seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Banana

Re: Gun Control
 

why exactly is it so important to carry a weapon solely designed to kill? If having more of it undeniably increases the amount of deaths related to it, is it really being that beneficial?

maybe there's something I don't get. maybe I'm missing examples of people successfully defending themselves with a gun. All I see it as is a form of intimidation.

Re: Gun Control
 

In regards to the 2nd amendment, I would not be in favor of having it be nullified. The 2nd amendment gives power to the people, preventing the government from being able to impose tyranny and allowing the people to protect the rest of their constitutional rights.

Strawberry

EDIT: Of course there is still the issue of how to interpret the 2nd amendment. One way to interpret it is "Everyone should have the ability to easily obtain any weapon any time they want with no government regulation whatsoever". Another (more reasonable) interpretation would be something along the lines of the common sense gun regulation mentioned by devonin.

Re: Gun Control
 

Supposedly this premise is false. I don't have stats, but considering the number of loopholes in current gun regulation I wouldn't be surprised.

Again, don't have stats, but people defending themselves from, e.g. home invasion, with a firearm is certainly common enough to not be unheard of.

Re: Gun Control
 

The stats on this show that you are -hugely- more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a family member/friend than a home invader.

Also a number of people in jail for B&E and Robbery with guns have reported (whether you want to trust this or not is totally up to you) that the only reason they brought guns to their crime was to counteract the concern that the homeowner would have a gun. And that basically if they knew the homeowner didn't have guns, they wouldn't have either, and relied on fright or bats/knives etc in case of confrontation.

Re: Gun Control
 

'This made a helluva lot of sense when it was just muskets. You do realise you'll be bringing guns to a drone fight, right?'

This guy is hilarious but on point.

Re: Gun Control
 

as a homeowner i wouldnt want a fair fight. i want to have the advantage in my own home, and if burglars arm themselves when breaking and entering, they bring in a "more fair" fight at the risk of death or a harsher sentence

Re: Gun Control
 

so what? if you break and enter with a deadly weapon you deserve to die

Re: Gun Control
 

Hugely is an overstatement. Sources seem to agree on about 1:2, justifiable homicides to accidental gun deaths. The number of these that could be prevented by simply enforcing people be more educated about gun safety is probably fairly high.

Re: Gun Control
 

a fruit

Re: Gun Control
 

At the same time tho the owner will have the right to use deadly force cuz ya never know what a burglars packin so bringin a gun is just better safe than sorry.
Also this particular scenario is best ended with, how boutcha just dont break into peoples houses!

Fantastic thread btw i wish i could show everyone i know the OP

Re: Gun Control
 

This, THIS so fucking much. What actual logical reason is there to not allow research on a topic as important as this?

Re: Gun Control
 

IIRC, it had something to do with the CDC trying to pump out some really crappy studies in the 80's to push an anti-gun agenda that they had already decided on beforehand.

Edit:

http://www.drgo.us/?p=266
http://www.drgo.us/?p=285
http://www.drgo.us/?p=314

Re: Gun Control
 

watched "How Small Arms Work" in the OP, I think that it might be a bit more accurate for you to say that the video is more than a bit out of date, but it was very educational.

I think I learned a lot from it and I would encourage anyone that doesn't know shit about guns to give it a shot if you're interested.

Re: Gun Control
 

this frustrates the fuck out of me because

yeah it was shitty that they announced biases

yeah it sucks that taxpayer money funded these studies

but that was 15 years ago and the issue is as present as ever, and it is the job of scientists to get to the bottom of issues like this

maybe not as hot-topic as gun violence,, but gun suicides, gun storage, gun distribution are all topics that deserve attention

aren't there other public research institutions that can do this? the above articles describe CDC comments, but what about NIH? this would apply just as much to them too right?

Re: Gun Control
 

http://www.livescience.com/52970-fed...l-stalled.html

seems there's now a stigma behind gun research, which is just great isn't it

Re: Gun Control
 

Guava, also, hi. Cool thread. I'll leave now, goodluck!

Re: Gun Control
 

Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013

Re: Gun Control
 

tl;dr gun control works, get over it USA

Re: Gun Control
 

Re: Gun Control
 

LOL ok comparing the 24 million people on a single continent with 3 million civilian firearms to the 320+ million in the USA with 250 million guns? noice m8

i bet youre the same guy who thinks copy pasting socialism from tiny european countries to the US would fix everything too huh

Re: Gun Control
 

no, it fucking doesn't work
no, it fucking won't work

I'll say it again, america is directly north of this fancy country called mexico that exports massive amounts of illegal weapons (and drugs) to criminals
what countries does australia have nearby that has those same exports? new guinea? fuckin new zealand?

illegal use of weapons is a huge issue here in america, and it cannot be fixed by taking away legal use of weapons.

if gun control worked, gun free zones would be the safest fuckin places in the entirety of the country, and yet a huge number of shootings have been where? gun free zones

Re: Gun Control
 

Please keep it civil, errbody.

IMO the lack of civility regarding this debate is a big part of the problem.

Re: Gun Control
 

It still is a relevant study, and I don't think it should be brushed off.

Yet, Omar Mateen got his guns legally. Probably a completely different debate, it still amazes me. He didn't even need to resort to these illegal weapons you're speaking of.

Look, I'm not American. I don't live near the border. I don't know what it's like to live there. To be quite honest, I don't even know the full circumstances around the recent shooting. It just baffles me how the USA is constantly the country with the most shootings.

Re: Gun Control
 

BTW, I highly enjoy the videos sickufully posted

Re: Gun Control
 

this debate is why gun control is such a touchy subject
I think that deeper background checks, mental health exams, and rigorous courses on the use of a gun

because it's easier in america to put a weapon in the hands of someone who will use it for wanton violence

I also think it's related to the failed war on drugs but I'd have to research that

Re: Gun Control
 

it might be a relevant study to australia, who has a significantly less violent history and has an entirely different culture
but it's not relevant to america at all

Re: Gun Control
 

This is my evaluation too imo

And as much as I hate to admit it I think there are a lot of factors that contribute to gun violence that don't exactly apply to Australia (in my knowledge at least)

some of these being income inequality and the ubiquity of mental health disorders

That said, I do seem to recall reading a study that posited that gun control actually lowers suicide rates (not just GUN-related suicide rates, but suicide rates altogether)

The common argument is "well somebody who can't kill themselves with a gun will find another way to do it" but this is verifiably wrong

Re: Gun Control
 

yes he got them legally, but the gun vendor notified the fbi that he was a suspicious individual and the FBI either lacked the resources to respond or consciously neglected to act to be politically correct

Re: Gun Control
 

the fbi can't deny Omar of his right to bear arms though

they mentioned their reason for discontinuing their investigations too(you can find info on this quite easily, any info regarding the orlando shooting is literally one google search away) which was something along the lines of he had no connections to any terrorist related activities or ISIS after multiple interrogations.

but he had a history of violent verbal outburst, and domestic violence(which is illegal in the US, that makes him a criminal) if a thorough background check were made Mateen would have never been able to purchase any firearm.

law breakers/heavily mentally unstable/violent people shouldn't have access to guns is what i believe gun control should be about.

Re: Gun Control
 

When you try to acquire gun license in Italy, well before you can even set foot in a gun store and buy one, you go through multiple checks. Failing just one of them will prevent you from ever getting the license or even join the military or the police.

The criteria are:

- Everyone in your family has to be clean. Cousin got jailed 20 years ago? no gun license for you.
- You are pressured multiple times by the police answering why do you need that license and what are you going to do with a gun, then go through a mental check.

Starting from these premises, which seem very logical to me, i always look at America as the odd one when it comes to gun regulations. The thing is guns are part of your culture in a way similar to how corrida is part of spanish culture. You love your guns and fabricate reasons why you need them, but it's quite apparent than even in self defense chances are you're safer without firearms.

Re: Gun Control
 

repost of one of my posts from somewhere else, but relevant:


martial law and fascism is just around the corner if we continue to pay attention to what the media and facebook shove in our faces. it is too easy to orchestrate a political event through these channels. it is too easy to manipulate such a large number of people. we can all agree that what happened was horrible and wrong, but we are naive if we think that some gun control law will stop similar thing from happening. it is a cultural problem. those in power would rather disarm the populace than admit that their method of government and the way of life that they support is to blame for all of these dramatic acts of violence. humans will always commit atrocities, and really, what happened is very small in the big picture of things. it only seems large because of the media that you pay attention to; that is the only reason why this seems so important to people. who couldnt disagree with such an unjustifiable act of violence? the only reason this act seems so depraved is because the general public opinion is opposed to it. even people who speak ambiguously about what happened are judged for their lack of passion. had it been another group of people killed similarly for a reason deemed "justified" by the general media, people would cheer and celebrate. we all condone murder under the proper circumstances. we are all hypocrites when we call this a tragedy. are we not the very reason this happened at all? is our culture of destruction not to blame for the ways in which this type of dehumanization becomes possible? why do we blame guns? simply because that is the tool that is most commonly used? if guns are to be taken away, they can only be taken away from everyone. to only allow some to possess guns and others to not is to create a new hierarchy within a society with enough hierarchy as it is. shame on you who have taken advantage of what happened. shame on you who wish to put the general populace under the rule of a government gun. is the gun not what you preach against???? why then is it that you only wish a certain strata of society have access to guns?? is this not similar to the idea of only allowing a certain strata of society to vote? is this not simply an attempt to remove even more power from the voting populace? we fought for voting rights and we should fight similarly for gun rights. it should be noted, felons are not allowed to vote or possess guns. are we all judged as felons all(whether felons are judged justly or injustly is another matter)? all men are created equal, so therefore all men should have access to guns, or no men should have access to guns. will the war on guns be the new war on drugs??? there is too much emotion involved when discussing this topic... stop being so easily swayed. stop paying attention to these poison media voices and read the ideas of the founding fathers. once we start to discredit the founding fathers, we discredit the very basis of our government. revisionism will be one of the first steps towards fascism. we should be able to have faith in the courts. if that fails, then we have faith in protest. but, our judges will not even uphold the constitution. while cases on privacy and warrantless intrusions into the lives and information of innocent citizens go unheard, we rejoice over a decision on marriage and say to ourselves "look our court is just"(i do not disagree with the gay marriage decision, only the fact that the court ever had the ability to preside over the rights of marriage at all). where do we go when the courts will not even hear our cases? where do we go when the federal government has become so massive that even the supreme court dare not oppose it?? was it not states rights that led the way for the supreme court's decision on gay marriage?? is it not the history of states rights that was attacked through the emotionalization of a violent act similar to the one that has happened most recently(i am talking of the trend of removing confederate monuments and discrediting the motives of secessionists after the attack on the black church in charleston)? is there not a trend of the erosion of rights through emotional manipulation whenever a violent attack occurs in our country? look at the obvious, please. please, ignore the media that has tainted our views and played with your emotions. do not forget the history of our country. dont let the emotional aspect of these type of murders drive you to a frenzied decision. remember your history. read your history. PLEASE!!!!!!

Re: Gun Control
 

domestic violence blacklists you on gun purchases
dont remember the law name but it was a huge thing in the military

big ups to chef boyardee for popping into the thread, rly love hearing ur opinions on something u dont know anything about

Re: Gun Control
 

reported for plagarism

Re: Gun Control
 

in much the following post, i am addressing your language and your lack of specification and qualification... i do not condone or support the shooter. it is not hard to agree that what he did was wrong.... that said:


misdemeanors should not be included in the list of crimes that prevent someone from gun ownership. i would argue that non-violent felonies should be excluded as well. And if verbal outbursts are an indication of "instability", every sane human on earth could be thought unstable. if we reach a point where a man who speaks with passion is thought to be insane, we will have lost all hope.

i want to attack your grouping of "law breakers" with the "mentally unstable" and violent. instead of "law breakers", you should say, "those found guilty in a court of law"; there is a distinction between the two. if we were to include "law breakers" we would have to ask ourselves, which code of law are we referring to? there are many aspects of the federal government that are immune to the law for reason of "national security". there are also many instances where our government itself has broken international law. are you suggesting that we disarm the police and the military? i think you probably mean "found guilty of any crime in a court of law within the united states of america" when you say "lawbreakers". maybe i am wrong

i also ask you to define "mentally unstable". that term is so silly in my opinion. i could argue that those who make use of such terms are "mentally unstable" themselves for using such ambiguous terminology and not having proper definitions to back them up. what your definition will ultimately boil down to is that instead of "mentally unstable", you mean "socially unstable", and by "socially unstable", you mean that in some way this person's behavior is not congruent with our society's idea of what constitutes normal behavior. when we start to apply these types of terms to legal decisions such as laws and regulations, we really must take notice of the ambiguity of these terms. if you look at the history of the use of insanity in legal cases, our definition of insanity becomes quite unstable. i am of the opinion that our definition of insanity in the law is not clear enough and that perhaps it should be completely removed from legal terminology

Re: Gun Control
 

It's got a bayonet, it's actually arguably deadlier!

This makes absolutely no sense. I hope I don't have to explain why.

Ohnoes them blues are getting in our business like its their job or something to do whatever they can to protect the public.

Just kinda reminded me, since I feel like this is discredited: people sometimes own guns because when you use and store them responsibly, they can be fun, and an interesting hobby, and the freedom to choose to have that responsibility is kinda important.

Re: Gun Control
 

fkn lol

Re: Gun Control
 

Greetings, I bring you a fruitbowl of bump. Mmmm Peaches.


I am personally all for more background checks. I think the guidelines with what Dev was saying would probably make a good blueprint on what we can do. The issue that people have with more regulations like that, though, is that we have a pretty bad trust issue in the states.

We are really use to everyone pulling the "gain the inch, then take the mile" trick to try and swing everything to their preferred liking: Our bosses do it with scheduling us for work, giving us gradually shittier and shittier hours; our schools do it to us in up-charging everything a little year after year after year until the price is absolutely sickening; Bush tells us we won't be in Iraq much longer, then just wait a little bit, a little bit, a little bit.

So whenever you hear people (especially people who have made it clear they rather not have guns at ALL) talk about "Well we'll just do this one common sense thing! C'mon don't be unreasonable" the first thing anyone is going to think is what kind of cascade bullshit is this going to lead to and do I want to set this precedent? Legally, at least in the states, precedents means alot and laws affect future laws more then we like to admit, and why agree to law Y when you feel that it's going to make stopping law X impossible?

So alot of gun owners try to sidestep the whole issue by just shutting down the conversation. I ain't trying to say it's right or that that side of the debate couldn't do better, but that's the logic. And when people throw serious aggression to gunowners it just doesn't make them want to give the benefit of the doubt.


As an aside, can we stop treating the NRA like they are some big scary black government branch that pulls the strings to arm as many rednecks as possible? Because they're not. If anything, the NRA is way more focused on safety and responsibility then any lawmaker I know of, and while I hate saying an absolute statement, I don't recall any mass shootings having been committed by an NRA member. Ever.

No, no it's not even a little bit apparent that we would be safer. Please refer to previous post made by Choof that we have a pretty big illegal importin' biz of weapons coming in here from our lovely southern neighbors. As someone who lives in Florida (aka not terribly far off from that border in the scheme of things: RIP my Texas brethren) I can promise you that the villain always has a weapon and I am not doing anyone any favors but not being as equally armed.

That said, full disclaimer I was never an NRA member and I don't currently own a gun at the moment. Just about everyone in my trailerpark does, though, and both my dad and brother are lifelong NRA members. Take my stance on things as you will.

Re: Gun Control
 

nightclub shooting stopped by concealed carrier

http://www.wistv.com/story/32308903/...l-at-nightclub

Re: Gun Control
 

mm

Re: Gun Control
 

These stories happen more then people like to admit, although in truth they are hardly reported on and mainstream media doesn't like to dwell on them.

Re: Gun Control
 

Gotta get dem ratings

Re: Gun Control
 

stop telling me to put on my shirt, hillary

Re: Gun Control
 

what the fuck

Re: Gun Control
 

most neighborhood instances of gun ownership stopping a crime do not get reported. this is because all that's sufficient in most cases is flashing a gun or firing a warning shot.

this is also highly income dependent and a lot of people don't know this

to avoid retyping I'mma just SS the same shit I said to someone else

Re: Gun Control
 

Nothing about actual rational gun control stops those households from having a gun in them.

Re: Gun Control
 

"actual gun control"

yet does not define "actual" gun control

"rational gun control"

yet does not define "rational" gun control

"stops"

yet whole discussion is concerned with degree of access, not absolute ability to obtain

did you think you were gonna drop this sentence and nobody would ask you to so much as elaborate or what

Re: Gun Control
 

I will say though devonin has a curiously good ability to weigh in on issues like sex, drugs, crime and the hood in a way no other person so unlike people familiar with those things does

it's like there's a google alert he has set up for the most alien he could be to a subject matter's norms

Re: Gun Control
 

it would not surprise me at all if the price of a background check went up tenfold if they were made mandatory

Re: Gun Control
 

Well, if you believe there are rational gun controls (in which I include things like, licensing, registration, training) those things don't meaningfully limit anybody's access to firearms. Most people who own guns have the means to drop 50 bucks on a gun license and find a Saturday to go do a training course at a range. Yes, the extremely poor might still find that burdensome, but they pay to get a driver's license, and if getting a gun license when you turn 18 is considered as much a part of being an American as a driver's license at 16, it would quickly just become a thing that got done.

You don't actually know all that much about me beyond the persona I adopt here, which has pretty much always been coloured by the fact that I was staff most of my lifespan on the site. I've been heavily invested in more than a few internet communities for the better part of 20 years now. I know a lot of kinds of people from a lot of parts of the world. And I spend a lot of time making myself aware of what's going on in the world. My degree is in history and philosophy, and the philosophy end was focused heavily into applied ethics. This is sort of my jam.

I wouldn't even know what that means let alone how or why to do it.