News The Latest Gun Control Speech (usa)

[Not Important]

I'm perfectly OK with people owning guns. The problem is that the only ones who really care about the right to do so are subhuman conservative fascists. If anything, the lower class and all the oppressed should realize their 2nd amendment rights, and defend themselves with it.

 

[Anarchy]

How did i miss this thread?

Regarding arguments about gun availability and suicide or homicide rates, although this paper is now 10 years old,

there has been very little change in homicide rates (they're actually slightly down http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/ ) in that time.

and zero notable changes in firearms technology over the past half century

Here's the paper, by Don Kates and Gary Mauser
Dead Link Removed

 

[Anarchy]

The problem is that the only ones who really care about the right to do so are subhuman conservative fascists.

really?:woot:

 

[Anarchy]

One of the things that was mentioned, but kind of glossed over, in the speech, was that the President is hoping to improve the mental health side of the equation. The commentators all thought that was "something everyone would agree on".

be afraid,

be very afraid

 

[Justmehere]

Nah, don't be afraid.

Take action. Vote.

 

[EveHarrington]

In my opinion...

When you hear of a "mentally ill" individual who has committed some heinous crime, aren't these usually people who are not currently seeking treatment? I think a registry will create a false sense of security.

In effect, a registry of the strictest kind would penalize those who seek to better themselves. Those who are paranoid about losing gun rights will avoid any type of mental health treatment. (An unfortunate consequence of a registry, probably unavoidable.)

 

[Anarchy]

Take action. Vote.

For Mr Jones, or for his cousin, Mr Johnson?

The bureaucrats who draft the proposals are not elected, and if the proposals fail this time, rest assured that when a suitable new pretext arises, or is created, those proposals will be back.

I'll reference the British 1973 "green paper" proposing new firearms controls (the 1968 firearms act has been amended on average every 14 months from 1968 to mid 2015). It was rejected in 1973 as being too draconian, but was dished up again in 1987, following a mass shooting, and that time, it became law.

The united state is not that different; where for example does the second amendment to the united state constitution mention "sporting"?
how did that constitution prevent that abuse? - it didn't, and neither did "will of a majority" prevent it.

 

[Justmehere]

Simply being afraid changes nothing.

Voting, for whomever best represents beliefs is a way to seek change without violence. None of the candidates are good enough? Find one that is representative.

Every party, every movement, started with a few committed people who sought change.

That was my only point.

 

[Anarchy]

Voting, for whomever best represents beliefs is a way to seek change without violence. None of the candidates are good enough? Find one that is representative.

The assumption that any means of change other than voting, requires violence is a very dangerous myth, which is still being widely propagated, almost 450 years since it was refuted.

How do some of the inhabitants who lurk within the DC Beltway manage to rule and extort 300,000,000 people?

Etienne de la Boetie's answer is, because the 300,000,000 consent to it.

That consent can be withdrawn non violently.

as de la Boetie puts it, there is no need to lay hands on the tyrant, simply withdraw consent and he will fall, just as surely as if he was pushed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitude

sure, some of the folks with a big sense of entitlement will probably get violent at people peacefully saying "no", which is perhaps one of the reasons why they are so keen on gun control for the plebs, while at the same time even maintaining a SWAT team for the department of education.

as for voting being effective https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/bb/9b/11/bb9b11bbb02c4e8df4d784957ca527ef.jpg

 

[Ed Norton]

I think that both parties have been so busy with the same old tired saw, towing the same stupid party lines, removed from research or actual statistics and policies with such mutual alienation of each other that it's not possible to make any non partison comprimises. This gun control nonsense is one of those issues. I don't see what can be done. Assault rifles? Bring a glock 19 Ban large capacity magazines? Bring more magazines. Ban legal carriage of guns? Get them illegally. Destroy all guns? Make explosives. Ban explosive making chemicals? Impossible!!! Unless they have that Tom Cruise movie shit then you can't stop all crime. Then people say what's the use of having these weapons? I think that most are just fun to play with.

Edit: loose with terminology...magazines not clips

 

[scout86]

It's pretty obvious that there IS some kind of difference between how things go here and in other "first world" nations. I can't help but think there's a bit of a sub-culture that leads people to believe that violence is an ok method of "problem solving" and that it might be their ONLY method of problem solving. When you look at the episodes of mass violence, and that's what usually inspires these conversations, the perp is usually someone who's angry, feels alienated, and wants to send a message. A lot of times, they aren't in touch with the same version of reality as "most people". I can't help but think there are ways to head at least some of this off before some kid walks into a grade school and start shooting kids. But I don't think it's as much about guns as it is people. Like @Ed Norton said, if they can't get a gun, they'll make a bomb. And I hardly think it would be practical to ban pressure cookers and nails.

 

[Ed Norton]

Exactly, If anyone is determined to kill; they will Q.E.D. I don't like that fact but it's a fact.