Quote :

"So what is it about the United States that pumps out all these "crazies?" Must be something in the water, eh, chap?"

This is a great and often overlooked point. Why not look into the meds these people take and maybe do something about big pharma pushing all these drugs on people? There were lots of guns 20 years ago and much fewer mass shootings, there were also less people taking meds.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 8:21 AM. Reason : A]

9/19/2013 8:21:00 AM

You also didn't have the internet 20 years ago, and you didn't have mmo games 20 years ago either. Too many new factors to compare today to that time period.

And there were mass shootings, just no 24 hour news cycle to sensationalize them.

Yes, I realize the internet existed, but not in its current form.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 9:09 AM. Reason : adas]

9/19/2013 9:09:16 AM

^^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Crazy fuckers have been killing lots of people since long before 20 years ago.

I'm not using crazy as a medical term.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 9:40 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2013 9:33:38 AM

Know what we had 20-30 years ago? More and better funded state-run mental institutions.

9/19/2013 9:36:45 AM

Quote :

"No, but driver's licenses prevent the amount of accidents. Who could argue otherwise? And you know what? If you do something stupid like drive while drunk or drive recklessly, you lose your license. Fuckin' interesting, isn't it?"

I find any comparison to vehicles amusing. Yes cars are more useful than guns in almost every (if not every) normal instance. However over 32,000 deaths a year are a result of car accidents, and car crashes are the #1 killer of young adults. And yet all you need to get behind the wheel of your 5000 lb SUV is a license that is ridiculously easy to obtain. No real driving training (if you even had any at all) and no understanding of basic physics. Hell most new drivers (maybe even drivers in general) don't even understand how anti-lock braking systems work or even how to properly use them.

But nobody state governments don't cares about this, despite fixing the system (or improving it) not being that difficult at all.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 10:16 AM. Reason : k]

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 10:28 AM. Reason : k]

9/19/2013 10:15:43 AM

Quote :

" But nobody cares about this, despite fixing the system (or improving it) not being that difficult at all."

I care about it. I support more vehicle control. Seriously. People shouldn't be on the road unless they can prove they're not a danger on the road. Especially 16 year olds and senior citizens.

9/19/2013 10:23:15 AM

You are right. I should have said the state governments don't care (in fact I'll edit my last comment). Still doesn't change the fact that very very little attention is given to this.

I mean I have friends that think if you slam on the brakes all the way that you're gonna break something

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 10:29 AM. Reason : k]

9/19/2013 10:27:55 AM

Quote :

"I don't get why we can't just ban all guns like other countries."

I think the answers to that are self-evident to anyone who isn't mentally retarded.

The bigger takeaway is that the pro-gun crowd totally understandably isn't going to give an inch, ever, no matter what or why, as long as there are people like you who want to take a mile (or take it all).

...and at this point, the lines are so heavily drawn that it would take a long, long time for the gun crowd to put enough trust in the anti crowd to submit to something like any form of registry, for example.

Between that and the fact that the anti-gun crowd does more than anything else to fuel consumption of guns and ammo (the rise of the AR-15 was directly the result of your attempt to ban it 20 years ago, your side needs to lay low. Like, realllly low. Like, play dead...for about a generation or so. Gun/ammo manufacturers have been running around the clock since the election of President Obama, and expanding their facilities since the post-Sandy Hook gun control efforts, and STILL can't even produce enough to even come close to meeting demand). What you guys need to do is not even breathe a word about a gun for about 30 years, and then tip-toe in with very, very modest efforts, focusing on finding common ground and grabbing the low-hanging fruit.

...and then fucking stop before you piss everybody off, destroy all the trust, and draw the battle lines...again.

9/19/2013 11:15:38 AM

I'd say it's more of a problem that the gun industry whips all these people into a frenzy over things that are incredibly reasonable, which is evident in the fact that the LaPierre guy said back in the 90s that he would support a gun registry or something. It's not that the left is that unreasonable, it's that the right has completely moved the goalposts.

What you're saying could be equated to a woman getting raped and being blamed because she was dressed "provocatively." Perhaps, but the blame still has to lie mostly with the rapist.

9/19/2013 11:22:55 AM

Quote :

"The bigger takeaway is that the pro-gun crowd totally understandably isn't going to give an inch, ever, no matter what or why, as long as there are people like you who want to take a mile (or take it all)."

If they aren't going to give an inch...ever...no matter what or why....then there really is no point in compromising with them, now is there?


I find it curious that it's somehow the responsibility of those who favor reform to somehow change their behavior in some half-assed effort to seduce a group that simply will never budge. Fuck that, if that's the case, then just go above them. What is there to possibly gain by "laying low" for a decade if they will never give an inch. You can point to growing gun sales as proof of your side, but public sentiment and polling shows an increased demand for reform every time there is a mass shooting. So it's not nearly as one-sided as you indicate.


Quite the fussy bunch, the gun crowd.

9/19/2013 12:46:12 PM

Quote :

"6600 Americans die everyday. We don't understand why we use relatively rare isolated incidents as an argument to limit our basic freedoms....or maybe we do!"

white people

9/19/2013 12:49:23 PM

Quote :

"If they aren't going to give an inch...ever...no matter what or why....then there really is no point in compromising with them, now is there?"

There is when they are the majority, stupid.

9/19/2013 12:51:44 PM

^^

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2450


womp, womp.


Oh shit, polls!








[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2013 12:53:33 PM

So then why are the gun nuts winning?

9/19/2013 1:21:36 PM

money

9/19/2013 1:22:37 PM

there aren't any manufacturers of no-guns

9/19/2013 1:24:03 PM

Holy shit that's a brilliant idea! I bet you could sell a bunch of "no-guns": like a badge or a fake gun that shoots a flower or something for the anti-gun crowd.

9/19/2013 1:28:37 PM

Quote :

"So then why are the gun nuts winning?"

There are enough congressmen whom the NRA have ensured will lose their seats if they ever vote for any form of gun control to prevent a bill from passing. Also gerrymandering.

9/19/2013 1:31:13 PM

You heard the man. Let's lock it up, you mental retards.

Pro-gun crowd TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLY is never going to compromise so let's just forget everything, ignore all those people dying, and not make any attempt to make things better.

9/19/2013 1:34:23 PM

Or maybe you could do something more meaningful than simply insulting "rednecks" on a college-themed messageboard?

You know, work on those congressmen and whatnot.

Oh yeah, "evil corporations man!" The default position of any liberal that doesnt want to actually change the status quo. That might require work or something.

9/19/2013 1:58:13 PM

Do people not realize that the overall violent crime rate continues to fall and we do not actually have more mass shootings now than before?

The last thing we need is reactionary, poorly-thought out laws that do nothing to address the underlying issues they claim to want to address.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/18/now-is-not-the-time-for-new-gun-laws.html

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 2:19 PM. Reason : and there's a nice piece articulating the point.]

9/19/2013 2:11:11 PM

But but, TV.

9/19/2013 2:15:33 PM

Here comes willy, with another substance-less non sequitur. Mindlessly declaring gun control as an assault on redneck values and taking tired cheap shots at those daggum libruls -- what with their damn mtv music and all.

Hope the view is cozy up there in the peanut gallery.

9/19/2013 2:42:03 PM

Peanut gallery is more respectable than the sidelines.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM. Reason : -]

9/19/2013 5:19:02 PM

I'm pretty firmly in nothing new is going to happen so why waste time on it.

But we need to admit exactly what that means: Freedom isn't free. Our freedoms are what makes the USA "special." The dead are just the sacrifice that we (and especially their families) have to make on the pyre of the constitution, so that each of us can maintain our individual rights unfettered. I recommend we start having celebrations after mass shootings both to commemorate the dead and to celebrate our freedoms, probably just have a bonfire, a short ceremony, and then shoot our guns in the air or something

9/19/2013 5:37:46 PM

Quote :

"If they aren't going to give an inch...ever...no matter what or why....then there really is no point in compromising with them, now is there?"

You missed the rest of theDuke866's sentence:

"as long as there are people like you who want to take a mile (or take it all)."

My liberal bona fides are well established in The Soap Box, and I'm very much in favor of universal background checks, but fuck the current gun control movement. As long people like Bloomberg and Feinstein are at its helm, I'm cheering for the GOP in this fight.

9/19/2013 7:02:29 PM

get the serial number off the 4473 and i wouldn't mind "universal" background checks

9/19/2013 7:04:45 PM

Agreed on the form and the incredulity quotes around "universal."

Still, though-- gun shows are crazy.

(but not as crazy as compromising with Feinstein)

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 7:11 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2013 7:11:24 PM

Quote :

""as long as there are people like you who want to take a mile (or take it all).""

He was responding to God, who suggested a complete ban.


It's alright though, it's not the first time someone mistook me for my dad.

9/19/2013 7:17:45 PM

Quote :

"Still, though-- gun shows are crazy."

have you ever been to a gun show? ever bought a firearm at one? the vast majority of sales at gun shows go through NICS.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 7:31 PM. Reason : it's just a whole bunch of gun shops under 1 roof]

9/19/2013 7:30:36 PM

Quote :

"have you ever been to a gun show?"

I have. My friend bought a Mini-14 and all he had to do was sign the bill of sale. He could've signed it "Barack Obama" if he'd been in that sort of mood.

Quote :

"it's just a whole bunch of gun shops under 1 roof"

Packed with dudes with rifles slung over their shoulders, marked as "for sale." The whole thing is sketchy as shit. Sure-- we'll never have "universal" background checks, but checks take 10 minutes and are in no way an infringement on legal gun owners. Why not try for "more universal?"




[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 7:44 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2013 7:42:31 PM

get the serial number off the form. it's that simple for me.

if he was buying from a private party instead of a dealer, then the bill of sale wasn't even required. he actually went above and beyond. it not "wink wink, nudge nudge". it's legal and private transfers are the only way to own an unregistered gun.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 7:48 PM. Reason : vczx]

9/19/2013 7:44:20 PM

Sure. And that's the sort of concession we'd get from a gun control movement acting in good faith. Such a movement doesn't exist, though, so I think we're in total agreement on the issue.

9/19/2013 7:51:50 PM

even if we got the serial number off the 4473, passed "universal" NICS, and sat in a big circle and sang kumbaya, i honestly don't believe we'd see any measurable improvements (besides the declines in crime we're already seeing ). then the next time some nut case snapped they'd demand more since that didn't work.

9/19/2013 8:03:22 PM

The serial number needs to stay, and the gun needs to be tracked for its entire life.

but not before privacy of registries are guaranteed

9/19/2013 8:11:52 PM

^^But any gain it achieved would be worthwhile, given its non-burdensome nature (and it'd be even less burdensome if we made the NICS more-accessible). If it stopped 10 criminals a year from getting guns, that'd be 10 less criminals with guns, and no one would be worse off for it.

Kicking and screaming over a 10 minute wait only gives Bloomberg fuel for attacking gun rights.

^Impossible. Both in regard to tracking the hundreds of millions of guns out there, and insuring the privacy of gov't databases.

9/19/2013 8:18:47 PM

VIN numbers track hundreds of millions of cars, its not impossible

9/19/2013 8:58:31 PM

Cars are large things that are necessarily in open display while in use. Guns are things I keep in my closet.

And even still, consider the not-insignificant number of unregistered/uninsured drivers out there.

9/19/2013 9:11:59 PM

Quote :

"You missed the rest of theDuke866's sentence: "as long as there are people like you who want to take a mile (or take it all)." My liberal bona fides are well established in The Soap Box, and I'm very much in favor of universal background checks, but fuck the current gun control movement. As long people like Bloomberg and Feinstein are at its helm, I'm cheering for the GOP in this fight. "

Exactly. Pretty much took the words out of my mouth. I don't know if he was being an illiterate idiot or deliberately disingenuous. I can't really think of another option.

I also would be OK with requiring something on the order of a [beefed-up] NICS check for private transfers, but no way would I go for having the serial # on the form. That's a firearms registry. Guaranteeing its privacy is just a registry as soon as a few people change their minds...and I quite reasonably am a LONG way from having that level of trust in gun control types.

9/19/2013 9:47:28 PM

Quote :

"And even still, consider the not-insignificant number of unregistered/uninsured drivers out there"

uh, that's a lot different than illegal or swapped VIN vehicles, that's a pretty tiny percent

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 10:02 PM. Reason : this is common sense]

and your vehicles VIN number oa tiny, its not on display

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM. Reason : seriously, your point ia dumb]

9/19/2013 10:02:02 PM

Quote :

"but not before privacy of registries are guaranteed"

LOL

I am sure they would be private, with what we have seen recently from our government they are all about protecting our privacy and not snooping on data.

9/19/2013 10:20:03 PM

the point of a registry is that the government knows about it, i meant private from public

9/19/2013 11:40:09 PM

Quote :

"I also would be OK with requiring something on the order of a [beefed-up] NICS check for private transfers, but no way would I go for having the serial # on the form. That's a firearms registry. Guaranteeing its privacy is just a registry as soon as a few people change their minds...and I quite reasonably am a LONG way from having that level of trust in gun control types."

In my view, the only way to stop gun sales to people who should not legally have them is to hold people who own guns legally to be accountable for every weapon they sell on private market. And that requires a national registry, with database and periodic inventory checks. Second Amendment guarantees you a right to bear arms, it does not guarantee the privacy of your gun collection. I think people who passed a background check and possibly some safety tests should be able to own any number and type of guns they want, but if we want to keep cheap firearms from people that are NOT allowed to legally buy them, there should be accountability.

If your main reasoning against the datables is "government will use that data to take my guns," but they can't take everyone's guns at the same time. If it looks like government starts mass gun confiscations, I'm sure gun owners can pool together enough weapon between them after the first round of confiscations to carry out whatever type of revolution they are planning. If government wants to confiscate all guns from ONE individual, and they have a legal ground to do so because the person committed a felony crime for example, that individual should not be able to just turn over one gun and hide all the others.

Anyone who is against background checks and a registry is a pro-gun hardliner in my opinion and will not accept any kind of compromise no matter what the common sense says.

9/20/2013 12:11:23 AM

^ that seems like a good solution.

I think an objection a reasonable person might have is to the punishment for having a gun stolen.

If there was no mandate to secure your weapons, a trafficker could just let guns get stolen. If there was a mandate, then it opens up the possibility of an otherwise responsible person to get prosecuted if someone breaks into their house.

You could also argue registries are wrong for some of the same reasons NSA spying is wrong.

It might be the best solution is the status quo where we tolerate the slaughter of innocent children or of people in the workplace for the sake of gun nuts to have a little more gun freedom.

9/20/2013 12:31:54 AM

I think that the best start is for both sides to agree that guns are at least part of the problem. That agreement has to be met first before anything constructive can happen.

9/20/2013 6:48:37 AM

Yes, the inanimate objects that jump up and kill people on their own.

9/20/2013 7:35:13 AM

Gun registry, mandatory background checks, etc, etc.

None would have prevented the mass shootings in CO, Newtown, or the Navy area so you can go around spouting bullshit about how long are we going to put up with this before we get tired of innocent children being gunned down but at the end of the day none of these things would have prevented these shootings.

9/20/2013 8:09:10 AM

The point of a registry is not to prevent rare mass shooting events, those will probably always happen as long as they get media coverage

9/20/2013 8:22:12 AM

Right, so using mass shootings as a reason for a registry is pointless yet the two are often brought up together.

9/20/2013 9:22:59 AM

where have I used any mass shooting as a reason I want a gun registry? i haven't, in fact I've stated repeatedly that its a terrible idea to decide policy based on statistically rare incidents. i want a gun registry for the regular gun deaths that happen every day.

9/20/2013 9:26:22 AM