Quote :

"But it's a trope among conservatives, a stereotype if you will, that hardcore liberals do not carry much common sense, that they don't live in the real world."

oh?

2/20/2018 4:06:08 PM

Quote :

"And Grumpy, you know damn well I'm not advocating for a full blown authoritarian response to the issue. I'm simply arguing that the gun control side will gain no good will in "negotiating" with your side, so there's no reason to water down our demands."

I don't know any such thing, based on what you've said in this thread. And for the last time, the gun control side isn't negotiating with "my" side. I am on their side. I am in favor of stronger gun control measures. I am opposed to the NRA as a whole. I am opposed to anti-gun-control (or, if you prefer - though I think it's silly phrasing - "pro-gun") intractability and inflexibility.

Quote :

"I'm saying to make demands. Be explicit. Not to operate in useless vagaries like "acceptable compromises within our shared value system""

Who is saying that? Who is opposed to taking explicit policy positions? We're all on board with that. Everybody, on both sides, would prefer that we communicate clearly. I'd argue that "make demands" is not clear, particularly when you're on the side with no power, and to a degree that increases in direct proportion to the improbability of your demands. At some point, it goes from being "demands" to "wishful thinking" to "outright fantasy."

---

While we're talking about making clear demands - which I won't do, since I'm one guy on a message board and thus not really in a position to demand much of anything - I will at least reiterate my more-or-less clear positions on the matter, which is as follows:

1) In principle I support the right of every American to have any weapon they wish. However, I do not believe that this right is without qualification; after all, voting is a right, but you don't get to do it if you're 17 or in prison or whatever. So you can have any weapon you want, provided that you can meet certain requirements for ownership - requirements that should become more stringent in accordance with the potential danger posed by a weapon. If you want a BB gun, I believe the person selling it to you should be able to make an informal determination that you can see out of at least one eye. If you want a hydrogen bomb, you should have to meet certain Constitutional requirements and receive the votes of the majority of the Electoral College.

In between the ludicrous extremes, there's obviously room for debate about the particulars. But in general I think most of us can agree that an over-under shotgun is less dangerous than a 9mm handgun, which is less dangerous than an AR-15 with an extended magazine. Each tier can have different requirements, and I am not opposed to setting the bar quite high. Combined with a better reporting regime, this can have the practical effect of denying firearms to violent crazy people. It will also weed out people who haven't given serious, thoughtful consideration to getting the relevant license.

2) The minimum requirements for weapons purchases/transfers should be in force nationwide. Outside of that, laws about what you can do with guns can remain with the states. A gun purchased in another state can shoot me wherever I am. A gun that is concealed carried in another state can be avoided by staying out of that state.

3) No more gun shows. No more trading them amongst yourselves in the Classified section of TWW. You can go to the gun store. It's not like they're rare - though they will presumably become a little less ubiquitous after requiring everybody who works at one to have a certification at least one tier more stringent than that required for the most dangerous thing they sell. The same goes for gifting a firearm - little Jimmy can have a shotgun if you're cleared for a handgun. Except he can't, because no gun ownership for anybody under 18. Use, in certain contexts, but not ownership. I understand that a lot of families will ignore this and just claim that Pop owns the gun, but at least Junior can't walk into Wal-Mart and buy one.

4) As for the as reporting/background check regime...ugh. Fixing it would be expensive and complicated and fraught with legal issues. Still, it must be done. In particular, I "demand" a system where encounters with law enforcement at every level are reported to the same database. I also think we need a system whereby employers, schools, and mental health professionals can flag individuals whose behavior has not reached the point of involving the police. It should be possible to make them anonymously. At the same time, to prevent anti-gun folks from just blacklisting everybody they can, they should not necessarily be a permanent and insurmountable bar to every form of firearms purchase. Depending on the level in question, perhaps they could trigger a more in-depth background check than would otherwise be required for the level in question. At any rate, they should be contestable.

No someone who is anti-control will come in and claim that we already have all of these things except for the ones which are flagrantly unconstitutional and blah, blah, blah, but I think I just sketched out some policy musings which hardly put me in the camp opposed to gun control, and which are bold enough to be completely impractical for some time to come.

2/20/2018 5:56:11 PM

Here's the thing...most of what would make a significant difference would really require a national registration of firearms as a base condition, and that is fantasy land. It's far-fetched politically, and even if it passed tomorrow, isn't going to happen. There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in America, and a huge chunk of those aren't going to be voluntarily submitted for registration (and it's easy to see why not).

You can't enforce a whole lot without a registry...to include, for starters, a registry.

2/20/2018 10:35:16 PM

Quote :

"In particular, I "demand" a system where encounters with law enforcement at every level are reported to the same database. I also think we need a system whereby employers, schools, and mental health professionals can flag individuals whose behavior has not reached the point of involving the police."

man...that is a horrifying concept

2/20/2018 11:09:44 PM

^

2/20/2018 11:55:43 PM

It'd probably need some tweaking to balance unchecked, rampant flagging, but a common thread in virtually all of these mass shootings is that somebody - a shrink, a teacher, a former employer - had excellent reason to believe that a guy was crazy, but didn't do anything about it because of confidentiality or fear of getting sued. So make the flags anonymous, but also make them reversible without any onerous expense - make it just enough of a pain that a crazy person is going to reveal themselves as crazy in the process of getting past it.

Quote :

"Here's the thing...most of what would make a significant difference would really require a national registration of firearms as a base condition, and that is fantasy land."

OK. So what do you propose instead? Hardening our hearts to inevitable slaughter?

2/21/2018 12:18:11 AM

I'd be curious to explore the idea of a firearms ownership license.


...but what, if any, ideas I have or support is irrelevant to the viability of registering all the guns, or the pointlessness of only registering new sales while grandfathering a few hundred million.

Like, if you tell me that the "fix" is to invent a time machine, travel back a few centuries, and prevent guns from being invented, and that dismissing that idea as fantasy is hardening our hearts to inevitable slaughter...well, that doesn't make it not fantasy.

2/21/2018 12:32:50 AM

we don't just give up because guns are out there. make the purchase and sales of guns illegal. This gun show shit has to stop. Make the purchase and sales of ammunition illegal. Eventually, it will become rare, super expensive and hard to come by. Shootings will decrease. People will secure their guns like they secure their 69 mustangs.

2/21/2018 12:48:54 AM

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

2/21/2018 12:50:53 AM

yeah back in the real world where children are being mowed down by ar-15s

2/21/2018 1:29:07 AM

^you, as an American complicit of the laws, disgust me for not doing more

2/21/2018 1:35:42 AM

I never understood how you can listen to so much hip-hop, and still have such incredibly boring, vanilla, white-boy politics

2/21/2018 1:46:08 AM

if we gave a shit about reducing violent crime and saving lives, we'd start with changing course in our "war on drugs" and the violence, gang activity, other crime, displacement, and instability that it fuels. There are orders of magnitude more fruit to harvest there, and it is almost certainly lower hanging.

Why we're beating our heads against the wall of mass shooters using AR-15s and the like, when those weapons only account for a couple percent of the problem, there are no apparent viable solutions, and an approximation of the proposal that people seem to want has already been implemented and generally evaluated as a failure in recent history--with backlash and significant unintended consequences, to boot--is baffling to me.



hell, adopting a harm-reduction strategy on drugs would even yield benefits on the immigration front for the dipshit Trumpian nationalist crowd.

...and it would save a shitload of money, for anyone who still cares about that.

and if we're really feeling ambitious, criminal justice reform after that.

[Edited on February 21, 2018 at 2:08 AM. Reason : we should attack root causes instead of largely untreatable symptoms]

2/21/2018 2:02:18 AM

Quote :

"It'd probably need some tweaking to balance unchecked, rampant flagging, but a common thread in virtually all of these mass shootings is that..."

How in the bloody fuck did you not finish this sentence with: THE SHOOTER HAD A GUN

Christ. Why don't you go and blame that daggum MTV music? Go sit back down in your plaid recliner and listen to AM radio, Grandpa.

Quote :

"Here's the thing...most of what would make a significant difference would really require a national registration of firearms as a base condition, and that is fantasy land..."

I don't even disagree with you that it is improbable, politically. But you have to admit that this line of reasoning is exactly why the gun-control side should not even bother to meet the pro-gun side in the middle. Because there is no middle. Literally every measure that would have any meaningful impact, like you just said, would be met with fierce resistance and/or open hostility. So fuck it, we should go full hog with our demands. We have nothing to lose.

If literally every measure is a non-starter, then we are left exactly where we are, and we limit our scope of ideas to the terrible ideas put forth by Grumpy that only amount to a gross invasion of privacy where people with authority over their subjects get to determine which actions do and do not get "reported" to some weird-all-knowing pre-crime-database that just collects data and builds profiles over the very people who are most likely to be victims of governmental overreach. Why the fuck would anyone want their BOSSES to control which rights we have and don't have?! What, you're not okay with the government deciding who can and can't have a weapon of war, but your boss, the guy who makes you go into work every day in order to not starve.....He can decide that for you? God, what a horrid solution.

So yeah, I agree with you that a registry is probably necessary as a first step toward disarmament/extreme reduction/outright ban. And I am perfectly fine with knowing that you and I have a fundamental conflict over this issue. We don't agree. We won't agree. It would be fucking stupid of me to try and sway you on this topic, because our differences are intractable. It is a conflict that requires and demands resolution, not compromise. You can dismiss my long term goal of reduction as being pie-in-the-sky and completely untenable, and you wouldn't even be wrong. But reduction has to be the end goal, because lowering the number of guns is literally the only thing that could realistically reduce the number of gun deaths. Honestly, even if you disagree with the goal, you have to admit that lowering the number of guns will lower the number of people who die by guns. It's pretty self evident.

Quote :

"Why we're beating our heads against the wall of mass shooters using AR-15s and the like, when those weapons only account for a couple percent of the problem"

Because most political gains are made from reactionary politics. The right understands this. They seize every disaster and moment of public fragility as an opportunity to push through their agenda. It's how we got the Iraq War, the War on Drugs, extreme privatization and financial de-regulation, mass incarceration, and basically every other nationalist and imperialist policy that we are currently dealing with (which is really the root cause of this gun violence, as you sort of noted). They've been doing it for decades.

2/21/2018 2:41:49 AM

I like how radical JHC thinks my trolling of Earl is indicative of my politics, which I haven't even expressed in this thread

Quote :

"I never understood how you can listen to so much hip-hop, and still have such incredibly boring, vanilla, white-boy politics"

hate to break it to you, but Wu-Tang, Public Enemy, Dead Prez, etc are polar opposites from your views on gun control. They realize that citizens need to be able to bear arms to defend themselves from corrupt governments. I'd love to hear the super gun control hip hop artists that you listen to...

De La Soul said "gun control is using both hands" for example. Hell, if anything, listening to hip hop has reinforced that people want guns to protect themselves

[Edited on February 21, 2018 at 3:10 AM. Reason : .]

2/21/2018 2:59:29 AM

You've expressed your politics in multiple threads on multiple topics and they've all been pretty consistently suburban

2/21/2018 3:24:15 AM

So which rap artists are anti-gun?

2/21/2018 3:32:48 AM

Common?

Lol

2/21/2018 6:37:17 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/02/20/toomey-sensing-momentum-plans-revival-of-bill-to-expand-background-checks/?utm_term=.f614c0a6b98b

What do y'all bet this doesn't even make it out of committee????

Manchin-Toomey, the lowest hanging fruit of gun control, would expand background checks to include online, classifieds, and guns show sales. It throws some money at the states to incentivize them to actually input their criminal records into NICS.

We will see what happens, but if this bill can't pass congress, then it really is a hopeless situation IMO.

2/21/2018 7:51:20 AM

Quote :

"...but what, if any, ideas I have or support is irrelevant to the viability of registering all the guns, or the pointlessness of only registering new sales while grandfathering a few hundred million."

I don't think the grandfathering aspect is all that important. For that matter, I don't necessarily think it's essential that guns be registered (though it probably is desirable). More important is limiting the transfer of guns from person to person, through sales or gifting or inheritance. There's only so many lunatics who currently own guns, and maybe you just have to wait them out. But there's an unlimited supply of future lunatics who might want to get guns.

Obviously, the lack of a registry will make it easier for people to circumvent the rules surrounding transfers. But at least then the people selling these guns would be committing a crime for which they can be prosecuted.

Quote :

"if we gave a shit about reducing violent crime and saving lives, we'd start with changing course in our "war on drugs" and the violence, gang activity, other crime, displacement, and instability that it fuels."

I agree. But reforming drug policy and reforming gun policy are not mutually exclusive.

Quote :

"How in the bloody fuck did you not finish this sentence with: THE SHOOTER HAD A GUN"

Because what would be the point of saying that? Unlocking the Redundancy Achievement? They were shooters, who by definition have guns.

Quote :

"the terrible ideas put forth by Grumpy that only amount to a gross invasion of privacy where people with authority over their subjects get to determine which actions do and do not get "reported" to some weird-all-knowing pre-crime-database that just collects data and builds profiles over the very people who are most likely to be victims of governmental overreach. Why the fuck would anyone want their BOSSES to control which rights we have and don't have?! What, you're not okay with the government deciding who can and can't have a weapon of war, but your boss, the guy who makes you go into work every day in order to not starve.....He can decide that for you?"

...no, and I'm not sure where you got...any of that, really.

I think of it in terms of security clearance. There are thousands and thousands of jobs in this country which require a secret clearance or higher. These, in turn, require a background investigation, part of which involves an investigator inquiring with some of your former employers to make sure that you did your job and didn't smack the secretary or threaten to burn the building down or anything. Nobody is required to get these jobs, but if you want them, you go through this process.

Similarly, nobody is required to get a gun, and if you want one, you can submit to a background investigation. Now, obviously a months-long investigation with agents tracking down all your antecedents at great expense is impractical and undesirable. But we can replicate some of the benefits if, instead of an agent having to reach out to your bosses, your bosses can reach out to the agency.

Their doing so should not decide whether you can get a gun. Your guidance counselor should not control your right to bear arms in perpetuity. I have not said otherwise. But perhaps they could signal to the background investigating agency that, "OK, this application can't just go through the automated process, it needs review by a human being." And then the government "decides who can have a weapon of war." Which I'm not opposed to; in weak form, it's the status quo.

But please, JesusHChrist, give us the benefit of your lights. What should be done? Surely you have ideas other than "Everybody else's ideas are stupid." And since you said earlier that you're "not advocating for a full blown authoritarian response to the issue," I'm sure it's quite nuanced. Please, educate us.

2/21/2018 8:50:28 AM

It’s scary that the Alex Jones Sandy Hook truther types are becoming more mainstream with this one. I think this experiment called social media has run its course..

2/21/2018 8:57:40 AM

russian bots

2/21/2018 9:06:27 AM

https://twitter.com/sheriffclarke/status/965962123535966208

And CPAC speakers..

2/21/2018 10:44:05 AM

Also an RNC Convention speaker in 2016.

And DJT Jr.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us how these people aren't mainstream conservatives.

2/21/2018 11:00:47 AM

This is ridiculous.

The smartest minds in our country can't come up with a solution. The smartest minds here can't come up with a solution.

The last thing I had to think about in school was getting shot. At least not until Columbine. But even after that, it was just a one-time event. Wasn't going to happen again.

I can't stand the fact that my young daughter might one day have to worry about this problem.

2/21/2018 11:43:50 AM

This is a great time to push for universal healthcare (including free therapy) but both sides are too busy fighting about guns.

2/21/2018 11:46:10 AM

Anybody surprised about Trump's support for bump-stock bans? Also, any other modification that turns semi-auto rifles into near-fully auto rifles?

I'm certainly ok with it.

2/21/2018 12:14:48 PM

guys. only law abiding citizens abide by the law so we shouldn't have any laws. GET OFF MY FREEDOM

2/21/2018 12:17:41 PM

^^ it's the low hanging fruit with a lot of support and it's already been proposed so it's not really ground shaking, but it is getting plenty of coverage. i don't think anyone has a strong opinion about them.

2000's Trump's position was better - he used to be in favor of waiting periods and banning assault weapons (well at least the guy who wrote that book was in favor of those things)

[Edited on February 21, 2018 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2018 12:23:20 PM

Let's pare down Trump and his family's secret service, give Trump and his family guns, and let them protect themselves.


Lol

Let's see jared kushner strapped

[Edited on February 21, 2018 at 10:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2018 10:47:06 PM

that teenager causing Rubio to malfunction like that was fuckin’ inspiring, man

2/22/2018 12:56:45 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetorch/2018/02/21/587676315/u-s-biathlon-team-speaks-out-for-gun-control

OUtspoken athletes, am I right? They should just shut-up and... shoot.

2/22/2018 9:37:59 AM

Holy shit that NRA speech at CPAC

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 10:36 AM. Reason : I don’t have a link.. was streaming on Bloomberg]

2/22/2018 10:35:59 AM

you mean the group that made the crazy treason ad would use inflammatory fear mongering about socialists? shocker shocker shocker

never forget, NRA recruits extremists:
https://youtu.be/PrnIVVWtAag

2/22/2018 10:56:26 AM

"Schools must be the most hardened targets in this country, and evil must be confronted immediately with all necessary force to protect our kids ... to stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.

Can't afford pencils, but I'm sure we can find money for more guns.

2/22/2018 11:19:51 AM

^if they can funnel a good bit of that money to one of their favored arms manufacturers, I bet they could find the cash with a quickness.

Pencil manufacturers need to fund half of congress' elections if they want this congress to spend anything on school supplies.

Quote :

"Holy shit that NRA speech at CPAC "

You listen to something like that, then you come into a thread like this where people are worried about using language like "gun registry, etc" because it will cause pro-gun people to shutdown. Where is the policing of the other side? It doesn't exist.

2/22/2018 11:49:36 AM

When anyone says the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, they're just trying to help the gun shops sell twice as many guns.

2/22/2018 12:01:06 PM

If you want to see the AR-15 banned it will be done faster than you can imagine if Black Lives Matter groups, Antifa groups, and Muslims started legally stockpiling them. The NRA has become an organization for scared white guys (who are often very racist).

2/22/2018 12:07:14 PM

the NRA just cares about money, republicans may not like it if those groups or liberal groups start arming themselves but the NRA won't care. the gun industry will be smiling all the way to the bank and if the gun industry is happy the NRA is happy.

2/22/2018 12:16:34 PM

I think most folks here will agree that one of the best steps toward resolving gun violence in this country would be to do away with the NRA. They are useless for anyone outside of NRA payroll.

2/22/2018 12:23:58 PM

money in politics is the reason for most of our problems

2/22/2018 12:26:15 PM

Good luck with that once Trump gets a few more SCOTUS seats.

FWIW, the president literally just word for word parroted the NRAs thoughts on hardening schools.

2/22/2018 12:27:52 PM

What would be easier? Training police officers to be teachers, or training teachers to be police officers?

2/22/2018 12:40:34 PM

has anyone suggested bullet proof school uniforms?

2/22/2018 12:43:38 PM

Quote :

"Where is the policing of the other side?"

The NRA? Oh, they don't speak for me.

--rjrumfel

2/22/2018 1:55:07 PM

Violent movies should have a ratings system

- The President

2/22/2018 2:16:38 PM

^^Not quite sure what you're getting at.

I don't agree with the NRA. What's your point?

2/22/2018 2:20:37 PM

Democrats: We need stronger background checks and a ban on assault weapons
Republicans: Nah
Democrats: Ok how about just the ban on assault weapons?
Republicans: lol no
Democrats: Oh yeah?? *strongly worded, non-enforceable declaration that guns are bad*

2/22/2018 2:23:06 PM

^^ Your hand-waving disapproval of the NRA is a little unconvincing when on the previous page you're complaining that gun control advocates aren't doing enough to dispel the "tropes" and "stereotypes" held by the "unreasonable, far right."

2/22/2018 2:51:12 PM

That's what I said? Because what I thought I said was that when gun control advocates just come to the table with "ban X guns" right off the bat, it is going to turn off the far right.

You're trying to pick an argument here with someone who believes in gun control. Not sure why you're trying to do that. I support better background checks - hell I even support a sit down interview for certain types of guns. Look at the process with which one has to go through to drive a car. Far more involved than a gun, so why not perform an interview.

I pretty much support everything gun control folks want to do right up to an out and out ban.

Except maybe the age limit - the age limit thing to me is a little silly but I also don't believe you should be 21 to buy alcohol.

And if somebody comes canvassing my neighborhood on a platform that promises to kick out the NRA? They'll get my vote. Short of writing my reps and senators I don't know what else I could do.

2/22/2018 2:59:43 PM