You’re telling me that you are the arbiter of when I should worry. Of what scares me or ought not.
Good bye.
1 Like
Helpful for rhetoric, and other colors of bullcrap, those broad brushes.
i was being a bit of a snark. my apologies.
my point was just your hypothetical scenario actually supports the idea that buybacks and regulation would limit access to guns, and we both already agreed guns can turn violent situations in to murders.
except nobody talking is about banning anything. decriminalization, regulation, and taxation: this works for drugs, the same scenario works for guns.
obama enacts modest changes to slightly slow down gun trafficking. when people react as if he was swooping down to melt your guns into socialist freedom chains, it undermines your arguments.
2 Likes
It’s almost as if some folks are projecting their own cynicism and lack of empathy on to Obama … ?
6 Likes
i think that misreads history. the fda, food safety, and consumer safety regulation have been huge boons for americans.
americans of course have gotten things wrong. the forced removal of american indians, slavery, segregation, our various wars of aggression; prohibition, our tax structure, our health care, …
but, government isn’t static. we can change things when they go wrong.
we’ve moved the right direction on gay rights, we seem to be moving the right way regarding drugs, sometimes it seems we might get some sane environmental policies…
now is the time to change how we deal with guns.
5 Likes
I’m guessing the wall of the latrine behind the Malheur wildlife refuge building.
2 Likes
Or in the snow behind it.
5 Likes
When you are dealing with an object that is inherently dangerous there is only so much that can done to make it safe.
Firearms generally operate as expected to. Manufacturers aren’t releasing guns that blow up, mechanical issues and recalled and dealt with.
So there is no corollary organization like the FDA, or food safety that is needed as there is no demonstrable need. Demonstrable need is subject to debate as people will fall into the guns are a problem or not a problem camp, but you can’t point to an inherent industry practice that is putting the public at risk. If the simple presence of guns is causing the issue we are falling back to ban discussions pretty quickly.
And for fedgov, re: “teh drugs” they are being dragged kicking and screaming in the right direction by the people and the states, fedgov is not moving in the right direction. But I agree that moving towards personal freedom for marriage and drug policy is the correct direction. I also believe that personal firearms ownership is also a personal freedom which falls in line with drugs and marriage as a matter that should have less regulation, not more.
1 Like
We’re a long way from there, though. A long long way from the 18th century.
1 Like
When people say “We should be like the UK or Australia.”, then yes they are talking about banning guns.
We already have regulation and taxation of guns. You can’t keep them out of the hands of all restricted persons, just as you can’t stop people under 21 from drinking and smoking. Yes you can set up some limits (as we have with guns) but there is a point where more limits isn’t going to further restrict the people you are trying to stop using them
I don’t think I have acted with any such drama. My point was he hasn’t really fixed or helped anything. Working on making NICS run better and getting more agents to process forms I think is helpful.
1 Like
Don’t Cry For Me, AR-15aaa…
2 Likes
Don’t worry, I bet we’ll stop eventually when the gun lobby in America helps America solve gun crimes…
Or the calls will get louder and louder as people continue to do nothing and resist any and all change.
2 Likes
Gun crime is down overall with out sweeping reform. As is violent crime in general. Let’s maybe see why that is and work on addressing the root causes of crime.
Even Australia and the UK have seen a slow decline in homicides, but not a dip (UK actually had a huge spike for awhile). I think people need to stop fixating on the tools used in crime, and work on fixing why we have crime in the first place. And also realize even if we solve most of our social ills that breed crime, there will ALWAYS be people who do bad things.
3 Likes
I was referring to the larger topic of displays of emotion, not just the shedding of tears.
So the “wait and see” approach?
Because we all know that no one on the pro-gun side is going to proactively do anything.
I look forward to the NRA proposals for studies on gun violence in America.
2 Likes
No - I didn’t say that. I said analyze why we have crime. Poverty seems to be a huge indicator. Violent crime for the middle class is MUCH lower and nearly non-existent in the upper class. Race issues, drugs, and dense poor populations all seem to be factors too. I have repeatedly said decriminalizing drugs would take the teeth out of gangs, though not criminals per se. Social programs that appease the poor probably help too, as Europe is generally known for lower crime rates.
It isn’t the NRA’s job. They represent the 99.X% of law abiding gun owners who are tired of the fantasy the ant-gun side seems to still have that they can keep all guns out of criminal hands.
2 Likes
Huh, and who represents the 2/3 of America that don’t own guns and just don’t want to get shot by the responsible 1/3 with their guns?
You do realize that non-gun owners outnumber gun owners and as all of this continues to escalate in politics, it isn’t going to go away, right?
You’re basically arguing for business as usual around guns and others are saying “Let’s do something.”
Hell, and this point I do expect a ban on handguns eventually just because by the time we actually generate the will to do something through the politicians, people are just going to be fed up with the NRA’s “la la la nothing to see here” approach.
3 Likes
You don’t have to worry about the responsible 1/3rd. You have to worry mainly about the fraction of 1% who use them for criminal acts, and an even tinier portion who may injure or kill someone in an accident (though if you aren’t around guns, you pretty much have nothing to fear there.)
Why is it escalating? Crime is down. Are you threatening mob rule, basically? Great.
“Let’s do SOMETHING.” often times does NOTHING productive. NOTHING is preferable over something that either makes things worse, or doesn’t really help the issue. The TSA? Complete waste. People after the attack on the recruitment center wanted to do a bunch of things. I am like, “Why? Why SHOULD we change anything to stop something that has happened one time ever?”
Want to save 10K lives a year and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages? Put in mandatory breathalyzers to start your car. I mean we have to do SOMETHING to stop drunk drivers, right?
There is nothing to see here. the number of people using guns in crimes is a tiny, tiny fraction of gun owners. Most of those people who are committing the crimes and the VICTIMS have arrest records and are engaged in illicit activities. Hell even as much as the NRA wants to beat the defense drum, the fact of the matter is if you are a victim of violent crime, odds are you will know your attacker and it won’t come as a shock to those around you. (I say these things looking at more detailed stats of homicides from large cities like Milwaukee and LA).
Yes, there are those who are completely innocent victims either caught in crossfire or targeted as prey. But the majority is bad people doing bad things to each other.
But by all means, let’s just lock the whole world down into some 1984-esque scheme where I have to show my ID to buy fucking Children’s Sudafed.
4 Likes
Anarchists make all of the best toys.
4 Likes
We call it “voting” and “democracy.”
How about “try it and if it doesn’t work, roll it back” instead of “nothing”? “Nothing” isn’t working so well from the point of view of most people though you say it works dandy since, overall, violent crime is down from two decades ago.
I have to go through more process to get sudafed at the pharmacy than I do to buy a gun for cash from some guy I meet from a listing.
3 Likes
