Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[AFK]

In response to LMNO:

Well, first, it should be framed as public safety, period.  That entails kids AND adults, because it should be about reducing ALL gun violence deaths.  Yes, the kids thing hits home for me for three reasons:


I have kids.
One kid going to school at an elementary school not very different than Newton.
Kids should not be scared of going to school.


I mean, c'mon, whether you have kids or not, how can that be acceptible?  1st graders being afraid of their classroom.  How can we accept that?


And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way.  The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example.  Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died.  So I understand what you are saying, in theory, but it just doesn't match up with what is actually happening in terms of policy-making.  There is too much gun worship in this country to ever allow it to become an actual slippery slope.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way.  The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example.  Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died. 

And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.

[AFK]

It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.

Because you have to start somewhere.  Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy, incremental.

Weren't you just the guy arguing that there was no slippery slope?   

Yes.  But policy making in America is incremental, and ratcheted.  Again, the assault weapon ban from the 90s is an example of that.  Policy proposals are going to be weighed individually, and given how slow policy making is, by different Congresses.  And again, the gun worship in America would never allow it to become a slippery slope.

[AFK]

And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way.  The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example.  Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died. 

And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.

Because it was a shitty policy with tons of loopholes.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.

Because you have to start somewhere.  Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy, incremental.

Weren't you just the guy arguing that there was no slippery slope?   

Yes.  But policy making in America is incremental, and ratcheted.  Again, the assault weapon ban from the 90s is an example of that.  Policy proposals are going to be weighed individually, and given how slow policy making is, by different Congresses.  And again, the gun worship in America would never allow it to become a slippery slope.

I think it's better if we don't allow the policy process to begin at all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way.  The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example.  Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died. 

And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.

Because it was a shitty policy with tons of loopholes.

Oh, so it failed because it wasn't pure enough?

Where have I heard THAT before?

[AFK]

It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.

Because you have to start somewhere.  Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy, incremental.

Weren't you just the guy arguing that there was no slippery slope?   

Yes.  But policy making in America is incremental, and ratcheted.  Again, the assault weapon ban from the 90s is an example of that.  Policy proposals are going to be weighed individually, and given how slow policy making is, by different Congresses.  And again, the gun worship in America would never allow it to become a slippery slope.

I think it's better if we don't allow the policy process to begin at all.

That ship has sailed.  Whether you like it or not, there is significant public sentiment to do something to curb gun violence, and gun control is goong to be a part of that.  Invariably it may well fail thanks to the deep reach of the NRA and other special interests.  But the public will is there to demand that something is done.

[LMNO]

That ship has sailed.  Whether you like it or not, there is significant public sentiment to do something to curb gun violence,

Good.  Violence needs to be reduced.

and gun control is goong to be a part of that. 

Bad, because it will be ineffective.

But the public will is there to demand that something is done.

Good, so long as they understand what they should be demanding.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That ship has sailed.  Whether you like it or not, there is significant public sentiment to do something to curb gun violence, and gun control is goong to be a part of that.  Invariably it may well fail thanks to the deep reach of the NRA and other special interests.  But the public will is there to demand that something is done.

Fantastic.  Now it just has to be made into law then, right?

Good luck with that.

[AFK]

That ship has sailed.  Whether you like it or not, there is significant public sentiment to do something to curb gun violence,

Good.  Violence needs to be reduced.

and gun control is goong to be a part of that. 

Bad, because it will be ineffective.

But the public will is there to demand that something is done.

Good, so long as they understand what they should be demanding.

By itself it will be ineffective, yes, but as part of a comprehensive approach, it CAN be effective, that of course will be up to the crafters of the policy.

[LMNO]

but as part of a comprehensive approach, it CAN be effective,

I think this might be one of those sticking points.  Technology is fucking amazing, and humans can be very clever.  If there are rules about a kind of gun that's banned, you can be sure in a year there will be a gun that is perfectly legal, and yet does exactly what the ban was trying to prevent.  In fact, that gun probably already exists.

[AFK]

but as part of a comprehensive approach, it CAN be effective,

I think this might be one of those sticking points.  Technology is fucking amazing, and humans can be very clever.  If there are rules about a kind of gun that's banned, you can be sure in a year there will be a gun that is perfectly legal, and yet does exactly what the ban was trying to prevent.  In fact, that gun probably already exists.

Of course, we have that problem with substance abuse.  Bath Salts were banned last year federally but crafty chemists have already been able to alter the chemical structure to create new drugs that get around the ban.  So there will always be an issue where the policies are going to need to be able to keep up with that changing landscape.  Is it a tall order?  Yep.  Could it fail?  Yep.  But that doesn't mean we don't try.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

but as part of a comprehensive approach, it CAN be effective,

I think this might be one of those sticking points.  Technology is fucking amazing, and humans can be very clever.  If there are rules about a kind of gun that's banned, you can be sure in a year there will be a gun that is perfectly legal, and yet does exactly what the ban was trying to prevent.  In fact, that gun probably already exists.

Of course, we have that problem with substance abuse.  Bath Salts were banned last year federally but crafty chemists have already been able to alter the chemical structure to create new drugs that get around the ban.  So there will always be an issue where the policies are going to need to be able to keep up with that changing landscape.  Is it a tall order?  Yep.  Could it fail?  Yep.  But that doesn't mean we don't try.

It does for me.  Knowingly walking into a situation of shitty legislation is always a bad idea.

Of course, I also disagree with the idea that there's a need for this legislation.

[P3nT4gR4m]

One man's "try" is another man's "complete fucking waste of time"

I'm with LMNO - the key to this is to work on banning (read "eradicate") this national fixation you guys have with blowing the living piss out each other.

I don't agree with the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. Guns do kill people and quite effectively too but they do need human intervention to work their magic.

Given that you can't prevent guns (just trust me on this) maybe there's avenues worth exploring that would reduce the homicidal intent that causes the guns to kill people?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

One man's "try" is another man's "complete fucking waste of time"

I'm with LMNO - the key to this is to work on banning (read "eradicate") this national fixation you guys have with blowing the living piss out each other.

I don't agree with the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. Guns do kill people and quite effectively too but they do need human intervention to work their magic.

Given that you can't prevent guns (just trust me on this) maybe there's avenues worth exploring that would reduce the homicidal intent that causes the guns to kill people?

Reducing economic inequality reduces crime of all kinds. But I'm a filthy librul socialist, so....