US House of Representatives passes bill loosening gun restrictions - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52955555]But how can a mutually satisfactory compromise be achieved when [B]one side wants nothing less than a total ban?[/B][/QUOTE] this is the problem. You think they have a favorable view of the pro-gun people who push laws that force schools to allow people to take guns onto campus, open carry, and easy conceal carry? They pretty much see you as wanting anarchy lol

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52955555]But how can a mutually satisfactory compromise be achieved when one side wants nothing less than a total ban?[/QUOTE] That's the entire point of a compromise. Both sides want something that the other doesn't. You work together, have civil discourse, make concessions in your stance and the other side does the same. Give and take. That's like, one of the fundamental parts of the way our government works. Or did work at least. With all the lobbying and money that's been going around everyone's been too busy selling out to give a shit anymore it seems.

Guns don't kill people, people who have been a victim of a society that demonizes mental health and immortalizes terrorism use guns as one of many available methods to kill people. Seriously. It seems so stupidly simple. Give up on gun control, attack what's causing guns to used to hurt people.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52955568]Guns don't kill people, people who have been a victim of a society that demonizes mental health and immortalizes terrorism use guns as one of many available methods to kill people. Seriously. It seems so stupidly simple. Give up on gun control, attack what's causing guns to used to hurt people.[/QUOTE] Cigarettes don't cause cancer, uncontrolled cell growth causes cancer. There can be contributing factors to things. This is why countries with lower gun ownership rates, but similar crime rates, still have less lethal crime and suicide attempts as guns are less select-able as a tool of choice.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52955568]Guns don't kill people, people who have been a victim of a society that demonizes mental health and immortalizes terrorism use guns as one of many available methods to kill people. It seems so stupidly simple. Give up on gun control, attack what's causing people to used to hurt people.[/QUOTE] "Guns don't kill people" is quite the cop-out tbh. We go over this every time these threads come up, but guns inherently make the process of killing another human being faster and less troublesome to the shooter than say, running around with a sledgehammer or whatever (actual) tool you can think of. The ability to project high velocity chunks of metal at people you're nowhere near sure as shit sounds like something that makes mass killings infinitely easier. Guns enable spree killers, it's not just a case of them "not killing" people. This entire argument encompasses a number of dynamics and how guns make violent crime magnitudes easier is a pretty important one.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52955568]Guns don't kill people, people who have been a victim of a society that demonizes mental health and immortalizes terrorism use guns as one of many available methods to kill people. It seems so stupidly simple. Give up on gun control, attack what's causing people to used to hurt people.[/QUOTE] I said this in another thread sometime back, but no matter what, at the end of the day, this whole gun control debate is inherently fucking pointless and wont ever stop anyone from being killed in reality, purely just because, ignoring if it'd even work to begin with, banning them will never ever ever ever happen, and it'd be far more productive for everyone if they tried discussing the root causes of why people do it to begin with. Even if thats still unlikely to go anywhere, it'd have more of a chance to compared to "BAN GUNS / NO BAN GUNS REEEEEEEEEEE" that it always devolves into literally every single time something terrible happens, which leads to nothing changing and preventing the next terrible thing, literally every single time. It never goes anywhere. Every single time.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955573]Cigarettes don't cause cancer, uncontrolled cell growth causes cancer. There can be contributing factors to things. This is why countries with lower gun ownership rates, but similar crime rates, still have less lethal crime and suicide attempts as guns are less select-able as a tool of choice.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=hexpunK;52955579]"Guns don't kill people" is quite the cop-out tbh. We go over this every time these threads come up, but guns inherently make the process of killing another human being faster and less troublesome to the shooter than say, running around with a sledgehammer or whatever (actual) tool you can think of. The ability to project high velocity chunks of metal at people you're nowhere near sure as shit sounds like something that makes mass killings infinitely easier. Guns enable spree killers, it's not just a case of them "not killing" people. This entire argument encompasses a number of dynamics and how guns make violent crime magnitudes easier is a pretty important one.[/QUOTE] It should be noted though that mental health is absolutely a vital avenue for dealing with crime. It's just not the only one.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52955586]I said this in another thread sometime back, but no matter what, at the end of the day, this whole gun control debate is inherently fucking pointless and wont ever stop anyone from being killed in reality, purely just because, ignoring if it'd even work to begin with, banning them will never ever ever ever happen, and it'd be far more productive for everyone if they tried discussing the root causes of why people do it to begin with. Even if thats still unlikely to go anywhere, it'd have more of a chance to compared to "BAN GUNS / NO BAN GUNS REEEEEEEEEEE" that it always devolves into literally every single time something terrible happens, which leads to nothing changing and preventing the next terrible thing, literally every single time. It never goes anywhere. Every single time.[/QUOTE] Both gun control and mental health are important aspects of dealing with crime. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52955599]Both gun control and mental health are important aspects of dealing with crime. It doesn't have to be one or the other.[/QUOTE] Mental health isnt the only cause of gun crime, and my point is that whether anti or pro gun, the screaming about it never ever goes anywhere. The gun argument never goes anywhere. Ever. Its always pointless screaming and nothing productive happening.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955591]Know what else enables spree killers? The abysmal state of mental healthcare and the horrific state of how states communicate with the NICS.[/QUOTE] [quote][B] This entire argument encompasses a number of dynamics[/B][/quote] I'm well aware of that and argue for both improvements to your mental healthcare systems (after having a friend go through that shitshow whilst studying over there, yeah it's worse than I assumed really) and tightening up the existing regulations on firearms/ imposing any new ones that seem reasonable. We can't just keep preaching "mental health and NICS!" as they aren't the be-all-end-all to the problems either. Legal purchases being stolen or sold under the table feed into the criminal side of guns too after all. And the gods forsaken mess that is states rights sure as shit isn't helping as everything is too inconsistent to reasonably enforce.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955591]Know what else enables spree killers? The abysmal state of mental healthcare and the horrific state of how states communicate with the NICS. This bill attempts to address the NICS part, which i'm wholeheartedly for, in all honesty there should be [B]a federal CCW, and states should have no right to not recognize it.[/B] That being said, i'm a federalist fuck who thinks that the idea of "states rights" is just used to trample on someones rights when it's convenient to trample on them.[/QUOTE] Why? There's no indication that it decreases crime rates and if anything, it seems to [URL="https://www.nber.org/papers/w23510"]worsen[/URL] the violent kind. And historically conceal carry hasn't been allowed in most states, especially not after handguns became common. So it's not like it's even some recent crackdown.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955573]Cigarettes don't cause cancer, uncontrolled cell growth causes cancer. There can be contributing factors to things. This is why countries with lower gun ownership rates, but similar crime rates, still have less lethal crime and suicide attempts as guns are less select-able as a tool of choice.[/QUOTE] I would absolutely love to live in a gun-less society where it was universally agreed upon and everyone was happy with it, but that is simply fantasy in our current state. I totally understand your cigarette argument, but luckily for us, cigarettes was never a fundamental part of American culture. I would also absolutely love to live in an Alcohol-less society, and I believe that a ton of deaths would be prevented and social problems could be resolved. But Prohibition did not work, and I cannot expect gun bans to work any differently. The fact is: it's part of us, and we have to work with it. I'm all for simple, straightforward registration. I also believe that a registering and owning a gun should have at the very minimum the same basic steps as legally registering and driving a car. But, these are issues we can actually feasible to address at, rather than a binary 'all or nothing' approach.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52955610]Mental health isnt the only cause of gun crime, and my point is that whether anti or pro gun, the screaming about it never ever goes anywhere. The gun argument never goes anywhere. Ever. Its always pointless screaming and nothing productive happening.[/QUOTE] We're having an argument right now, I don't don't see anybody screaming. The least productive thing here is you popping in to tell everybody how pointless their discussion is.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955628]Because there are plenty of people who can be trusted with a gun, who shouldn't have to jump through 9 million hoops to legally use that gun. Lets put it this way: Say you need to go from arizona to oregon, you've got to go through california. Now, say you've got an oregon CCW, that means in oregon you can have a concealed weapon, and in arizona you can have a concealed weapon (since before arizona went constitutional carry, they reciprocated oregons CCW), but you've got to go through california. That means, at the border, you have to stop, put your gun in the trunk, lock it, and then drive through. So I ask you, if you haven't done anything in arizona to lose your rights, and you haven't done anything in oregon to lose your rights, then why, magically, do you lose your rights in california? Did you suddenly become a felon? Did you suddenly lose your citizenship? Oh no, you're just going through a state that's got no idea how to manage gun control.[/QUOTE] I thought there were safe-travel laws that let you carry as long as it's legal at point A and B, unless you mean stopping in CA for a night or similar. In which any reasonable person would just stick it out a few more hours to spend as little time in CA as possible, but still. :v:

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955628]Because there are plenty of people who can be trusted with a gun, who shouldn't have to jump through 9 million hoops to legally use that gun. Lets put it this way: Say you need to go from arizona to oregon, you've got to go through california. Now, say you've got an oregon CCW, that means in oregon you can have a concealed weapon, and in arizona you can have a concealed weapon (since before arizona went constitutional carry, they reciprocated oregons CCW), but you've got to go through california. That means, at the border, you have to stop, put your gun in the trunk, lock it, and then drive through. So I ask you, if you haven't done anything in arizona to lose your rights, and you haven't done anything in oregon to lose your rights, then why, magically, do you lose your rights in california? Did you suddenly become a felon? Did you suddenly lose your citizenship? Oh no, you're just going through a state that's got no idea how to manage gun control. You've done absolutely NOTHING wrong, and yet, you'd better remember to stash your CCW in your trunk before you're in cali, otherwise you're committing a felony. Which is assinine.[/QUOTE] Because that is an Oregon given right, not a California given right. It's not an innate federal right, and many states have unique laws and certifications that do not carry over to other states. The ability of certain people to responsibly own something does not account to an argument, especially because many of these states are shall-issue with very low barriers to entry. Especially if it is true that conceal carry increases violent crime, because in that case, some states would be forcing other states to suffer increased violent crime due to their poor policy decisions. I may be on board with a lessening of sentences and punishments, however, if someone fucks up. Or, as someone said on page 1, if something goes wrong and they may be forced to commit a felony. [QUOTE=Gbps;52955622]I would absolutely love to live in a gun-less society where it was universally agreed upon and everyone was happy with it, but that is simply fantasy in our current state. I totally understand your cigarette argument, but luckily for us, cigarettes was never a fundamental part of American culture. I would also absolutely love to live in an Alcohol-less society, and I believe that a ton of deaths and social problems could be resolved. But Prohibition did not work, and I cannot expect gun bans to work any differently. The fact is: it's part of us, and we have to work with it.[/QUOTE] Just because black markets exist does not mean that you can't regulate anything at all, or that regulations have zero effect. That's just ludicrous logic. And I don't even advocate for full-on bans, I believe that you generally should be able to acquire whatever gun you want, but with a general tightening on how easy they are to acquire and keep. Culture changes over time. Especially since the amount of households with guns is already going down over time, and is already below 40%. [thumb]https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg[/thumb]

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955616]Why? There's no indication that it decreases crime rates and if anything, it seems to [URL="https://www.nber.org/papers/w23510"]worsen[/URL] the violent kind. And historically conceal carry hasn't been allowed in most states, especially not after handguns became common. So it's not like it's even some recent crackdown.[/QUOTE] In response to your cited study, [URL="http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-research-analysis/#rtc-laws-and-violent-crime"]there are reasons to doubt it's validity[/URL]. [URL="http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/"]++(More info about concealed carry crime stats)[/URL] (As a side note, the website is clearly biased but you should be able to pick up on that. I however don't see any huge issues with this as all their arguments and points are clearly laid out and reasoned.) [URL="http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime_vulnerability"]This website is less biased, but this page focuses on defensive gun use as a whole rather than CC specifically.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52955626]We're having an argument right now, I don't don't see anybody screaming. The least productive thing here is you popping in to tell everybody how pointless their discussion is.[/QUOTE] I'm talking more in general. Its always the same arguments with nothing changing in the end. Not just on the internet, but in terms of tangible, real world attempts at solving the problem. Every time theres a shooting, it [i]immediately[/i] devolves into people arguing over whether or not they should be allowed to have guns, or what [insert gun type or accessory] should be banned, nobody ever seems to talk about any contributing factors besides what they used to carry it out with, and then the next shooting happens.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955636]Just because black markets exist does not mean that you can't regulate anything at all, or that regulations have zero effect. That's just ludicrous logic. And I don't even advocate for full-on bans, I believe that you generally should be able to acquire whatever gun you want, but with a general tightening on how easy they are to acquire and keep. Culture changes over time. Especially since the amount of households with guns is already going down over time, and is already below 40%. [thumb]https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] I agree with you. Black markets are absolutely not be a reason against regulation. But that's not what I was getting at. The point I was trying to make is that there are incredibly severe logistical and social issues with the removal of most any kind of gun in the United States that we cannot ignore, and our history has shown that in a similar way through Prohibition. I'm glad to see the percentage of gun owning Americans go down. I think people who believe in gun self-defense (again, I do not) should also be happy about that as well, just like I think policemen should be happy when stats show less people are going to prison.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52955652]I agree with you. Black markets are absolutely not be a reason against regulation. But that's not what I was getting at. The point I was trying to make is that there are incredibly severe logistical and social issues with the removal of most any kind of gun in the United States that we cannot ignore, and our history has shown that in a similar way through Prohibition. I'm glad to see the percentage of gun owning Americans go down. I think people who believe in gun self-defense (again, I do not) should also be happy about that as well, just like I think policemen should be happy when stats show less people are going to prison.[/QUOTE] Prohibition did have a strong effect when it comes to reducing alcohol consumption though (from what i remember.)* It was abolished because it was wildly unpopular and in some areas greatly increased violent crime. The question to figure out is what can you efficiently accomplish. *edit: doing some googling, it doesn't seem like this is easy to confirm one way or another, just due to data collection from the time. A lot of sources claim both ways. [QUOTE=Zombinie;52955645]In response to your cited study, [URL="http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-research-analysis/#rtc-laws-and-violent-crime"]there are reasons to doubt it's validity[/URL]. [URL="http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/"]++(More info about concealed carry crime stats)[/URL] (As a side note, the website is clearly biased but you should be able to pick up on that. I however don't see any huge issues with this as all their arguments and points are clearly laid out and reasoned.)[/QUOTE] The first link is mostly fine, there are legitimate concerns and I would not claim that it is proven fact. This is a very difficult field we're talking about. The second link is goddamn awful though. Citing a couple news events to claim it reduces crime? Doing raw crime rate comparisons? This isn't how you conduct this kind of research.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52955652]I agree with you. Black markets are absolutely not be a reason against regulation. But that's not what I was getting at. The point I was trying to make is that there are incredibly severe logistical and social issues with the removal of most any kind of gun in the United States that we cannot ignore, and our history has shown that in a similar way through Prohibition. I'm glad to see the percentage of gun owning Americans go down. I think people who believe in gun self-defense (again, I do not) should also be happy about that as well, just like I think policemen should be happy when stats show less people are going to prison.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by you "don't believe" in gun self-defense?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955640]Nope, in California you must have a weapon in the trunk, locked, and inaccessible from the passenger compartment when in transit. You also must transport ammo separate from your gun, so no just stashing it in an ammo can, oh no, you've gotta have it in an entirely separate container.[/QUOTE] I sure hope Maryland doesn't have a similar law then, or else I was a felon for a good 30 minutes or so at one point, maybe :v: :v:

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955668]So why not eliminate it entirely, and just say "this is a federal right". Why do you need to let states handle this? I'm not arguing for joe schmo being able to walk in and get a permit without training, I believe that if you're going to have a CCW you should be trained, and should continue to train yourself, but its completely assinine to not have the fed step in at this point, lets look at it like this: Was it OK for states to handle marriage, since that's what we did from our birth as a country? No, the fed stepped in when the states decided to cockmongle it up and say "well states rights says we don't have to let the GAYS get married". Same thing here, it never was a problem until it became a problem, its time for the fed to step in and say "fine, since you want to be an ass about it, we're declaring it a federal right, you lose your "states rights" to decide this".[/QUOTE] Never said you can't implement a federal CCW system. I just think it's a bad idea. Though, it could at least be used to set up some strong regulations surrounding acquisition of a license, versus this current bill, by overriding states laws. Marriage was always a problem, people just weren't necessarily loud about it. And the fact that marriage comes with federal benefits attached to it effectively necessitates federal government involvement. Also, it was unconstitutional what states were doing, ergo, the supreme court addressed it. This bill has nothing to do with what's constitutional and is purely legislative.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955669]I sure hope Maryland doesn't have a similar law then, or else I was a felon for a good 30 minutes or so at one point, maybe :v: :v:[/QUOTE] That's federal law for if you're traveling through a state on your way to another state. Unless saiud state is NY then they ignore it and arrest you anyways.

State's rights are one thing, but states shouldn't have the right to independently restrict rights established at the federal level.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955684]I would argue that it's high time to get rid of the idea of "states rights", because they're perpetually used to fuck people over, time, and time again. I personally loathe the idea of "walk in, get CCW" that some states have, but find it assinine that it doesn't matter how much training you have, for some states it'll never be enough. Enter, the federal CCW. A giant middle finger to the idea of "states rights", with the fed stepping in and saying "no more state CCW, this is what you need, this is what you're going to use, no you don't get a say in who gets one, or if you're going to accept them.".[/QUOTE] States rights is mostly a boogeyman that I don't really care that much about. Both aisles generally cite it when convenient, ignore it when not. My ideal would probably be a highly-restrictive federal CCW.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955665]What do you mean by you "don't believe" in gun self-defense?[/QUOTE] I guess that's a bad way to phrase it. I don't wish for an America that must rely on guns for self-defense from other people. If it's self-defense from wild animals, have at it.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52955467]([URL="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm"]the claim somebody made that knives kill more people than guns in the US is outright false. The majority of homicides in the US involve firearms.[/URL]).[/QUOTE] Hey, I didn't see this earlier but I'm the one that said that and you're right, it is false. I really fucked that sentence up, what I was trying to convey was that the types of guns Wal Mart sells (exclusively long guns) are responsible for fewer deaths than knives, to counter proboards' Wal Mart argument.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52955695]I guess that's a bad way to phrase it. I don't wish for an America that must rely on guns for self-defense from other people. If it's self-defense from wild animals, have at it.[/QUOTE] That's completely reasonable. No one explicitly wants to use their gun defensively, really. I've ran what it might be like through my head, but I'd really rather not shoot someone and have to deal with that whole mess.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955699]I'd argue that a federal CCW should have a training requirement, as well as a background check requirement, but I'd generally argue against "highly restrictive" since that's what california has used, and it generally means: Unless your name is up in lights, or you work for the government, you ain't getting shit.[/QUOTE] Depends on the training and whether renewal is required but yeah, that'd probably be okay and is unlikely to really cause issues in the grand scheme of things. My main beef is with proliferation. Otherwise, in the long run I'd go even further in saying that any gun should be attainable provided sufficient barriers are enacted.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955699]I'd argue that a federal CCW should have a training requirement, as well as a background check requirement, but I'd generally argue against "highly restrictive" since that's what california has used, and it generally means: Unless your name is up in lights, or you work for the government, you ain't getting shit. More over, i'd argue against the idea of "prove you need it", which is the primary means of cali's strict "highly restrictive" CCW.[/QUOTE] Who foots the bill for the training?