[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53165056]The solution is literally right in front of us, at least it seems obvious to me: Universal healthcare and a constitutionally protected licensing process. [B]You're just not thinking outside the anti-gun-control box I think.[/B][/QUOTE]
I, uh, don't think you've seen my other posts on this topic.
Universal healthcare and a licensing process are just the tip of the iceberg. What about the glorification of mass killers leading to copycat attacks? What about the failure of the War on Drugs, both as an example of how prohibition is ineffective, and a source of violence and crime? What about inner-city gang violence, the primary source of homicide in the US? What about gun sellers who knowingly make deals with felons, but which the ATF doesn't have the resources to investigate regularly? What about straw purchase, the main source of guns used in crime, which in many states isn't even prosecuted? What about examining the kinds of weapons used in crime, like how 97% of homicides are carried out with handguns? What about the shockingly high suicide rate, which comprises 2/3 of the deaths due to firearms every year?
'Mental health!' and 'Restrict guns!' both seem to me like simplistic answers to a complex problem, more soundbites than policy.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53165257]I, uh, don't think you've seen my other posts on this topic.
Universal healthcare and a licensing process are just the tip of the iceberg. What about the glorification of mass killers leading to copycat attacks? What about the failure of the War on Drugs, both as an example of how prohibition is ineffective, and a source of violence and crime? What about inner-city gang violence, the primary source of homicide in the US? What about gun sellers who knowingly make deals with felons, but which the ATF doesn't have the resources to investigate regularly? What about straw purchase, the main source of guns used in crime, which in many states isn't even prosecuted? What about examining the kinds of weapons used in crime, like how 97% of homicides are carried out with handguns? What about the shockingly high suicide rate, which comprises 2/3 of the deaths due to firearms every year?
'Mental health!' and 'Restrict guns!' both seem to me like simplistic answers to a complex problem, more soundbites than policy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah fortunately I never even came CLOSE to implying my two proposals were the be all end all policy proposal for all of America's ills.
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
And what about all those things? Maybe saying it's a "simple solution" is over hyping it, because strictly speaking, you can't "solve" the entirety of America's ills, but my two proposals (which are literally particular policies, not just "soundbites") would be HUGE and multifaceted in solving a lot of America's gun and healthcare ills. Which should push us closer to a society that would solve all the issues you mentioned
[QUOTE=Protocol7;53165127]There is a time and a place for protest. Kids have plenty of time to protest outside of school. You might argue leaving school is more "impactful," I would argue education is important and the protest can wait until classes are over.
Should people be allowed to skip shifts at work to protest and have zero repercussions?[/QUOTE]
Protests aren't meant to be convenient.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;53165127]There is a time and a place for protest.[/QUOTE]
I feel like this defeats the whole point of protesting in the first place...
Guns aren't the problem here, dickhead kids who pick on other kids and lack of mental health options are the problem here.
And get back to class you little shits.
I think people looking down on these kids like they're just punks who want to skip class are also part of the problem.
We treat kids like they don't know what they're saying, that their opinions are invalid, that they're just the property of their parents.
They don't feel like they're people that matter and that they have no one and no where to turn to.
I think this is one of the core reasons some kids get driven to dark places that leads some to shoot up schools, and so I think that line of thinking needs to stop.
[QUOTE=genpung;53165694]I think people looking down on these kids like they're just punks who want to skip class are also part of the problem.
We treat kids like they don't know what they're saying, that their opinions are invalid, that they're just the property of their parents.
They don't feel like they're people that matter and that they have no one and no where to turn to.
I think this is one of the core reasons some kids get driven to dark places that leads some to shoot up schools, and so I think that line of thinking needs to stop.[/QUOTE]
the generation of kids protesting is definitely going to be a powerful force of change, there is no denying that, and the discomfort people have to their action only proves how disconnected some of society and a lot of the older generation(s) are.
[QUOTE=Scot;53164920]the mental health meme
[/QUOTE]
Can we stop trying to discredit real problems by calling them memes please
Compromising to find a commn solution is not a slippery slope. We have a balance of power in America and allowing guns to be put behind even the lightest forms of regulation is not a guaranteed gateway to defacto bans. In california we begrudgingly accept but lobby against our flawed laws for the very fact that while extreme, they still preserve our basic right to actually own firearms. Yes we gave you the 30 caliber clip ghost gun politicians but agreeing on background checks or licensing isn't tantamount to becoming a Urban liberal booty-slave. If dems ever in the history of america had enough unilateral power in government to ban guns, the AWB would've been the second amendment's pre-finisher.
We NEED proper legislation on firearms. Not dumbfuck pistol grip bans, not bulleted lists outlining what sort of semi-automatic magazine fed rifle is highly dangerous based on its cololor and furniture, not weirdly specific named ban rosters that look like they were ripped out of a videogame. All of that is retarded, and the vast majority of us can agree. However, a person with a known history and several red flags like this recent shooter should not have expedited or normal access to purchase firearms like a regular person would - even if we do not outright prevent a person like this from purchasing firearms, the process they go through to acquire one should be more rigorous and beset with delays to provide appropriate time to investigate them.
For the record though, most first-world countries are legitimately more restrictive in terms of buying and owning firearms than the US. I'm sure you know this - if you truly mean they got it figured out then clearly regulation plays a role in that.
[editline]28th February 2018[/editline]
And keep in mind that the current "wave" of popular gun legislation establishment dems push is not the same paradigm as regulations over seas. Lots of european countries have common sense laws in the literal meaning of that phrase, not the conservative-bait cheekriser bans we do here. We should seek to emulate legislation that actually serves a practical purpose, together, without fear that one side will somehow collapse the system like a row of dominos and take everyone's guns.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;53165190]So please explain to me exactly why protests by students [I]have[/I] to happen during school hours, and you can't have access to both education and opportunity to protest by doing so in your free time outside of school hours? It's not an either/or situation by any means. If truancy truly has an effect on the school budget, then protesting during school hours will reduce the budget and in effect make education in America less effective, which is a net negative for society, and I can't see how you can advocate for that in good faith.
Everyone has a right to protest, but you would be stupid to shoot yourself in the foot first. I don't want to dissuade students from protesting at all, in fact I want to encourage it - but it has to be done right. If it affects anything, it should [I]not[/I] affect your future.[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked school (esp in winter) takes up a significant chunk of the day, for me it went from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM, meaning by the time you get down to where you want to protest, the representatives are already leaving, or only a couple hours from doing so.
Furthermore, they left at 12:00, meaning they likely at least attended their first half classes, and only left during [I]their[/I] lunch period.
Your disdain for political activism sickens me.
People get more politically apethetic as they get older, precisely because a wife, children, and their job prevents them from doing exactly this. It is in college students and highschool students where enough risk can be taken in the modern era; and let's be honest, they're going to be doing much better for themselves using their time this way, than in the failing classrooms of contemporary American highschool.
[QUOTE=Louis;53164950]guns arent seen as a right anywhere other than america idk why you attribute gun loss to something like a loss of a human right[/QUOTE]
You know maybe progun posters would be willing to listen to posters like you more if you didn't frame your posts with smug condescension and what is essentially country trolling.
But I doubt you made this post to open a dialogue so I dont think you really care.
It's almost as if we have separate countries in the first place because different peoples are determined their lives differently...lol. To many of us Americans it is a fundamental right. There is no such thing as a truly "universal" truth that can justify taking one of our righrs away just because you don't value it yourself, it is what we all agree it is, and in our country we have enshrined a set of rights which cannot simply be taken away.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53165917]You know maybe progun posters would be willing to listen to posters like you more if you didn't frame your posts with smug condescension and what is essentially country trolling.
But I doubt you made this post to open a dialogue so I dont think you really care.[/QUOTE]
But he has a point
[editline]28th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;53165934]It's almost as if we have separate countries in the first place because different peoples are determined their lives differently...lol. To many of us Americans it is a fundamental right. There is no such thing as a truly "universal" truth, it is what we all agree it is, and in our country we have enshrined a set of rights which cannot simply be taken away.[/QUOTE]
It's called an amendment for a reason
An amendment is indivisible from our constitution, and to change its effect requires a level of congressional cooperation that, at least theoretically should reflect a common will to move on. Until that day comes there is no justification for not treating our rights as rights. We have them for a reason.
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;53165941]An amendment is indivisible from our constitution, and to change its effect requires a level of congressional cooperation that, at least theoretically should reflect a common will to move on. Until that day comes there is no justification for not treating our rights as rights. We have them for a reason.[/QUOTE]
Like people said, gun control wouldn't necessarily infringe
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165935]But he has a point
[/QUOTE]
He has no point unless it was to say that the US is a backwards because we allow gun ownership.
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165953]Like people said, gun control wouldn't necessarily infringe[/QUOTE]
What exactly is your logic here?
[QUOTE=Amber902;53165957]He has no point unless it was to say that the US is a backwards because we allow gun ownership.
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
What exactly is your logic here?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps backwards in a certain respect
My point being that you can have the second amendment and still have gun control
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165953]Like people said, gun control wouldn't necessarily infringe[/QUOTE]
I too don't believe gun regulation inherently infringes that right, but I just took contention with Louis's implication that because other peoples and countries don't share our values, our values aren't important for us or don't deserve to be preserved. Barring that Americans don't hold public stoning and murder as inalienable rights, the second amendment is important to many of us and total loss of guns actually would be exactly an infringement of our rights, both in a moral sense and a strictly legal sense.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165959]Perhaps backwards in a certain respect[/quote]
That logic only works if gun banning is a strictly progressive stance, which is clearly not the case. Several fairly well off and successful European polities allow for gun ownership (notably the Czech Republic and Switzerland) and numerous horrible 3rd world dictatorships ban civilian gun ownership. Gun ownership/banning is not purely conservative or progressive stance and thus has no bearing on how "progressive" or "backwards" a nation is.
[quote]
My point being that you can have the second amendment and still have gun control[/QUOTE]
Thats like saying you can still have meat without animals. Yeah you can get a shitty tofu burger, but its not actual meat.
Imo Amber I can't agree, I think it's more an issue of having a right to eat meat, but restrictions on which animals you can butcher :cool:
Which, to a degree I think is reasonable. We should have practical gun control without fear of creeping overreach. I do think it's possible, even as my own State dangerously treads the line to banning a whole action-type of firearm.
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;53165991]Imo Amber I can't agree, I think it's more an issue of having a right to eat meat, but restrictions on which animals you can butcher :cool:
.[/QUOTE]
My logic for that analogy is that the government can technically ban all guns except for single shot flintlock pistols without technically violating the second amendment. Which would essentially destroy the second amendment and leave us with a vague facsimile of it.
I understand where you're coming from (ilikecorn) and I am even a victim of this type of conundrum (in LA self-defense is not a valid reason to apply for a cc permit........................) but the very least we can do is come together and try. These impossible licensing situations crop up in states with partisan monopolies, and even then they face resistance - that particular CC issue for CA went all the way up to the supreme court, only stifled by their refusal to see the case. On the federal level there is no liberal monopoly - ours is a diverse country and the very fact that we argue about this is proof that no one would just let that slide in Congress. right now it's honestly better to do something than nothing at all. We have little to actually lose - states opposed to gun regulation wouldnt dare go further and states for it have already enacted some of the strictest regulations in existence. Hell, maybe if our reps cooperated for a real solution we might see a loosening of restrictions in the more extremely blue states. Seriously, I get your fears but our gun legislation in this country is either lacking or flawed. Both sides need to be corrected.
[editline]28th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Amber902;53165997]My logic for that analogy is that the government can technically ban all guns except for single shot flintlock pistols without technically violating the second amendment. Which would essentially destroy the second amendment and leave us with a vague facsimile of it.[/QUOTE]
That certainly makes sense, though like I've indicated similarly before that really is the darkest future imaginable, and precedent set on the highwst levels of government clearly makes a case against these sorts of broader bans. We shouldn't ban semi-autos, I'm personally against it but a line where one can and cannot purchase a gun should be clearly and mutually drawn. That is, with everyone's consent. The only thing stopping us is actually getting eveyone's consent, and I think being afraid of any legislation on guns is unreasonable. Not even Hawaii succeeded at their gun confiscations. There will always be someone to fight against overreach - hell, it might just be us.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53166005]I mean i've been proven right by history, the california awb started as a registry, and then it magically got closed. Whats to stop a state (or the fed) from simply refusing new applications for a license. Nothing. At all. Which is why I argue against these things, because until the day that the left stops plugging their ears and saying "but you dont need it", then they cant be trusted with such an easily abused framework.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I suppose to really come to terms on both sides we first need to recognize that the current democratic approach is fundamentally flawed. I think most dems and the legislators themselves need to recognize that their zealous gun bills are counterproductive. It's like asking someone to change theirs ways while smearing their mouth with shit. Fuck me if I knew how to make that happen, but I am not suggesting that gun-lovers cave to the democratic paradigm on guns - nobody needs that feelgood AWB shit. We need to throw it all in the trash and start from scratch, but something should come out of that new, and fear of overreach is only serving as an obstacle to end this debate once and for all
edit:
And still, you gotta recognize how finely CA treads the line between browniepoints and still letting us keep our guns - the new AWB expansion is a massive inconvenience but it doesnt stop me from owning an AR-15. I will totally and finally concede to you (ilikecorn) if CA straight up bans semi autos, I will. But since the supreme court rulings circa 2008 California's laws have constantly been under fire and I think it's af least safe to say that our basic individual right to bear arms, barring some restrictions, is not threatened by the implementation of, say, background checks to bar mentally unstable individuals from buying guns, or as I suggested, at least from immediately buying guns prior to further investigation. On the federal level we should be strictly and transparently enforcing these checks. I can't say how feasible it is with the current partisan attitudes but that's my ultimate take. Screw the AWBs, a gun's a gun and responsible checks can go miles.
The major thing that bothers me about the majority of gun control is that it has little to no effect on actual gun related crime. If the antigun politicians actually wanted to tackle gun crime then they'd spend their efforts looking for ways to tackle the illegal gun market, but instead they harp on about the small minority of legal gun owners who go off the deep end.
It also doesnt help that dumbass militias and open carry protestors give antigun politicians plenty of ammo and support because of the negative image they give firearms
:snip:
[QUOTE=Amber902;53165979]That logic only works if gun banning is a strictly progressive stance, which is clearly not the case. Several fairly well off and successful European polities allow for gun ownership (notably the Czech Republic and Switzerland) and numerous horrible 3rd world dictatorships ban civilian gun ownership. Gun ownership/banning is not purely conservative or progressive stance and thus has no bearing on how "progressive" or "backwards" a nation is.
Thats like saying you can still have meat without animals. Yeah you can get a shitty tofu burger, but its not actual meat.[/QUOTE]
Not at all, not ANY gun control, just the kinds that are working on other countries right now
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53166040]Not at all, not ANY gun control, just the kinds that are working on other countries right now[/QUOTE]
This statement makes no sense.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53165957]He has no point unless it was to say that the US is a backwards because we allow gun ownership.[/QUOTE]
No he explicitly was talking about how we treat it as a human right. I don't see how his post was smug at all.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53166093]No he explicitly was talking about how we treat it as a human right. I don't see how his post was smug at all.[/QUOTE]
Its a slightly better worded version of the standard "hurr america stupid guns are bad" snipe.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53166102]Its a slightly better worded version of the standard "hurr america stupid guns are bad" snipe.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't look like that at all. Maybe you are just expecting that kind of response if anyone even mentions America.
I am all for the protest. Hope more happen just like it. & saying that they should do this outside of school time is pretty ridiculous, when the whole point of the protest is to make a point and gather many other school kids, that is the perfect time to do it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
