Election 2016

[Eikre]

The disease is too many people who think that violence is a good idea. Getting rid of them isn't particularly easy, but neither is gun control.

Well now that we've established that everything that "isn't particularly easy" exist in the same category of difficulty, I guess I'll just go outside and try to flap my arms until I lift off and ascend to the moon. It won't be particularly easy, but neither is surviving breast cancer, and my mom did that, and she raised me to be no less capable.

[Kaelik]

Not innocent people, bad people. It's tautological that if you remove of all violent people from society then there will be no violence. The disease isn't too many guns. The disease is too many people who think that violence is a good idea. Getting rid of them isn't particularly easy, but neither is gun control.

Yeah no. All people are violent people. Some people are only violent when they are in a position of authority, some people are only violent when they are scared and confused, some people are only violent when they feel challenged. All those people exist, and you have no way of knowing how someone will be violent until they do. So any system you design is either so stupid, like you, that is assumes huge swaths are safe, or so fucked up that it basically amounts to "fixing" problems only too late.

It is really really really really easy to make it so that brief stints of violence don't kill people most of the time by removing lethal weapons. We all understand that when someone does get triggered, we don't want them shooting the invading burglar with a nuclear weapon, it isn't that we trust them to be smart enough not to use a weapon that will kill them, we have empirical evidence that guns kill their owners more than burglars, it is that when they inevitably fuck up we want to minimize the damage.

Gun control means that when people are triggered to violence, it is less likely to be lethal. It is super easy to accomplish. Unlike your absolutely batshit claim that we can somehow divine who will in the course of their life, end up employing violence. A claim so incredibly fucking stupid that I thought you were sarcastically suggesting that taking guns away from innocent people is equivalent to imprisoning them.

[hyzmarca]

The disease is too many people who think that violence is a good idea. Getting rid of them isn't particularly easy, but neither is gun control.

No, actually gun control is really easy. We managed it here. In Australia. For decades. We had an easy and beneficial increase in gun control under a conservative government that was otherwise massively incompetent to the point of being officially branded by the IMF as Australia's most wasteful government in history (you know, despite being, again, conservative and thus somewhat in line with their traditionally preferred policies).

If incompetents like Australia and John "What, really THAT guy is your Prime Minister?" Howard can do gun control, then gun control IS fucking easy.

Edit: Seriously THIS GUY basically ended mass shootings on a whole continent. And you think it was HARD?

I should point out that Australia didn't have the same gun culture, didn't have the nearly as many guns, didn't have constitutional protections for gun ownership and didn't have the paranoid cold dead hands militia contingent.

Any attempt to pass mandatory buyback laws would be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. And anything less than that faces the unfortunate problem of the 300 million privately owned guns in America.

I suspect that level of gun control in the United States would result in more mass shootings, not less. As many people would take it as a sign that the UN NWO Communist Sharia takeover is imminent. It also wouldn't last, and would be overturned by the courts long before it was actually implemented.

[PhoneLobster]

I should point out that Australia didn't have the same gun culture, didn't have the nearly as many guns, didn't have constitutional protections for gun ownership and didn't have the paranoid cold dead hands militia contingent.

Ah, the old "American Exceptionalism" argument. Sorry. The USA is not exceptional. You CAN learn from history and the actions of other, VERY similar nations like Australia. For instance, most of the bullshit you claim is different in America is actually the same in Australia and the only things that actually are different is that you DO in fact have more guns and more guns per capita and a portion of the population DOES in fact THINK there is absolute constitutional protection (there actually isn't though). We had/still have the same fucking gun nutter culture and cold dead hands bullshit here too jumbuck.

But the "Sure you removed a vast amount of dangerous guns, but we can't because there are EVEN MORE of them that desperately need to be removed!" is... not a sane position, it's just an argument to remove more guns more desperately. And like I said, the constitutional protection thing is widespread fantasy reading in FAR more than the actual constitution promises.

I suspect that level of gun control in the United States would result in more mass shootings, not less.

They said the same fucking thing here. They were wrong.

[hyzmarca]

I should point out that Australia didn't have the same gun culture, didn't have the nearly as many guns, didn't have constitutional protections for gun ownership and didn't have the paranoid cold dead hands militia contingent.

Ah, the old "American Exceptionalism" argument. Sorry. The USA is not exceptional. You CAN learn from history and the actions of other, VERY similar nations like Australia. For instance, most of the bullshit you claim is different in America is actually the same in Australia and the only things that actually are different is that you DO in fact have more guns and more guns per capita and a portion of the population DOES in fact THINK there is absolute constitutional protection (there actually isn't though). We had/still have the same fucking gun nutter culture and cold dead hands bullshit here too jumbuck.

But the "Sure you removed a vast amount of dangerous guns, but we can't because there are EVEN MORE of them that desperately need to be removed!" is... not a sane position, it's just an argument to remove more guns more desperately. And like I said, the constitutional protection thing is widespread fantasy reading in FAR more than the actual constitution promises.

I suspect that level of gun control in the United States would result in more mass shootings, not less.

They said the same fucking thing here. They were wrong.

A powerful and reactionary gun lobby makes it extremely difficult to pass gun control legislation due to confiscation fears. Anyone who actually proposed confiscation at a federal level wouldn't get reelected, because said powerful and reactionary gun lobby would make it a point to target them.

In order to pass gun control legislation, you pretty much need the support of the powerful and reactionary gun lobby, and that isn't going to happen if it looks like its a step towards confiscation.

It isn't American exceptionalism to point out that the Brady Campaign and the NRA have been fighting a political war for the past two decades and that so far the NRA is winning because the Brady Campaign drastically overstepped and the backlash against them ended up overturning most of their successes.

It doesn't help that before Brady championed the Assault Weapons Ban the NRA was mostly pro gun control and the AWB pushed them all the way to the other side.

Gun control is an extremely polarizing issue at the moment and it's one that no sane politician really wants to step into.

[Maxus]

The NRA is so politically powerful here, they've ensured there was no actual head of the ATF (alcohol tobacco firearms) for seven years.

In 2006, the National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbied U.S. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner to add a provision to the Patriot Act reauthorization that requires Senate confirmation of ATF director nominees. (Prior to that, ATF directors were simply appointed by the administration.)[45] After that, the NRA lobbied against and effectively blocked every presidential nominee, leaving the agency in the hands of acting directors for seven years.[45][46][47]

In 2007, Bush nominated Mike Sullivan for the position, a U.S. Attorney from Boston with a good reputation, but Republican Sens. Larry Craig and Michael D. Crapo, both from Idaho, blocked his confirmation after complaints from an Idaho gun dealer. In 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Andrew Traver, head of the ATF's Denver division, to fill the top spot, but the Senate never held his confirmation hearings.[48][49] The NRA strongly opposed Traver's nomination.[50] Ultimately B. Todd Jones was nominated by Obama and confirmed by the Senate as permanent ATF director on July 31, 2013.

Normally, PL, I'd be with you on the American exceptionalism is bollocks things, but did you have a parallel case of this in Australia?

Or how about the Bundy Ranch thing, where a bunch of wingnuts went out to a hypocrite farmer because they thought this would lead to a precedent in government seizure powers (among other reasons).

[Kaelik]

Arguing that because the NRA are dickholes who act in contravention of the will of the people by exerting undue influence on the political process, therefore we should stop trying to obtain any political reform ever or to address the public perception of the issue is basically the literally dumbest thing anyone could possibly say.

[hyzmarca]

Arguing that because the NRA are dickholes who act in contravention of the will of the people by exerting undue influence on the political process, therefore we should stop trying to obtain any political reform ever or to address the public perception of the issue is basically the literally dumbest thing anyone could possibly say.

The thing is, public opinion on "more gun control" is split down the middle, almost perfectly. When you get to things like buybacks and confiscation, it shifts to strongly opposing.

Measures targeted at mentally ill people, however, do have broad public support.

[Maxus]

Arguing that because the NRA are dickholes who act in contravention of the will of the people by exerting undue influence on the political process, therefore we should stop trying to obtain any political reform ever or to address the public perception of the issue is basically the literally dumbest thing anyone could possibly say.

Did I say that? Did I?

Naw, man, I'm just saying that the situation -is- a bit different here than Australia because we have an incredible politically influential group that views anything about guns except "more guns!" as a slippery slope evil plan to take guns, and people who are ready to hare off and go killing because they think it's coming one day, so if some move towards an AR ban or something actually came, they'd just start holding the triggers.

That, sadly, means you'd have to start doing the slippery-slope thing, get people away from thinking GUNS R COOL and AN AK A DAY KEEPS THE UN AWAY and ease down to the point that they won't start killing people if you ban extended clips.

[Maj]

I found this article yesterday while doing research for another forum. The part I find interesting is this:

“The rhetoric in which people are accumulating guns in the present day has a lot to do with the fear of the unknown stranger. ‘Somebody could come attack me or my family, so we need to protect ourselves.’ And that rhetoric is most common among suburban white men,” Metzl said.

The authors uncover how the political and racial strife in the 1960s led some African Americans to push for their constitutional right to own and carry guns, while some white Americans at the time, including the National Rifle Association, pushed for stricter gun control laws.

“The gun rights statements of the Black Panthers and other black power groups in the 1960s reads almost exactly the same as the pro-gun rhetoric of the Tea Party today,” Metzl said. “Both groups argued that they’re protecting themselves from government tyranny and have a constitutional right as individuals to bear arms.”

Regardless, as unfortunate as mass shootings are, if we're on schedule, some 24,000 people have died this year to non-mass-shootings by sane people. We aren't going to make a dent in gun violence if we focus on the mentally ill.

Edit: Link to actual study is here.

[Kaelik]

Arguing that because the NRA are dickholes who act in contravention of the will of the people by exerting undue influence on the political process, therefore we should stop trying to obtain any political reform ever or to address the public perception of the issue is basically the literally dumbest thing anyone could possibly say.

Did I say that? Did I?

No, Hyzmarca did. Then PL called him an idiot. Then you contradicted PL's post, the one that said "the NRA exists and makes a big deal" is compelling evidence that we should try harder to take guns away.

[erik]

I think if we just upped regulation and monitored sales, requiring at least as much work as getting a drivers license to own firearms or open carry and had voluntary buy backs along with an educational campaign explaining that owning guns endangers yourself and your family that would be a huge improvement.

[Kaelik]

I think if we just upped regulation and monitored sales, requiring at least as much work as getting a drivers license to own firearms or open carry and had voluntary buy backs along with an educational campaign explaining that owning guns endangers yourself and your family that would be a huge improvement.

I think that that is a reasonable place to start. And for example, legally owning a gun in NJ is already harder than a driver's license. These sorts of things are eminently possible, but we would have to actually put forth genuine effort. Not say, "Oh well, the NRA exists, let's just give up all hopes of ever accomplishing anything" like hyzmarca recommends.

[hyzmarca]

I think if we just upped regulation and monitored sales, requiring at least as much work as getting a drivers license to own firearms or open carry and had voluntary buy backs along with an educational campaign explaining that owning guns endangers yourself and your family that would be a huge improvement.

I think that that is a reasonable place to start. And for example, legally owning a gun in NJ is already harder than a driver's license. These sorts of things are eminently possible, but we would have to actually put forth genuine effort. Not say, "Oh well, the NRA exists, let's just give up all hopes of ever accomplishing anything" like hyzmarca recommends.

I'd recommend not trying to push anything while everyone is angry and defensive and legislation is sure to be gridlocked and instead wait until furor dies down and hash out backroom deals that everyone can agree with away from prying eyes and pundits.

Also, punch the Brady Campaign in the teeth, metaphorically, and make them shut up, because they're doing far more to hurt their cause than the NRA ever could.

A tragedy like this is great if you want to push through comprehensive mental health services, but it just creates a battleground if you want to push through gun control. Good will on that front was exhausted in the 90s and both sides have just been entrenching deeper ever since. You totally can meet in the middle and make a compromise that everyone would be mildly unhappy with, but you can't do that in the wake of the wake of a tragedy and you can't do that in front of cameras.

[Kaelik]

I'd recommend not trying to push anything while everyone is angry and defensive and legislation is sure to be gridlocked and instead wait until furor dies down and hash out backroom deals that everyone can agree with away from prying eyes and pundits.

Also, punch the Brady Campaign in the teeth, metaphorically, and make them shut up, because they're doing far more to hurt their cause than the NRA ever could.

A tragedy like this is great if you want to push through comprehensive mental health services, but it just creates a battleground if you want to push through gun control. Good will on that front was exhausted in the 90s and both sides have just been entrenching deeper ever since. You totally can meet in the middle and make a compromise that everyone would be mildly unhappy with, but you can't do that in the wake of the wake of a tragedy and you can't do that in front of cameras.

You are so comprehensively wrong that you are like, 237% wrong. It is genuinely impressive.

1) Making decisions about gun control removed from the consequences of pervasive gun ownership is stupid. Just refusing to talk about the issue at all (which is what you actually demand, not limited to legislation) is literally the dumbest possible thing.

2) Legislation is always going to be gridlocked, because the NRA is always paying money to congress people, the only way to address the issue is to address it when people care, so that they can watch their congresspeople spite their will to serve the interests of their owners, and then vote them out of office. Waiting for the interest to die down is the same as waiting until no one cares except the NRA, and then nothing at all will be done. Which is a terrible strategy if your goal is to reduce deaths, and a great strategy if you are a lying asshat who's only goal is to protect gun sales.

3) You whining about the "Brady Campaign" needing to shut up in 2015 is just evidence that literally any proposed law at all is one that you are going to oppose under any possible circumstance. Which is how we can deduce that you are a terrible person who no one should ever listen to about anything. It is also one aspect of how we can deduce that you are exactly like all Republicans with respect to the next point.

4) A mass shooting by someone who probably wasn't any more mentally ill than anyone else before any real evidence is presented for that point is a terrible time to make a move for "comprehensive mental health services" because mass shootings aren't caused by mental illness, and people are going to push their distorted super fucked up literally murderous pro gun agenda onto a mental health reform that should be addressed by actual evidence and science relating to mental health, not the made of fabricatory lies of pro gun assholes. As evidenced by the frankly, absolutely fucking insane things you said earlier about just arresting people that we guess will probably maybe be violent in the future.

5) No republican is actually going to actually put any effort into mental health reform, because they, just like you, don't care even the tinniest little bit about mental health reform, they only care about scapegoating the mentally ill to protect their sweet sweet guns.

5b/2b/whatever) You are absolutely fucking wrong, and probably just lying on purpose as part of the pervasive campaign of lies expressed by all Republicans on this point, but of course, you are wrong about sentiment on gun control being divided. Sentiment is drastically in favor of gun control of almost every imaginable sort. Even polls of specifically and only Republicans find that they significantly prefer more gun control than currently exists.

[PhoneLobster]

Normally, PL, I'd be with you on the American exceptionalism is bollocks things, but did you have a parallel case of this in Australia?

Parrallel case? Do I have to produce a direct equivalent for each individual action of the gun lobby to prove we have one?

Even after our massively successful gun laws have eliminated mass shootings we do still have a gun lobby, their most potent muscle flexing lately being that they happen to own one of the federal senate crossbenchers and have used him to bargain his vote on supporting terrible things the conservatives wanted in return for essentially letting a high fire rate shotgun into the country on a technicality that HAD been recognized and blocked prior to that.

The simple fact is that we do have both a gun nut culture AND a well funded gun nut lobby, often ultimately funded by the exact same sources as the NRA in America with the same agenda. They don't spend as much here, but then our nation is a lot smaller and cheaper.

Or how about the Bundy Ranch thing,

Closest thing we had recently was probably that crazed farmer who shot an environmental inspection officer looking into illegal clearing on the neighbors block because he thought he was there to dare to tell HIM to stop illegally clearing. AGAIN.

Or... well... no, actually the CLOSEST thing we've had was probably the "Principality of Marlborough" one of Australia's many micronations and not in fact the ONLY one to have ultimately been founded by a farmer who didn't want to pay tax/bank loans/money. He had on site "supporters" and had to be overrun by more than a hundred police officers, got wide spread sympathetic media coverage and had a small group of men in military fatigues actually attempt to storm federal parliament as the "Marlborough Liberation Army" in a "prank". I don't believe the liberation army was armed, but I suspect the on site "supporters" when the principality was stormed by police probably were, and I suspect at the very least the QLD police force were VERY concerned that they would be.

Now that WAS back in 1993, but considering the major Gun reform laws and buy back scheme went through in 1996 I think it would have been pretty relevant at the time.

Yeah, or there was the breakaway rainbow creek mob of farmers who actually declared war on Victoria over irrigation rights. Through to the 1980s. We seem to get a lot of this.

Edit: Huh, how about that, The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands has actually declared itself at war with Australia.

[Ancient History]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... ee-n436316

All 15 remaining GOP candidates filed by deadline for the South Carolina Primary in February, which includes a $40k fee. That doesn't mean all of them well make it to February without dropping out - it is, in fact, almost certain that some of them will end up eating the fee and getting out sooner, because they're polling low and not bringing in the donors. But little stuff like making deadlines and paying the fees is bread-and-butter for candidates to show that they're "in it to win it," or at least making the right noises instead of pretending to campaign while actually on a book tour or something.

[Maxus]

Normally, PL, I'd be with you on the American exceptionalism is bollocks things, but did you have a parallel case of this in Australia?

Parrallel case? Do I have to produce a direct equivalent for each individual action of the gun lobby to prove we have one?

No, you don't. I was seriously wondering if there were similar extreme incidents that happened in Australia, because I didn't know.

And you answered me, so thank you. I was wondering about that.

[hyzmarca]

2) Legislation is always going to be gridlocked, because the NRA is always paying money to congress people, the only way to address the issue is to address it when people care, so that they can watch their congresspeople spite their will to serve the interests of their owners, and then vote them out of office. Waiting for the interest to die down is the same as waiting until no one cares except the NRA, and then nothing at all will be done. Which is a terrible strategy if your goal is to reduce deaths, and a great strategy if you are a lying asshat who's only goal is to protect gun sales.

No, the way you do it is to convince the NRA to support your gun control legislation. Which can't be done through polarizing rhetoric.

[PhoneLobster]

No, the way you do it is to convince the NRA to support your gun control legislation. Which can't be done through polarizing rhetoric.

What the? The NRA? That isn't going to damn well happen. The way you do it is to fucking ignore and disempower the NRA.

[DSMatticus]

2) Legislation is always going to be gridlocked, because the NRA is always paying money to congress people, the only way to address the issue is to address it when people care, so that they can watch their congresspeople spite their will to serve the interests of their owners, and then vote them out of office. Waiting for the interest to die down is the same as waiting until no one cares except the NRA, and then nothing at all will be done. Which is a terrible strategy if your goal is to reduce deaths, and a great strategy if you are a lying asshat who's only goal is to protect gun sales.

No, the way you do it is to convince the NRA to support your gun control legislation. Which can't be done through polarizing rhetoric.

HAHAHAHA

WHAT THE FUCK

SERIOUSLY

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

Let me tell you a dark terrible secret that is already completely obvious to everyone who isn't an idiot; the NRA is a for-profit lobby protecting the interests of a for-profit industry. It does not give a shit about the validity of your arguments. It does not give a shit about the tone of your rhetoric. It does not give a shit about human lives or the safety of society. Everything the NRA ever does or says will be decided around a single question - does it increase or decrease gun sales?

It's the same reason the oil industry spends huge sums of money attempting to convince people global warming is bullshit. They do not give a shit about the validity of the arguments. They do not give a shit about the tone of the rhetoric. They do not give a shit whether or not human civilization will exist in a couple hundred years. Everything the oil industry and its lobbies ever do or say boils down to "will it make us more or less money?"

It's the same reason the defense lobby wants war everywhere all the time for any reason. They do not give a shit about the validity of any particular casus belli. They do not give a shit about stability in the middle east. They do not give a shit about the lives of our soldiers. Everything the private defense contractors and their lobby ever do and say boils down to "will it get us more or less government contracts?"

These are institutions built around profit. The individual people in them likely rationalize what they're doing, because no one thinks to themself "I'm destroying the world in the name of a greed, yaaay!", but the institutions they've built have their successes and failures measured in short-term profit and there are no mechanisms of restraint whatsofuckingever so in the end they will absolutely destroy the world in the name of greed.

Welcome to modern politics; it's not actually a bunch of reasonable people attempting reasonable discourse and failing because they're too just too gosh darn mean to eachother. It's a bunch of corrupt shitheads putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "LALALA DEFUND THE ATF! PROTECT ILLEGAL GUN TRAFFICKING ACROSS THE BORDER ERR I MEAN PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT! LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

[Kaelik]

No, the way you do it is to convince the NRA to support your gun control legislation. Which can't be done through polarizing rhetoric.

If I was trying to prove that no one should ever listen to anything you ever say on the topic of gun control, the most incredible and least likely to believed statement I could make about you would be that you believed this. Since you apparently do believe this, and are willing to say it aloud, you have done literally the work for me.

The NRA once upon a time, represented actual gun owners. It doesn't and hasn't for a long time. The idea that you could think of any gun control regulation of any kind anywhere in the universe that the NRA would support is demonstrative of the fact that you are so far away from reality on this issue that you might genuinely be confused about what a gun is.

[AcidBlades]

I doubt that having access to guns would even prevent murder from robbers, thrill-killers and the like anyways. If someone wants your ass dead, then you better believe that you will not be able to handle someone who wants to see you fucking dead.

[Username17]

I doubt that having access to guns would even prevent murder from robbers, thrill-killers and the like anyways. If someone wants your ass dead, then you better believe that you will not be able to handle someone who wants to see you fucking dead.

And yet in the UK, violent crime ends in death way less often than it does in the UK. The UK newspapers are constantly whining about "knife crime" and people simply survive that stuff way more often than they survive gun crime. You can doubt it all you want, but it's just simply true. Having less guns in society makes people in that society safer. Even where it doesn't reduce the rate of suicide attempts and assaults, it makes people survive those actions much more of the time. Because almost any situation you could possibly be in is less likely to kill you than being hit with a bullet.

People in the UK go on their rampages with knives. They try to kill themselves by overdosing on Tylenol. The death rates from these things are demonstrably way lower than they are when people are shooting actual bullets at each other and themselves.

-Username17

[Maj]

I doubt that having access to guns would even prevent murder from robbers, thrill-killers and the like anyways. If someone wants your ass dead, then you better believe that you will not be able to handle someone who wants to see you fucking dead.

I'm presuming that there should be a "not" between "I doubt that" and "having."

The GOP is deathly afraid of lazy people. They will make up shit to the nth degree about how people are terrible and not working for what they want. So why are they making it easier for murderers, robbers, thrill-killers and the like? If you want someone dead... Work for it. Learn how to use a bow and arrow. Stab someone with a knife. Poison them. But no... It couldn't be easier.