Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 161: Elephants On Parade

(+) Yeah! (+)

Has this been posted yet?

https://twitter.com/jasonroeder/status/963976307879985152
---

Apparently the gun was legally his. Passed a background check and everything
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Apparently the gun was legally his. Passed a background check and everything

Yeah background checks are something but they arent EVERYTHING. They only catch people who have a past of dangerous behavior.
---

Maybe dangerous behavior like expelled from school for disciplinary reasons?
---

He reportedly had guns long before that, though, since that was one of the things students say they found creepy about him. How he was obsessed.
---

You know, one of the things about good gun control is that you can also keep a record of who owns what guns, and if they prove themselves irresponsible and violent, you can confiscate those guns. Because they're deadly weapons and that's the kind of thing the government should keep track of. Instead of what books you check out at a library.

(And I swear if any single gun nut complains about wanting to take guns away from people who have proven to be irresponsible with them...)

It's always funny how gun nuts point to Switzerland as an example of "everyone has guns and nothing bad happens there" and yet they'd scream in terror if we tried to impose even half of the gun control laws Switzerland has because, oh boy, they regulate the wazoo out of gun ownership.

Gun control isn't just keeping guns out of the "bad guys'" hands - it's also making sure that the people who DO own guns are responsible about them.
---

I think the least we can do is regulate guns at least as much as we regulate cars, and I don't think that's too ridiculous, unless you're one of the libertarian types who thinks driver's licenses are impugning our god-given rights somehow

So according to my local news broadcast, the FL shooting was the 18th school shooting this year. Granted, they followed that up by saying 10 of them were guns going off at a school with nobody getting hurt (Which is still disgusting because why the fuck do you have guns at a school), but what the actual fuck.

We're only through 45 days this year, that's almost one every other day.
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think the least we can do is regulate guns at least as much as we regulate cars, and I don't think that's too ridiculous, unless you're one of the libertarian types who thinks driver's licenses are impugning our god-given rights somehow

Right.

I mean, when a guy brought enough liquids onto a plane to create a bomb, what did we do? Did we oppose regulation because we should have the right to bring whatever liquids we want onto a plane? Nope! We regulated the shit out of it to prevent any more bombings!

Cars are also a dangerous responsibility and we intensely regulate it, require people to have a license plate for each vehicle they own, and also deny them the right to operate a car if they are too irresponsible to drive.

Why can't we apply this to guns? It's not like we don't have mountains of examples from other countries showing that it works. Switzerland itself is proof that tight gun control is effective and not necessarily anathema to owning guns.
---

It's not even very tight control

it's like, just literally the least we can and should do

but, well, NRA + second amendment

Alex Jones already pushing the false flag by Democrats designed to take our guns away narrative
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Alex Jones already pushing the false flag by Democrats designed to take our guns away narrative

If it's not that, it's us turning the freaking frog gay.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Alex Jones already pushing the false flag by Democrats designed to take our guns away narrative

This is my shocked face
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think the least we can do is regulate guns at least as much as we regulate cars, and I don't think that's too ridiculous, unless you're one of the libertarian types who thinks driver's licenses are impugning our god-given rights somehow

The problem is that the right to own a vehicle is not explicitly written in the Constitution.

We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote (which is fine that they aren't, as mass shootings are not even close to the top of problems this country needs to address [see: opioid crisis]).
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote

Why? We dont do this for most things that circumvent the letter of the Constitution
---

Also what is the deal on why we arent addressing the opioid crisis as well as we could be? Seems like a bipartisan topic.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also what is the deal on why we arent addressing the opioid crisis as well as we could be? Seems like a bipartisan topic.

Because the political climate is toxic and our representatives are generally garbage
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think the least we can do is regulate guns at least as much as we regulate cars, and I don't think that's too ridiculous, unless you're one of the libertarian types who thinks driver's licenses are impugning our god-given rights somehow

Also, old but:
https://twitter.com/larrywebsite/status/961491036517359616

HELL no!
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote

Why? We dont do this for most things that circumvent the letter of the Constitution

I can't think of a single other hot button issue that is directly spelled out in the Constitution, but debate rages anyway.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think the least we can do is regulate guns at least as much as we regulate cars, and I don't think that's too ridiculous, unless you're one of the libertarian types who thinks driver's licenses are impugning our god-given rights somehow

Also, old but:
https://twitter.com/larrywebsite/status/961491036517359616

HELL no!

God this makes me laugh every time

That one guy just looks so much like he's a guy playing a character in a comedy sketch, it's uncanny

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote

Why? We dont do this for most things that circumvent the letter of the Constitution

I can't think of a single other hot button issue that is directly spelled out in the Constitution, but debate rages anyway.

States rights?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote

Why? We dont do this for most things that circumvent the letter of the Constitution

I can't think of a single other hot button issue that is directly spelled out in the Constitution, but debate rages anyway.

States rights?

I mean the tenth amendment in itself was basically designed to be perennially debated. I wouldn't call "state's rights" a single issue anyway.
---

I dunno, it seems pretty clear to me that it means These are the only rules we are taking out of the hands of the states; if you want to restrict any others you need an Amendment.
---

The constitution states you have the right to bear arms, doesn't say those arms are exclusively guns. The government could confiscate your guns and you're still allowed knives, swords, bayonets, and cannons like the founding father's planned!
---

Let me be clear, Im not advocating for states rights. Just saying whats in there
---

TheRock1525 posted...

The constitution states you have the right to bear arms, doesn't say those arms are exclusively guns. The government could confiscate your guns and you're still allowed knives, swords, bayonets, and cannons like the founding father's planned!

It does say well armed

Which is obviously a distinction that will change over time as weapons evolve
---

Jakyl25 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

The constitution states you have the right to bear arms, doesn't say those arms are exclusively guns. The government could confiscate your guns and you're still allowed knives, swords, bayonets, and cannons like the founding father's planned!

It does say well armed

Which is obviously a distinction that will change over time as weapons evolve

Losing one type of armament while keeping several others? I'd feel well armed!
---

Actually no it doesnt

Im crazy
---

jakyl is fake news
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dunno, it seems pretty clear to me that it means These are the only rules we are taking out of the hands of the states; if you want to restrict any others you need an Amendment.

I'm no scholar, but I understand it to mean that Congress can make federal laws, and anything not under federal law defaults to the states. Your interpretation would imply that Congress is essentially not needed.
---

Congress is needed for certain things which are helpfully spelled out in Article 1
---

Just to be clear with the conversation about Donald's statements on guns VS bombs: there's not a National Bomb Association that donated $21,000,000 to Donald's campaign, nor is there one that donated $36,600,000 total to Republicans in the 2016 election.

The effectiveness of a gun VS bomb is interesting enough for a conversation, but let's not forget that backdrop and why Donald might have a bias.
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/964110212885106689

So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!

https://twitter.com/rabiasquared/status/964127434349207552

Hello 911? I'd like to report an emotionally disturbed young man with behavioral issues who owns an entire arsenal of semi-automatic weapons and posts crazy stuff online

911: none of that is illegal or an emergency ma'am

Ok, but the President said

911: have a good day
Click

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think the least we can do is regulate guns at least as much as we regulate cars, and I don't think that's too ridiculous, unless you're one of the libertarian types who thinks driver's licenses are impugning our god-given rights somehow

The problem is that the right to own a vehicle is not explicitly written in the Constitution.

We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote (which is fine that they aren't, as mass shootings are not even close to the top of problems this country needs to address [see: opioid crisis]).

Guns kill a million times more Americans than terrorists, but somehow the latter is our #1 priority.

Thoughts?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Guns kill a million times more Americans than terrorists, but somehow the latter is our #1 priority.

Thoughts?

If you want to rank priorities simply by death toll, then gun control is still not at the top

There is obviously a debate to be had about anything, factoring in how much influence legislation can have, factoring in cost (financial and otherwise), etc. Gun violence in the US has been significantly dropping over the past several decades, and it's not because of laws passed.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Gun violence in the US has been significantly dropping over the past several decades, and it's not because of laws passed.

Source?
---

trdl23 posted...

Can you explain this? I don't see it.

https://newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racist

Modern stuff can be more subtle, like "stricter" background checks giving gun sellers subjective right to deny arms to anyone they want. Criminal checks allowing any cop to do the same. Mental health checks allowing any doctor to do the same. Fees and licenses preventing those without money or legal access from getting a gun. And so on.
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think the least we can do is regulate guns at least as much as we regulate cars, and I don't think that's too ridiculous, unless you're one of the libertarian types who thinks driver's licenses are impugning our god-given rights somehow

Anyone can buy any car they want. You only need a license and plate number to drive it on public roads. Guns already have far stricter regulations on bringing them out in public, and even in private they ALL have serial numbers.

So good news, the gun problem is solved!!!

Except just like driver's licenses don't prevent 600+ kids killed per year who you don't give a shit about ( https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html ) neither do gun licenses.

BowserCuffs posted...

I mean, when a guy brought enough liquids onto a plane to create a bomb, what did we do? Did we oppose regulation because we should have the right to bring whatever liquids we want onto a plane? Nope! We regulated the shit out of it to prevent any more bombings!

We also made everyone take off their shoes after 1 person snuck a shoe bomb in once! And no one made a shoe bomb ever again! It's so obvious that these regulations work.

And yet after all that, 9/11 happened, the worst aviation attack in US history. This proves that banning shoes and shampoo CAUSES more terrorism! But don't worry, now we x-ray everyone who goes on a flight (unless you pay $80 to skip it, because obviously having $80 means you're not a terrorist). It won't everrrrrrrrr happen again!!!

I don't get why people get so powerfully braindead and chasing easy short cuts when solving a problem like this. It's god damn child murder and terrorism, why not spend 5 seconds thinking about what you're saying? Do you really care so little about the actual problem?

You will take literally the first superficial solution that makes you sleep better at night, and that's it. You don't care about actual solutions or statistics or logic. It's so stupid and directly destructive to society.
---

The fundamental question is this: after we successfully ban all civilian gun ownership, when shootings still happen, what will you do?

Say "welp, we tried!" and just accept it? Add more regulations? Become Batman?

If you haven't even thought about this question, you are absolutely unqualified to say another word on this topic.
---

Well when we take over the world and ban gun production then its just a slow attrition as all functional guns slowly break down
---

foolm0r0n posted...

The fundamental question is this: after we successfully ban all civilian gun ownership, when shootings still happen, what will you do?

Say "welp, we tried!" and just accept it?

if the way the people in my country act is any indication, yeah.
---

The world has a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Time to push for one for guns as well.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Gun violence in the US has been significantly dropping over the past several decades, and it's not because of laws passed.

Source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/
---

foolm0r0n posted...

You will take literally the first superficial solution that makes you sleep better at night, and that's it.

There is something to be said about superficial solutions that have a psychological benefit for a large number of people in society (as long as the solutions do not infringe on anyone's rights).
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Well when we take over the world and ban gun production then its just a slow attrition as all functional guns slowly break down

Did you not learn anything from that Treehouse of Horror episode?!
---

Most people don't want to outright ban guns. They want to regulate them. Much like we do with cars to prevent drunk drivers, and reduce fatalities. Or how we increased airport security after 9/11 to prevent hijackings.

I always find it weird how most of the same people who are pro-gun because "TYRANY!" are also often the same people who want to fund our military to the point where any resistance would be futile anyway.
---

Ashethan posted...

Most people don't want to outright ban guns. They want to regulate them.

They are already regulated.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Ashethan posted...

Most people don't want to outright ban guns. They want to regulate them.

They are already regulated.

Tell that to Walmart.
---

Frankly, the problem isn't civilian gun ownership. It's the fucking fetishizing guns/violence and complete and utter lack of safety culture in the US that cause most of the problems.

But jackasses will continue trying to paint a false picture and claim nothing can be done
---

foolm0r0n posted...

The fundamental question is this: after we successfully ban all civilian gun ownership, when shootings still happen, what will you do?

Say "welp, we tried!" and just accept it? Add more regulations? Become Batman?

If you haven't even thought about this question, you are absolutely unqualified to say another word on this topic.

So is your solution just to maintain the status quo?
---