CNN town hall on gun control

[Stormspark]

Because it's the subject of this thread.

Jesus christ - talk about the subject of the thread - stop trying to derail this via whataboutism.

I've just added all of the people that obviously have no thoughts of their own on ignore. It really helps.

[Dacien]

WTF?!

Feel free to quote it, Felya. I personally don't particularly care about the wall, I can't imagine that I'd have posted support for it. Please remind me if I have.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's the subject of this thread.

Jesus christ - talk about the subject of the thread - stop trying to derail this via whataboutism.

This very thread itself is demonstrative of the laser-focus I'm talking about, mvaliz. This is misdirection.

[Felya]

And MADD is certainly allowed to advocate for their cause, but it's not a national story every time a particularly gruesome drunk driving accident occurs that kills several children, igniting a national debate about the lack of good alcohol control.

This is not true. Can you stop derailing the thread to be about drunk driving?

[Dacien]

This is not true. Can you stop derailing the thread to be about drunk driving?

It's an illustrative comparison drawing attention to the question about why we are hyper-focused as a country on guns and not other activities or substances that produce a comparable number of deaths that could be prevented with townhall meetings and calls for bans.

[Felya]

Feel free to quote it, Felya. I personally don't particularly care about the wall, I can't imagine that I'd have posted support for it. Please remind me if I have.

No, I don’t care about the wall. You said I was wrong, I don’t care enough to derail the thread to combat it. This is your second post on the subject. How many more should I expect before you reply to something else? At some point, are you going to take responsibility for your actions?

[Vanyali]

There's a lot of claims packed in here.

I'd be fine with ads that show the bad consequences of gun ownership gone awry with a "don't buy guns" tagline. That would be fine.

The bill Trump signed last year has been beaten to death, not going to go over it once again here. If you press me, I'll copy-paste a previous post.

And MADD is certainly allowed to advocate for their cause, but it's not a national story every time a particularly gruesome drunk driving accident occurs that kills several children, igniting a national debate about the lack of good alcohol control.

MADD goes into every school to discuss drunk driving. They get quoted whenever one makes the news. The thing is, drunk driving is usually a self-inflicted fatality. No one is going to make a newstory over a guy that drives drunk and kills only himself, just as they don't for a suicide victim (unless they're famous, of course). But when a DD incident involves a kid at all, guess who gets quoted? Oh, a local MADD person, if not someone higher up in the chain. Then they lobby harder for dry counties (which hey, still exist even though prohibition is gone) and blue laws on when you can buy alcohol (because hey, those ALSO exist still). If your'e in Utah you get the fun amazing mormons trying to make it so alcohol doesn't "exist" by requiring walls to "protect" people from their evil temptation:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...ants-and-bars/

Don't run away from the topic, now. You can copy and paste, and I can laugh and call you lazy for refusing to discuss gun law in a thread about current gun laws being lax. People that are declare incompetent and require guardianship should not be allowed to have guns. Period. End of. That is exactly the same as saying every underage child should be allowed to have one because "freedom" and "2nd amendment" because that is what it boils down to.

[Felya]

It's an illustrative comparison drawing attention to the question about why we are hyper-focused as a country on guns and not other activities or substances that produce a comparable number of deaths that could be prevented with townhall meetings and calls for bans.

No!! You don’t get to say that:

I know that if Garcia Zarate wasn't left to be in the country illegally five times by a complicit municipality, Jim Steinle wouldn't have held his bleeding daughter on a pier in San Francisco while she spoke her last words, "Help me, Dad."

I know that.

These town halls are not calling for a ban, but action to curb gun violence. Upto the day of the shooting, we had regulations on mental illness and buying guns. Trump changed that, despite all of the comparisons you are making.

[Dacien]

No, I don’t care about the wall. You said I was wrong, I don’t care enough to derail the thread to combat it. This is your second post on the subject. How many more should I expect before you reply to something else? At some point, are you going to take responsibility for your actions?

I don't even know what your argument is here. The wall claim you made was a sidebar I refuted in passing.

[Thepersona]

I'm asking why we're laser-focused on guns. It's honestly puzzling when I consider other things we tolerate in this country that produce equal, or more, preventable deaths. What is this hyper-focus on gun deaths while at the same time shrugging off deaths caused by other preventable, legislatable activities?

These people is laser focused (as if they were) on guns because:
A: Guns aren't being regulated... like at all. The CDC cannot even investigate on the effects of guns and gun violence. Almost all of the other things that are dangerous (cars, alcogol, tobacco, weed) are much... MUCH more regulated than pew pew things.
B: The sole purpose of a gun is to damage something. Or to kill something. And modern guns are fucking impressive and effective at doing that. All of the other things that you mentioned do not have as their sole purpose, to kill things.

[Felya]

I don't even know what your argument is here. The wall claim you made was a sidebar I refuted in passing.

This is the third post you are making on the subject. Stop trying to derail the thread to be about a wall and drunk driving.

Will you stop derailing at 3 posts? Let’s see...

[Thepersona]

It's an illustrative comparison drawing attention to the question about why we are hyper-focused as a country on guns and not other activities or substances that produce a comparable number of deaths that could be prevented with townhall meetings and calls for bans.

Because, you thickead, almost all of the other things that you mentioned, are regulated! Drunk driving is illegal, having a license is hard, getting a car is not as easy as getting an AR-15 (a functioning, used car could cost at least 2-3k dollars, and a new, decent AR-15 could go for as little as 500 dollars, new). And killing someone when drunk is a killing without intent. You dont want to kill the person you run over. Shooting someone is a killing WITH intent.

[Felya]

Because, you thickead, almost all of the other things that you mentioned, are regulated! Drunk driving is illegal, having a license is hard, getting a car is not as easy as getting an AR-15 (a functioning, used car could cost at least 2-3k dollars, and a new, decent AR-15 could go for as little as 500 dollars, new). And killing someone when drunk is a killing without intent. You dont want to kill the person you run over. Shooting someone is a killing WITH intent.

He is derailing the thread to be any subject, but the op. This is ridiculous...

[Thepersona]

He is derailing the thread to be any subject, but the op. This is ridiculous...

Oh yeah. We're discussing GUN CONTROl, dacien, stop derailing

You know, you could control guns like we do here: You must pass a psych test, must register every gun, there's a waiting period, and you have a limited number of guns to have (2 for self defense, 8 for hunters). Oh, and a .223/.308/.556/7.62 semi-auto rifles are illegal.

[Felya]

Oh yeah. We're discussing GUN CONTROl, dacien, stop derailing

You know, you could control guns like we do here: You must pass a psych test, must register every gun, there's a waiting period, and you have a limited number of guns to have (2 for self defense, 8 for hunters). Oh, and a .223/.308/.556/7.62 semi-auto rifles are illegal.

I don’t understand why GOP won’t toss them a bone, like they did in 94. The assault riffle ban lasted 10 years without anyone noticing. Everyone who had their guns prior got to keep it, then 10 years later when it expired, everyone got to keep them. It would be a huge boon to Trump... his 30% won’t move and it will swing the fence.

[Dacien]

These people is laser focused (as if they were) on guns because:
A: Guns aren't being regulated... like at all. The CDC cannot even investigate on the effects of guns and gun violence. Almost all of the other things that are dangerous (cars, alcogol, tobacco, weed) are much... MUCH more regulated than pew pew things.
B: The sole purpose of a gun is to damage something. Or to kill something. And modern guns are fucking impressive and effective at doing that. All of the other things that you mentioned do not have as their sole purpose, to kill things.

A: No, guns are heavily regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la..._United_States

B: This is a substantive response. I would argue that it doesn't matter what the purpose of the substance, thing, or activity is, we should be evaluating the consequences of that subject. Whether it's a gun for hunting or whiskey for pleasure, how many people is it responsible for killing? Okay, how do we deal with that? We have gun laws and alcohol laws, yet both subjects contribute to the same numbers of deaths if we're only talking about drunk driving fatalities. My question is, why is it a national debate when a particularly bad shooting occurs, but not when a particularly bad drunk driving accident occurs? I don't understand this, and I laid out my two main reasons I believe to be responsible earlier.

The bottom line is that there's a hard push against gun ownership that is disproportionate when you consider other causes of death of comparable quantity, and I don't understand it.

- - - Updated - - -

He is derailing the thread to be any subject, but the op. This is ridiculous...

Oh I absolutely want to talk about the OP. In fact, I'm quite passionate about it if you can't tell.

[Felya]

The bottom line is that there's a hard push against gun ownership that is disproportionate when you consider other causes of death of comparable quantity, and I don't understand it.

This is an emotional response, that is not based on facts. You can claim this is debatable, but we are in a gun control thread and you are demanding we debate everything else. Can a gun debate, be at least debatable on an Internet forum? Can you allow us that?

[Thepersona]

A: No, guns are heavily regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la..._United_States

B: This is a substantive response. I would argue that it doesn't matter what the purpose of the substance, thing, or activity is, we should be evaluating the consequences of that subject. Whether it's a gun for hunting or whiskey for pleasure, how many people is it responsible for killing? Okay, how do we deal with that? We have gun laws and alcohol laws, and both contribute to the same numbers of deaths if we're only talking about drunk driving fatalities. My question is, why is it a national debate when a particularly bad shooting occurs, but not when a particularly bad drunk driving accident occurs? I don't understand this, and I laid out my two main reasons I believe to be responsible earlier.

The bottom line is that there's a hard push against gun ownership that is disproportionate when you consider other causes of death of comparable quantity, and I don't understand it.

For A: NO, Your regulations are fucking laughable.

For B: it seems that you deflected, as usual. And Whisky (alcohol) is heavily regulated, AND investigated by the CDC. AND the deaths that a drunk driver produces are accidental (in the sense that the person who was driving was not actively trying to murder people). AND the car's express purpose is to transport someone from point A to point B, not to kill people. Again, STOP derailing, thickhead.
And the response is proportionate, as the people are only trying to enact minimum regulations. To stop mass murderings. You know something? Here, we've never had a mass killing, in the fashion that you have. And the mass murders are much rarer in Europe too.

[Felya]

Oh I absolutely want to talk about the OP. In fact, I'm quite passionate about it if you can't tell.

This is the 4 post you have wasted in replying to me about anything, other than the OP. Can you please start?

[Vanyali]

A: No, guns are heavily regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la..._United_States

B: This is a substantive response. I would argue that it doesn't matter what the purpose of the substance, thing, or activity is, we should be evaluating the consequences of that subject. Whether it's a gun for hunting or whiskey for pleasure, how many people is it responsible for killing? Okay, how do we deal with that? We have gun laws and alcohol laws, and both contribute to the same numbers of deaths if we're only talking about drunk driving fatalities. My question is, why is it a national debate when a particularly bad shooting occurs, but not when a particularly bad drunk driving accident occurs? I don't understand this, and I laid out my two main reasons I believe to be responsible earlier.

The bottom line is that there's a hard push against gun ownership that is disproportionate when you consider other causes of death of comparable quantity, and I don't understand it.

Let's look at these "heavy regulations":

National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.

It... is taxed and registered. Okay. Much like literally any other product. Hmm.

Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.

You must have a license to sell... hmm. A lot like every other business in existence. The only "notable" thing here would be restriction for who you can sell to, but that also exists in other businesses.

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.

The special one. It's handguns only, let's note. It prohibits interstate trade (which gollygeewhiz is also controlled for other products) and mandates a minimum for handguns ONLY. As pointed out most mass murderers haven't been using a handgun. So which is it, guns are heavily regulated and handguns are used in most mass shootings anyway, or HANDGUNS have slightly higher regulation (in that they require 21 while others require 16 depending on state) but matter fuckall for what we're talking about

Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

Interstate commerce again. Yawn. Not unique to guns.

Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.

Automatics can't be sold. The first real regulation on guns on this list.

Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.

Guns should be metal. Safety concern, but also not unique to guns to regulate what things are made of.

Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Strikingly, most of these zones are also drug-free and alcohol-free zones. Hmm.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.

Alright. An actual restriction. But hey, it doesn't apply to all gun sales.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.

Expired Law. Doesn't matter. Was essentially a continuation of the Automatic law above anyway.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevent firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.

Not unique to guns, again.




Man, this is some heavy-ass regulation to require guns to be subject to mostly the same exact thing that any other product is held to the standard of!

[Togashii]

This is the 4 post you have wasted in replying to me about anything, other than the OP. Can you please start?

He can’t. If he did, he might actually have to think about a bunch of dead kids. Can’t disrupt his penis replacement fetish for a bunch of dead pussy kids.