Senate Gun Control

As long as I can keep my Crockpot.

 

Crock-Pot killed Jack Pearson.

 

Magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, more like. I think another similar firearm would fill the void if legislation targeted just AR-15s. They’re popular among mass shooters because of their affordability as much as their function, too. And you should never underestimate the free market’s potential to amorally fill a void.

Sadly I don’t think anything will be done.

 

I don't really like how unwelcoming people have been to @kugelblitz in this thread.

Ignore him if you wish, that's totally fine, but I don't think we need to show him the door, ask why he's here (the same reason as anyone else, to comment, which he is free to do), tell him to go elsewhere, or insist he talk about Star Wars before entering this thread. I get that his comments are...disagreeable, and that his lack of prior posting history is suspicious, but he's just talking here.

I don't really mind someone signing up to talk about gun control. I don't care if they've ever even seen Star Wars. The Jedi Council Forums are free for anyone to sign up to and comment on.

@kugelblitz

Talk about what you want here (within the rules), there is no Star Wars comments quota you have to fill.

I've held unpopular Star Wars opinions here for years and yeah I've been on the receiving end of a lot of hostility because of it. Depends on where you post, and what the topic/opinion is. I recommend the Literature forum for Star Wars discussion.

There is a site policy against hate speech so if you go to the Literature forum to talk about how much you hate gays in Star Wars or something like that, you won't be welcome, and imo nor should you be. Just as an example.

But if you talk about how much you hate some popular character or whatever, you should be fine.

But maybe you consider that vapid, which is fine, too.

Yes, I would. Would you like to know the difference? The First Amendment isn't a problem in this country, it's generally not doing any damage to anyone. The First Amendment certainly isn't used to murder schoolchildren.

The First Amendment is not a problem. Guns are.

 

should be of interest

Why do you think that? Most countires with more restrictive gun control laws then USA's current ones still allows civilians to own guns.

 

My point was not that people have to care about Star Wars to sign up. Just that it's really ****ing *****y to sign up after a massacre to masturbate over guns.

 

Why are these posed as hypotheticals?

Putting aside the fact that an indefensibly low number of Americans ever travel abroad (roughly 5%) and experience other cultures (the challenge to the bubble is too intense, I suppose), the age of the internet provides examples from around the globe of countries with lower crime rates, and stricter gun laws. To be fair they also conclusively prove that socialised medicine is better for the economy than a system of pool insured risk, but again, the bubble.

The 2nd amendment simply allows for the use of a militia comprised of non-elisted citizens, similar to the modern Swiss variant. In Switzerland, non-officer ranked militia are issued a SIG Sauer rifle and officer equivalents, a SIG Sauer pistol. Ammunition is sealed to prevent use outside of a civil defence scenario. Switzerland, shockingly, has bugger all gun crime.

Now of course, judicial activism has unreasonably reshaped the second amendment but I've noticed the American right only mind activism when "liberals" do it, so let's not call anymore attention to the hypocrisy.

If handguns were limited to revolvers; shotguns to over/under or similarly non-tube or box-fed magazine variants; rifles to bolt-action only with 5 round box mags, unless semi-automatics meet a defined needs test (i.e. professional culling) then nothing about the right to own these would be impeded. Given the need for a militia, to supplement, complement or even replace a standing army in defending the US from attacks from imperial Europe, has basically evaporated then the amendment itself would be a relic given lip service and the restrictions on class and capacity wouldn't be a challenge to that. But you'd still allow people to hold guns as a way of compensating their shortcomings and all that, so no issue there. You'd also see gun crimes fall, because the ability of things like bump stocks to simulate automatic fire is a non-issue. And a wheelgun only holding 6 in the cylinder reduced the capacity of a handgun to be an effective tool in a mass shooting.

These regulations broadly mirror those in the first world, with the exception of requirements to provide compliant safes to store the firearms, and a licensing regime based on defined need. But, for many Americans, that's a bridge too far and this is where the real issue with gun ownership comes in:

The right to own a gun of individual X is more important than the right to life of individual Y, or the school-age children at Z High School. Because, it's all about me and I don't do this whole social contract thing because that done sound a lot to me and my lack of formal education like comm-u-nism.

 

Except I can own a gun in a country with this strange coincidence of wide ranging gun control laws 22 years ago and no mass shootings in 22 years...

Another casualty of the bubble.

 

But, @Ender Sai, the NRA told them gun control means disarming the population and accepting tyranny....

 

And less than 5% of them ever really escape the bubble of Americana, so it makes sense.

 

Maybe of interest: Swedish police hope amnesty can get more than 10,000 weapons off the streets

 

Wow. Well, get ready for your immediate descent into a hellscape of violence and murder, Swedes. Our thoughts and prayers are with you as you progress farther into the bleak future of near constant truck murders.

 

and also get ready for responses to the headline and not the body of the article.

 

On a related note, I think what often gets lost in the American gun control debate-- because the mainstream media often ignores it-- is how the U.S. and its weapons fuel violence abroad. There is, for example, the Mexican drug war. Right-wingers like to crow about undocumented immigrants from the country being violent criminals, but Mexico gets far more than it gives. The vast majority of guns used in Mexico are American-made and often were originally purchased in the United States (Mexico has literally one gun store). Gun manufacturers and gun shops know that cartels purchase firearms stateside and then smuggle them south, but it makes them hundreds of millions of dollars so they're not inclined to stop it.

The U.S. also officially and openly fuels violence, and not just in its own wars. For example, Saudi Arabia would not be able to slaughter Yemenis (and cause the largest outbreak of cholera in history) if not for U.S. assistance in the form of tens of billions of dollars in arms sales and logistical support from the U.S. military itself such as providing mid-air refueling to Saudi F-16s as they terrorize civilians.

It is not a coincidence that the largest perpetrator and enabler of violence abroad experiences the most violence at home of any developed country. I think the only way to really stop this is to take down the arms manufacturers and the military-industrial complex. How to realistically achieve that, I don't know.

 

Good point, Guy. GOP opposed the UN global arms treaty, which aimed to stop foreign weapons fuelling conflicts in Africa. They, along with the NRA, claimed it was designed to disarm the citizens of the United States.

 

Let's also be fair, if he hadn't been allowed 15 mins a day to pilot his own drone and use it to slaughter Yemeni civilians, President Obama would have snapped more than once.

 

Sir, I will have you know that the JCC has a long and distinguished history as a welcoming community full of positive individuals and as such it is not cliquish or reminiscent of the worst parts of high school in any way.

On topic, though, it’s scary how many people’s first thought is “DON’T TAKE MY GUNS,” when children are murdered. I’ve even had acquaintances and family members whose first comment after a shooting is “Damn, ammunition prices are gonna go up.”

 

Aung San Suu Skyi has carried on the new tradition of Nobel Peace Prize winners being apologists for mass murder

 

@CT-867-5309 , anyone who posts here in the wake of a school shooting to defend American gun legislation deserves no less than complete and utter derision.

 

Ridicule is fine, I'd rather we didn't tell him to leave, though.

And to be fair it seems like we're always in the wake of a school shooting, so if defense is going to be allowed, it should be allowed at all times.

No, I'm not going with the mob on this one. I just don't agree with telling people to go elsewhere like that, not in this situation. I was kinda disappointed to see that from certain people here, people who usually handle things better.

It...kinda made The Cantina babies with an opposing view who can't handle an argument look like they have a point. Made the forum itself look like it can't handle opposing views. "You can't even disagree". "All you want is an echo chamber". What's the point of pretending to have a discussion if someone makes a comment like kugelblitz's and is told to leave? I didn't find his comment nearly as tiresome as others, it was almost fresh. Almost.

There are times when I prefer an echo chamber to some of the idiocy we get in here...but if we're telling people with unpopular viewpoints to leave, you might as well change the rules of the thread. Might as well put "(Gun Control Support Only)" in the thread title. Might as well just give people a link to The Cantina.

I'm not a mod, though, so you don't have to listen to me.

 

Who told him to leave?

The fact is, if you barge into any community with hostility ("gun grabbers") and criticize people for being angry that 17 people were just murdered, you're going to be met with hostility. I don't see a problem with that. This is not something relatively benign like differing opinions on a piece of pop culture. American gun culture is indefensible.

 

I actually don't have a problem with people owning guns. I'd be a hypocrite if I did; I've owned guns, I've shot competitively and by that I don't mean turning up to the local range and seeing who can shoot the obviously black and Islamic male targets with highest accuracy - I mean the kinds of competition shooting that mirror the Olympics. When we buy a home and I can mount a class A safe, I'll probably get a pistol again and go target shooting.

The issue isn't guns; guns, in fact, do not kill people. Americans with guns, however, do. And what bothers me is that people confuse their enjoyment with something natural and right and perfect. I've said this before; the right to own a gun is the most sacred right to most Americans, and the rights based culture coupled with the "rugged individualism" and war on collectivism has meant that Americans actively dehumanise other Americans when it looks like something they enjoy, and is in real terms a mislabelled privilege, might be curtailed due to abuse.

The issue I have with American gun owners, aside from their being Americans in the first place (and therefore prone to hyperbolic hysteria about countries outside of the US which they just will never visit), is that they can't just say "I like it, and I don't want to give up what I like!". I suspect if they admit this they acknowledge the layers of folly underpinning the defence of firearms - straw-filled men rattling off about tyranny (lol, bull****, next); the good citizen with a gun (lol, bull****, next), or the need to defend yourself against armed intruders (lol, bull****, next) - are just that, and I think without that cognitive dissonance they would have nothing.

It's kind of sad.

 

I agree, in theory I don't have a problem with guns*, Americans have just shown that they can't handle them.

*Well, not counting some thoughts/feelings I wouldn't include in this discussion.