Gun Controll Glock 9

[Robin Of House Hill]

Why do we always focus on an object, rather than the cause of the problem. When some mentally fucked up person goes on a killing rampage, we focus on guns. When the second person in a month is pushed to his death in front of a subway, we focus on changing the speed at which the trains enter the stations. Why do we not focus on the cause of the problem, the aforesaid mentally fucked up people? What benefit does society derive from letting all these nuts run free?

I can't wait for someone to take it to the opposite extreme and ask how many lives would be saved if there were no schools or subways.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why do we always focus on an object, rather than the cause of the problem. When some mentally fucked up person goes on a killing rampage, we focus on guns. When the second person in a month is pushed to his death in front of a subway, we focus on changing the speed at which the trains enter the stations. Why do we not focus on the cause of the problem, the aforesaid mentally fucked up people? What benefit does society derive from letting all these nuts run free?

I don't understand why it has to be an either/or. Why not look at least consider it from all sides? 1) looking at the objects, perhaps smaller magazines and requiring background checks for private sales; 2) tightening up on the mental illness aspect to limit those who want to commit murder, and 3) addressing security in the schools themselves to get those who inevitably will slip through the cracks?

[Robin Of House Hill]

You forgot to mention violent video games.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Good point on the video games, although I'm not sure how strong the linkage is.

[lupis42]

Pulled this off a more gun-centric board I frequent, because it sums up my reaction to Feinstein's bill perfectly:

We're done with compromises. "Compromise" to a gun-banner means "I won't push to take EVERYTHING from you, just some things". Enough!

In a sense, I find her refreshingly honest on this one: she doesn't want modern firearms out there, and she'll do whatever she can to make sure that happens, either step by step or all at once.

But it also means that, from a pro-gun perspective, even if there's something in there that you don't find objectionable, compromising with her is always going to involve giving things up, and isn't going to forestall being asked to give more in the future, so there's nothing to gain.

[Relic]

Heh. Good one. Seriously, because that does seem to be a consistent theme in these cases, yet very few people seem to want to talk about it.

Violent video games? Why stop there? How about our violent culture, period? Our massive military budget, our status as the biggest weapons dealer on the planet, choosing to depict violence over sex in our tv and movies...the list is long. It's intellectually lazy and silly to try and blame all this shit on video games. As silly as it is to try and blame the entire problem on the existence of guns.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But it also means that, from a pro-gun perspective, even if there's something in there that you don't find objectionable, compromising with her is always going to involve giving things up, and isn't going to forestall being asked to give more in the future, so there's nothing to gain.

Well, if it is a smart rule that could save lives without infringing on reasonable gun rights, wouldn't that be a gain in itself? I mean, I hopped on Tormund's idea of having private sales run through the same scan you get for dealer sales not as a trade-off to the gun control lobby, but simply as an interesting idea on it's own merits.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Violent video games? Why stop there? How about our violent culture, period? Our massive military budget, our status as the biggest weapons dealer on the planet, choosing to depict violence over sex in our tv and movies...the list is long. It's intellectually lazy and silly to try and blame all this shit on video games. As silly as it is to try and blame the entire problem on the existence of guns.

I don't recall anyone blaming "all this shit" just on video games -- I think everyone is in agreement on that. The point being made was that if we're going to discuss limiting one aspect of the problem -- guns -- then why aren't we also discussing those other issues as well?

[Relic]

then why aren't we also discussing those other issues as well?

i don't know jeff, why aren't you? Lots of other people are. This is a gun control thread, there was a mental health thread earlier. Pretty sure we had a violent video game thread as well.

edit - while you are at it, you could try dissecting even more. What else, other than violent video games, contributes to the random, brutal, and apathetic violence we have been seeing lately?

[Kalbear]

I don't recall anyone blaming "all this shit" just on video games -- I think everyone is in agreement on that. The point being made was that if we're going to discuss limiting one aspect of the problem -- guns -- then why aren't we also discussing those other issues as well?

wayne lapierre blamed all this shit on video games.

I did try to mention back when we were discussing the latest republican controversy in morals how its not conservative hypocrisy, it is political hypocrisy. No one has strong feelings that they practice any more. They just follow their constituency with fire and righteousness. And it's not an ideological thing - it's just what politics looks like.

Anyway, feinsteins bill is shit but must look something like that in today's world because of the process needed. I'm surprised raidne doesn't recognize this as an obvious tactic for political theater and not an actual functioning bill.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I don't recall anyone blaming "all this shit" just on video games -- I think everyone is in agreement on that. The point being made was that if we're going to discuss limiting one aspect of the problem -- guns -- then why aren't we also discussing those other issues as well?

Probably because there has been an inverse correlation between violence in video games and actual violence. By the statistics, we should probably be making video games more violent since it correlates to less real-world violence.

[Howdyphillip]

As much as I disagree with Finestein's firearm bill, I applaud her for her politics. If the health care bill was introduced with this kind of unattainable goals, then we might have wound up with a health care system that had the potential to be successful. At least my fellow liberals have started to learn from their mistakes.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

As much as I disagree with Finestein's firearm bill, I applaud her for her politics. If the health care bill was introduced with this kind of unattainable goals, then we might have wound up with a health care system that had the potential to be successful. At least my fellow liberals have started to learn from their mistakes.

I think that might be the idea. Come in with a high ball offer and compromise down to what you really want. But I think it will backfire in their faces. This bill is so offensive that I think it will get shut down altogether, as opposed to negotiated into something else. The problem you'll have is that none of the public is going to hear about the compromises. They're going to hear about gun registries and confiscations, taxes and non-transferrables and they're going to rebel against the whole thing.

[Guest Raidne]

wayne lapierre blamed all this shit on video games.

Wayne LaPierre talked about video games for one sentence and spent the next three paragraphs of the transcript talking about the NRA school safety program, which involves working with communities to create security plans for schools, largely involving having an active plan in place and volunteers (consisting of veterans, national guard, reservists, and retired police) available to respond to a crisis, quickly, if one occurs, and to keep a watch on the school from the outside to note any unfamiliar persons on the grounds.

All that seems pretty A-OK to me.

Anyway, feinsteins bill is shit but must look something like that in today's world because of the process needed. I'm surprised raidne doesn't recognize this as an obvious tactic for political theater and not an actual functioning bill.

Really? A shit bill that literally repells the other side from the table and reintroduces inoperative definitions that make it unworkable in entirety both as is and for purposes of compromise is necessary because of the process needed? Unless you mean that the process needed is to propose a stupid bill that, even it ever even passes, the Court will surely strike down.....creating public anger with the Court and creating pressure to appoint Justices to overturn Heller and McDonald. Ahhhh. Gotcha. I'm tracking now.

If that's the plan, I would say kudos to Feinstein, but she still needs something that's going to actually pass.

[lupis42]

Well, if it is a smart rule that could save lives without infringing on reasonable gun rights, wouldn't that be a gain in itself? I mean, I hopped on Tormund's idea of having private sales run through the same scan you get for dealer sales not as a trade-off to the gun control lobby, but simply as an interesting idea on it's own merits.

I agree, but here's the thing - every time the pro gun side supports a restriction, it gets used as fodder for other, much worse restrictions.

And as much as I think Tormund's idea would help, it would be a huge pain in MA if it was enacted because we have some "consumer protection" regulations in place that limit what hanguns an FFL can legally sell to you, but do not limit what can be sold face to face - so the immediate effect, if that was enacted without any other reforms, would be to cause a huge PITA for the MA gunowner who wants to own something that the MA attorney general has deemed "unsafe" - such the handguns issued by many of the MA police departments.

Basically, looking at the history of gun control in this country, I see a long history of restrictions and few to no instances of weakening those restrictions or enacting any positive reform - until that changes, I have no desire to see additional restrictions get added, and no trust in anyone who is arguing for adding restrictions without reform.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

i don't know jeff, why aren't you? Lots of other people are. This is a gun control thread, there was a mental health thread earlier. Pretty sure we had a violent video game thread as well.

edit - while you are at it, you could try dissecting even more. What else, other than violent video games, contributes to the random, brutal, and apathetic violence we have been seeing lately?

Hold the fort there, Tex. I don't think Lorien's comment about "why aren't we discussing X" was in reference to this Board, but rather to the larger discussion going on outside this Board, and within Congress in particular. If I misinterpreted him, then the error is mine.

I personally didn't mention violence in videogames in my post above (#102) because I don't think anything can be done about that. I mentioned some gun reforms, mental health improvements, and security in schools. There are obviously other factors out there, but I think they are more difficult to addresss on a legislative level.

On the other hand, I do think that societal attitudes overall towards violence have shifted over time, and that is a cultural issue that has to do with the raising of kids, what we as adults consider acceptable, etc. Used to be that there would be some self-restraint in terms of movie violence because of a general belief that glorifying pure violence might not be healthy. That ethic pretty much has been replaced by the worship of shock value and gratuitious violence. But I don't think that's anything governments can really address. We've pretty much just fucked ourselves on that one.

[Kalbear]

Really raidne? Don't you live in dc or something like that?

It's a high ball proposal. It won't pass, but it can be modified to be more palatable so that it can pass. And that modification will still carry her name; knowing the particulars will not bother so many. As to the particulars, while gun nuts will go crazy about how unfair it is and how ridiculous it is they'll also be a massive minority - most people in the us who own a gun don't know this shit. Hell, not everyone in this particular thread - including you - know what the differences are here or what all the terms mean without looking them up. Do you really believe that most Americans will or are up in arms about this?

It's the same political theater that lapierre did. Suggest something that is politically unobtainable, blame something totally unrelated to the actual issue and move towards some kind of compromise. Why is it acceptable to you when one person does it and not another?

In any case, you may disagree with me -but other pro gun folks here see it that way as well, so you may consider thinking about this a bit more before deciding that I am wrong on general principles.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Violent video games? Why stop there? How about our violent culture, period? Our massive military budget, our status as the biggest weapons dealer on the planet, choosing to depict violence over sex in our tv and movies...the list is long. It's intellectually lazy and silly to try and blame all this shit on video games. As silly as it is to try and blame the entire problem on the existence of guns.

Just when I thought banning Angry Birds would solve the world's ills. Oh well.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It's a high ball proposal. It won't pass, but it can be modified to be more palatable so that it can pass.

I disagree. I think she went a little too highball and this will drive most of the people who might have negotiated away from the table.

[lupis42]

I disagree. I think she went a little too highball and this will drive most of the people who might have negotiated away from the table.

Hopefully.

That said, I do think she wanted this out there so that the pro gun side would be bargaining away things in this, rather than making our own proposals - it's very much an effort to control the conversation.