Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

OTBWY said:
No matter what giant list of measurements you can come with. The only real solution is banning all guns from public purchase and ownership. This is maybe very offensive to some Americans, but deep down you know that that is the only real solution. How can there even be a debate about background checks or small solutions after Sandy Hook is beyond me.

Gun ownership is still legal in the rest of the world, just waaaaaayyyy more regulated

In Luxembourg where I come from, you even need a weapon's license for ownership of a bow or an air pistol with the same background checks as for a rifle. It's even true for bladed weapons like fighting knifes or swords (collection swords, even those out of fantasy settings, need their edges to be dulled - and you still need a license for them, just a much less restrictive one). Weapon and ammo need to be stored separately (no loaded gun in storage) in a secured place (generally a gun vault). The license says what kind of weapons you're allowed to bear, which weapons you own, how many you're allowed to own.



Around the Network

Not surprised that President Piggy's campaign was funded by private prisons.

Thanks for nothing, America.



Some days I just blow up.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Gun ownership is still legal in the rest of the world, just waaaaaayyyy more regulated

This is the thing.

The "socialist" countries of Norway, Sweden, actually have really high rates of gun ownership.  There's regulation, but there are still a lot of guns. 

Even in countries where they supposedly banned all guns like Australia, there's still gun ownership.  People still own guns for sport.  

The conservative narrative that people are going to ban all guns of all varieties, just isn't based on reality.  



the-pi-guy said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Gun ownership is still legal in the rest of the world, just waaaaaayyyy more regulated

This is the thing.

The "socialist" countries of Norway, Sweden, actually have really high rates of gun ownership.  There's regulation, but there are still a lot of guns. 

Even in countries where they supposedly banned all guns like Australia, there's still gun ownership.  People still own guns for sport.  

The conservative narrative that people are going to ban all guns of all varieties, just isn't based on reality.  

Conservatives really do to make things worse, and the number of mass shootings in America these days proves that.

Kevin McCarthy even said he thinks Japan doesn't have mass shootings because Japan doesn't have video games.

Japan, the most famous video game maker in the world.

Republicans are stupifying America further and further to the point of no return, and said stupidity leaks into Canada too.

Last edited by CaptainExplosion - on 06 August 2019

Some days I just blow up.

Pemalite said:
OTBWY said:
No matter what giant list of measurements you can come with. The only real solution is banning all guns from public purchase and ownership. This is maybe very offensive to some Americans, but deep down you know that that is the only real solution. How can there even be a debate about background checks or small solutions after Sandy Hook is beyond me.

False! Gun Control in Australia has worked... And here is the kicker. It's still legal to own guns.

jason1637 said:

If there were none people can still be traced since there are camera everywhere.

Do you know how logistically difficult/impossible that is? There are 276.1 million vehicles in the United States, many vehicles look fundamentally identical as they are "stock" vehicles of a certain model. They are clones of each other.
It would be like trying to play "Spot the difference" with millions of other vehicles on the road.

Number plates exist and have a myriad of features that allow for the unique and easy identification of vehicles quickly and effectively regardless of conditions. (Fog/Rain/Sun Glare/Night Time. etc')

Number plates also assist agencies that aren't law enforcement... High-speed impacts tend not to leave much room for coherent descriptions of vehicles, but chances are a number plate or two has survived that we can reference from.

So no, number plates do exist for a reason.

jason1637 said:

No i'm not saying trace the person to their home and back. There's a sufficient amount of cameras already that can help find someone. If they stopped at a store/gas station and they probably drove by a street camera etc.

Yeah i'd rather have plates than a surveillance state.

That implies you will have a full camera network with coverage across the entire continent... Yeah. Nah. Certainly not the case.

It's really not that hard and you would not need cameras everywhere. Almost every store has a camera and the person probably crossed by a street camera. It probably take a little bit more time but thats a fair trade off.



Around the Network
Jaicee said:

So far, between the two mass shootings we've heard about over the weekend here in the U.S., we've heard much less about the Dayton, Ohio shooter, Connor Betts, because that one doesn't fit the narrative. It turns out that Betts was a member of a "pornogrind" metal band that released albums with titles like "6 Ways of Female Butchery", "Preteen Daughter Pu$$y Slaughter", "Live Snuff Porn Vol. 1", and "Tilt Bench for Gynecology or Total Rape". He had also twice been suspended from high school for hit lists he had made, including a "kill list" for boys and a "rape list" for girls.

Here's the really fun part though: in addition to being a raging misogynist who appears to have been motivated to kill by hatred of women above all, he was ALSO a self-described anti-fascist online activist who railed against Nazis and, yes, gun violence! (i.e. He was an Antifa type, ideologically speaking.) Yerrrrrp!!!

(Link)

I guess I would mean to highlight here that these shootings, and particularly misogynistic attitudes, are hardly exclusive to the political right wing, as our media frankly has been portraying them.

You're right, crazy people can be found everywhere and it is not surprising that something like Antifa also attracts many people who are only interested in violence but it doesn't seem like the Dayton shooter had a political motive for his actions, or at least not one that is associated with "the left", and that's probably the main reason why we hear less about this shooting.



vivster said:

1. How is that illegal? Aren't there also voter registries and a registry of licensed drivers?

4. Some hobbies cost money, there is no reason why a dangerous hobby like playing with guns shouldn't be expensive and heavily regulated. The freedom of owning a cheap gun does not trump the freedom of not getting shot. Without trying to sound bigoted, poor people are the last people I would like to make it easier for to own guns.

6. Correct. the limit should be 2.

9. Depends on the crime. If it was a violent crime, not having the right to own a gun anymore seems like a good idea. Call it extra punishment for being an asshole.

10./11. It is fair to assume that if someone is willing to break the law by owning an illegal firearm, he's also willing to break the law otherwise. For example by using the gun inappropriately.

If I believe gun owners correctly, they will only use their firearms for sport, which makes it a hobby. There are no special protections for hobbies. Owning a weapon designed for mass killing isn't a right, it's a privilege and people should pay for that privilege like every other person for their hobbies. At this point fucking drones are more regulated than guns.

A colleague of mine is a fan of guns and he uses them for sport. I'm pretty sure here in Germany all of these policies are in effect and that is absolutely fine. Fans of guns will jump these hoops for their hobby and everyone else will feel a lot safer.

1. There are laws that prevent the government from registering guns to their owners.

4. Not all gun owners hunt though. Some keep it for protection and we can't assume that every gun owner can afford a mental health check up. If someone is poor they should be able ot own a gun if a rich person can. It's wrong to not want them to especially when you consider that poor people are more likely to live in dangerous neighborhoods and are more prone to danger.

8. There should be no limit.

9. Even if it was a violent crime the person served their time and should be able to go back to how life was before their crime. Laws and policies restricting former criminals access and rights to certain things don't help anyone. It just causes resentment among these people and could lead to them committing another crime. If we stopped treating former criminals like they're second class citizens we would be a much safer country.

10/11. Not in all cases.

1. These laws are obviously stupid and would need to be changed as well then.

4. If people fear for their lives if they don't own murder weapons, there is something really wrong in their country. And it's not that there are not enough guns. Giving everyone who's scared a gun is most certainly not a solution.

8. Why? I mean I would set it to 1 because who needs more than 1? But I bumped it up to 2 in case one of the guns is in the shop or otherwise not available.

9. I would like to err on the side of caution here. People who committed violent crimes should have no need for a gun. Just like 99.999% of the non-criminal population. I mean those people live in a country where innocents are murdered by state officials, not being able to own a gun seems like a negligible issue. Again, the right to own a gun does not trump the right to not get shot by a person who had a violent past.

10/11. Again I would like to err on the side of caution.

We're not talking about Kinder Eggs. We're talking about mass murder weapons. Can we please have strict regulations on things whose only purpose it is to hurt other people? Thank you.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

the-pi-guy said:

The first one is talked about much more because:

1.) Killed more people

2.) Happened first

3.) Left a manifesto, with reasons spelled out, particularly political reasons.  Whereas the latter shooting doesn't seem to be politically motivated.  

It's a little bizarre to me for someone to point out that the latter shooting wasn't right wing, when most people are either concerned about gun violence in general regardless of political motivation or they're concerned about politically motivated shootings rising due to right wing fear propaganda.  

Neither of those concerns are invalidated by the second shooting being by someone who might have been a leftist.  

And sure, the media will feed on people concern's, by giving a lot of information that fits into it, but that's not evidence of a forced narrative. 

This, suggesting that I'm attempting to either justify a mass shooting or oppose gun reform, is kind of a disingenuous post in the consideration of the fact that everyone here (including you) by now is fully aware that 1) I am a supporter of gun control, and 2) have never had a good word to say about Trump, including in connection to his racist politics. There's no question that the El Paso massacre was Trump-inspired white terrorism! No rational person disputes that. I mean the hospitalized victims believe exactly that to be case, which is why they've reportedly requested that the president stay the hell away from their community in the future.

The nation has just been awash in talk of the white racist motives of the El Paso shooter of late, so I thought I'd chip in the apparent sexist motives of the Dayton shooter since they're a lot less talked about. You can highlight that more people actually died in the El Paso massacre and that's true and all fine and well to point out, but it's not as if the actual casualty count in either case is much different (46 and 40 respectively). Both of these incidents merit national discussion, not just the one that's the most politically expedient for the left.

Sorry I've weirded you out by not sticking to the script here, rape and misogyny are personal topics for me that I think the nation should discuss and I'm not convinced that the left is actually any less sexist than the right. I think that should be part of this long-overdue national conversation we're having about the politics of mass shooters.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 07 August 2019

vivster said:
jason1637 said:

I think all the ones I didnt cross over would work well.

1. That's illegal.

4. If it's a free evaluation sure but if not then it's a bad idea because it just puts a burden on poor gun owners.

6. There's no need for this.

9. Depends on the crime. Criminals should not be treated like 2nd class citizens because of their past mistakes. They've served their time and should be allowed to fully integrate and that includes owning a gun if they want.

10/11. If someone illegally owns a guns or sold one but have shown no intention to harm someone or has not harmed someone with it they should be punished but to a lesser extent.

12. If the authorities are taking away a private belonging the person should be able to fight/question it. And this would probably be illegal and possibly unconstitutional.

1. How is that illegal? Aren't there also voter registries and a registry of licensed drivers?

4. Some hobbies cost money, there is no reason why a dangerous hobby like playing with guns shouldn't be expensive and heavily regulated. The freedom of owning a cheap gun does not trump the freedom of not getting shot. Without trying to sound bigoted, poor people are the last people I would like to make it easier for to own guns.

6. Correct. the limit should be 2.

9. Depends on the crime. If it was a violent crime, not having the right to own a gun anymore seems like a good idea. Call it extra punishment for being an asshole.

10./11. It is fair to assume that if someone is willing to break the law by owning an illegal firearm, he's also willing to break the law otherwise. For example by using the gun inappropriately.

If I believe gun owners correctly, they will only use their firearms for sport, which makes it a hobby. There are no special protections for hobbies. Owning a weapon designed for mass killing isn't a right, it's a privilege and people should pay for that privilege like every other person for their hobbies. At this point fucking drones are more regulated than guns.

A colleague of mine is a fan of guns and he uses them for sport. I'm pretty sure here in Germany all of these policies are in effect and that is absolutely fine. Fans of guns will jump these hoops for their hobby and everyone else will feel a lot safer.

What is your logic to the proper amount of guns being 2? Most people who own guns own more than 2 for a reason.

I own a shotgun for deer hunting (regular season does not allow rifles south of a specific line in our state).

I own a 223 rifle that I've used largely for fun range shooting, as well as prairie dog hunting (impossible with a shotgun as you need to be 200-300+ yards away)

I own a 22 rifle that I've used a LOT for small game hunting. Neither the 223 or the shotgun are reasonable for these methods of hunting. The 223 would make the entire squirrel/small animal explode. The shotgun doesn't have near the accuracy required for this type of hunting.

I also own a muzzleloader, as there is a late deer season where this is the only type of gun allowed. It's intended to be very difficult as you get only 1 shot.

I've taken gun safety courses (as all hunters in the state have), all of my guns have required a background check. This doesn't even mention that the majority of mass shootings could easily have occurred even if each person only had 1 gun.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Jaicee said:

This, suggesting that I'm attempting to either justify a mass shooting or oppose gun reform, is kind of a disingenuous post in the consideration of the fact that everyone here (including you) by now is fully aware that 1) I am a supporter of gun control, and 2) have never had a good word to say about Trump, including in connection to his racist politics. There's no question that the El Paso massacre was Trump-inspired white terrorism! No rational person disputes that. I mean the hospitalized victims believe exactly that to be case, which is why they've reportedly requested that the president stay the hell away from their community in the future.

The nation has just been awash in talk of the white racist motives of the El Paso shooter of late, so I thought I'd chip in the apparent sexist motives of the Dayton shooter since they're a lot less talked about. You can highlight that more people actually died in the El Paso massacre and that's true and all fine and well to point out, but it's not as if the actual casualty count in either case is much different (46 and 40 respectively). Both of these incidents merit national discussion, not just the one that's the most politically expedient for the left.

Sorry I've weirded you out by not sticking to the script here, rape and misogyny are personal topics for me that I think the nation should discuss and I'm not convinced that the left is actually any less sexist than the right. I think that should be part of this long-overdue national conversation we're having about the politics of mass shooters.

Why do you conclude a sexist motivation when the nine victims consisted of five males and four females?

The most interesting tidbit of information regarding Dayton is that the shooter's sister was among the victims. Maybe she was involved in the situation that triggered the conviction to go through with a plan that the guy has had for a long time; and because she annoyed him somehow, she became the primary target of the shooting. It would be quite the coincidence that the location was chosen randomly and that the shooter's sister was randomly among the victims. More likely that the shooter snapped after he already had a long history of mental problems, and his sister was the person who was the last straw. No political, racial or sexist motivations.

The Dayton shooting has the making of an amok run. "I hate you all, nobody cares about me, I'll teach you a lesson." - The shooter wore a mask and a bulletproof vest, but I don't think that he planned to not die on that day. Rather he wanted to be in better control of his own fate and that means killing himself after he had completed what he had come to do. However, the police took him down within seconds.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club