Gun control

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
I would think very few doctors would be willing to personally take on the responsibility for gun licensure anyway. The practicalities of that are more political than medical. I have an idea that the AMA would quietly declare an ethical conflict and just refuse to sanction it.

The best you can really expect, and even this is a stretch, is some sort of written half-ass psych eval which attempts to weed out the worst of the social retards. Like those horrible entry level corporate "personality" tests that ask questions like, "It's ok to steal from my employer if ...".

But I think we already do THAT, don't we?
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Zhaun_sl said:
Yeah, but again, where is the line on that. It is hard to classify who exactly qualifies as "dangerous".

Also, this borders on "Will this be spread to other areas?" like "If you are on certain meds you can't rent a car" or somthing. Then we go down the road of "Will people not seek help when they need it because instead of just being socially mocked, they are now legally ostracized from things too now?"

Blah, blah, blah it is a real dangerous and sticky area which we still don't know as much about or handle as well as would be nice.
Click to expand...
I really don't know, I don't have any answers for this shit.

I do think that you can't decry gun control on one hand by blaming mass shootings and whatever on mental illness and then on the other hand say nothing can be done to prevent the mentally ill from getting a spread shot or flamethrower. I am not convinced that mental illness is the real culprit, I think people assume that way too quickly and with much too little information. But sure, as a matter of practice, let's not provide them access to guns. As long as you can define "them" in a way that isn't overly broad I wouldn't see a problem with it. But it kind of seems like just another AWB or whatever feel good measure that won't really have any impact. If we aren't also restricting family members of these crazed killers, or tracking them, or any of a host of other things that our society is not prepared to do, then we are just jerking off.

Gun violence has existed since guns were invented, so that just is what it is. These mass shootings are different, they have not always existed and are concerning. I just don't think we are in a place as a society where we can even begin to deal with whatever the fuck the root cause is of this shit. We can't even pass a damn budget or agree to NOT sabotage the government with shit like the sequester, I have no faith in government to even identify the issues at play here. Nevermind actually addressing them.
 
K

koljec_sl

shitlord
845
2
Ignatius_sl said:
Don't know if we need to worry so much about the guys in the level 4 group...they spend a good chunk of change on those bad boys, pretty sure they won't do anything to compromise them
wink.png
Click to expand...
I think that's an important detail that is lost on a lot of people. Guns and ammo are a very costly hobby, and some of the right to bear arms has already been relegated to the wealthy -- people need to cough up for tax stamps, FFLs, and gun trusts.

2A reform could be a chance to make some of those things more accessible.
 
B_Mizzle

B_Mizzle

Golden Baronet of the Realm
7,752
15,329
koljec_sl said:
I think that's an important detail that is lost on a lot of people. Guns and ammo are a very costly hobby, and some of the right to bear arms has already been relegated to the wealthy -- people need to cough up for tax stamps, FFLs, and gun trusts.

2A reform could be a chance to make some of those things more accessible.
Click to expand...
And lower taxes on someone? HAHAHA, there will be no tax decreases until morale improves sir.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,181
160,405
chaos_sl said:
I really don't know, I don't have any answers for this shit.

I do think that you can't decry gun control on one hand by blaming mass shootings and whatever on mental illness and then on the other hand say nothing can be done to prevent the mentally ill from getting a spread shot or flamethrower. I am not convinced that mental illness is the real culprit, I think people assume that way too quickly and with much too little information. But sure, as a matter of practice, let's not provide them access to guns. As long as you can define "them" in a way that isn't overly broad I wouldn't see a problem with it. But it kind of seems like just another AWB or whatever feel good measure that won't really have any impact. If we aren't also restricting family members of these crazed killers, or tracking them, or any of a host of other things that our society is not prepared to do, then we are just jerking off.

Gun violence has existed since guns were invented, so that just is what it is. These mass shootings are different, they have not always existed and are concerning. I just don't think we are in a place as a society where we can even begin to deal with whatever the fuck the root cause is of this shit. We can't even pass a damn budget or agree to NOT sabotage the government with shit like the sequester, I have no faith in government to even identify the issues at play here. Nevermind actually addressing them.
Click to expand...
Where does it end though?

Do we start denying people constitutional rights based on their mental capability? Would you deny someone the right to vote or the right to free speech if they were mentally disturbed?
 
Z

Zombie Thorne_sl

shitlord
918
1
Yeah i have an extra $50k rider on my homeowners policy to cover firearms and related equipment. It aint a cheap hobby!

Thats why these gun buybacks crack me up, a $200 Best Buy gift card for your $1,000 Garand? SIGN ME UP NOW!

Wasnt there something recently in Washington state where gun enthusiasts showed up at a buyback with cash in hand getting the guns before LEO? Smart!
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,181
160,405
Thorne_sl said:
Yeah i have an extra $50k rider on my homeowners policy to cover firearms and related equipment. It aint a cheap hobby!

Thats why these gun buybacks crack me up, a $200 Best Buy gift card for your $1,000 Garand? SIGN ME UP NOW!

Wasnt there something recently in Washington state where gun enthusiasts showed up at a buyback with cash in hand getting the guns before LEO? Smart!
Click to expand...
That's pretty genius
smile.png
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
Thorne_sl said:
Yeah i have an extra $50k rider on my homeowners policy to cover firearms and related equipment. It aint a cheap hobby!

Thats why these gun buybacks crack me up, a $200 Best Buy gift card for your $1,000 Garand? SIGN ME UP NOW!

Wasnt there something recently in Washington state where gun enthusiasts showed up at a buyback with cash in hand getting the guns before LEO? Smart!
Click to expand...
The buybacks really aren't geared towards someone like you. It's not meant for people who have guns and are perfectly content with their guns. It's meant as an extra push for those people who have guns and are already contemplating getting rid of their guns. If they already want to get rid of their guns and can now do it and get some extra bucks in the process, why not ?
 
D

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
Well, this whole thread is a hilariously one-sided circlejerk anyway, I didn't really expect anyone to pay attention to those pesky facts.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
opiate82_sl said:
Mother Jones is to gun control what Fox News is to Republicans.
Click to expand...
It's a mother jones article but the majority of the facts it cites is from outside sources. I haven't looked at all their points but a lot of the claims do sound true to me at first glance. For example, does anyone here dispute the claim that while more guns are being sold, the majority of them are being sold to those who already own guns ? My unscientific observation of the stockpiling by current gun owners seems to suggest that this is true.
 
D

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
It's not a perfect article by any means, but it is absolutely filled with citations and, despite Tuco's laughable assertion, covers most of the things that I hear gun owners/advocates actually say, over and over again.

My biggest quibble with it is the claim that no mass shootings have been stopped by the presence of a gun carrying person, and that's mostly because I have zero idea how you would actually measure that. I'm quite sure that the amount of times that has happened is massively overstated by gun advocates though.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Duppin_sl said:
My biggest quibble with it is the claim that no mass shootings have been stopped by the presence of a gun carrying person, and that's mostly because I have zero idea how you would actually measure that. I'm quite sure that the amount of times that has happened is massively overstated by gun advocates though.
Click to expand...
One of the issues is that if someone is stopped by a CC holder or a offduty leo early on then it doesn't become a mass shooting. Now the statistics on this are hard to track, since if someone is stopped early, was it going to be a mass shooting or something small? Hard to say. However, saying it is zero is flat out ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.