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!
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,828
100,043
Tummysticks_sl said:
Don't bother. He's too busy swinging around his massive intellect and superior morals.
Click to expand...
Dunno how my post saying dangerous people should be kept away from society(aka locked up in prison) as some holocaustesque persecution and roundup idea.
 
Haus

Haus

<Silver Donator>
13,228
51,663
Palum_sl said:
So I'm going to ask this question, and it's going to rustle the shit out of some jimmies, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Hypothetically, if more stringent requirements (ie pass a federal gun safety class and more thorough background check system) were implemented for a general license to purchase, carry, conceal and own weapons above, say, strictly defined home defense weapons/hunting weapons (pump action SG or hunting rifle), would a federal mandate on CC and removal of the FOPA ban on full automatics be worth the trade? I consider it a deal with the devil, to a degree, but a shall-issue permit and positive affirmation of the right to own such weapons (provided no compelling interest against, such as you are a carjacker or insane) is a compelling trade.

I think I would be for it, personally.
Click to expand...
My question would be this, what would any of the restrictive gun legislation requiring safety classes, passing tests, documenting guns, or controlling their lawful possession stop someone who doesn't care about following laws? (i.e. the type who would walk into a school/theater/mall and open fire like they were clearing trash mobs on the way to a boss). All these laws appear to do it punish and make more onerous the process of legally owning something.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
That argument always sounds weak to me. You could say that about any law in existence. Do food safety laws provide no benefit, because the people who violate the law are criminals anyway right? They just punish law abiding food producers by burdening them with regulation and standards!
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,828
100,043
I think its more of laws on top of laws already on the books. If you pass law xyz and it doesnt do what you want it to do, passing another on top of it isnt going to do a damn thing.

Its already illegal to murder someone, yet murder happens everyday yet people think making it even more illegal to commit murder will stop it. You want people to stop committing crime? Take away the incentive or benefit for them(hello war on drugs). You arent gonna stop things like sandy hook because well crazy people are crazy and theyre gonna do crazy things no matter what and there is nothing you can do about that.
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
Big Phoenix_sl said:
I think its more of laws on top of laws already on the books. If you pass law xyz and it doesnt do what you want it to do, passing another on top of it isnt going to do a damn thing.

Its already illegal to murder someone, yet murder happens everyday yet people think making it even more illegal to commit murder will stop it. You want people to stop committing crime? Take away the incentive or benefit for them(hello war on drugs). You arent gonna stop things like sandy hook because well crazy people are crazy and theyre gonna do crazy things no matter what and there is nothing you can do about that.
Click to expand...
And this just sets you up for the counter-argument that you could mitigate harms of crazy people by making it harder for them to get guns by reducing the total number floating around. I think the argument really resolves like this: basically no one (even the staunchest supporter of getting rid of guns) would say, for example, that if we could reduce the gun deaths in America to zero by putting a camera in every home in America to make sure nobody is cheating (hiding guns, machining them yourself, printing them, etc)0 that it would be worth it. What is the appropriate response to X number of gun deaths in America each year is largely an aesthetic preference. It has to do with largely internal and unarguable weightings on the value of the liberty of owning a gun and the value of preventing gun deaths. As a matter of policy it would make sense to vote on the issue, but we have this dumb country's political system instead so...good luck.
 
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,661
16,106
The benefit of food safety laws is more along the lines of education. Without those laws, not everyone would realize how important certain practices are. Case in point, my wife used to work in a commercial kitchen, and cringes when I do things like handle raw meat without gloves on. She's probably right, but i don't give a fuck.

But make no mistake about it. People still willfully break those laws in the commercial food industry. Didn't you have any friends who worked in fast food when you were a teenager?
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Yeah but those laws are there to protect people. Mishandle someone's meal in a restaurant, you could kill them or get them very sick, and in the process expose yourself and the company to liability. Even if it is true, if it saves lives who cares if someone is inconvenienced? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, I'm saying it is a weak argument. Especially when there are so many better ones to be made.
 
opiate82

opiate82

Bronze Squire
3,078
5
and cringes when I do things like handle raw meat without gloves on.
Click to expand...
Most evidence actually shows that handling foods that are going to be cooked w/o gloves is actually safer than if they wear gloves. You are more aware of what is on your hands and more likely to wash them where as people accidentally brush their gloved hands against grossness but are never aware of it. Obviously every state is different, but in WA the health department actually asks that we don't use gloves when handling any food that will eventually be cooked.

/derail off

In gun related news, these dudes managed to get 600+ rounds out of a 3-D printed AR-15 lower. So far the plans have been downloaded over 10,000 times. Can't wait for all the hoopla when someone who wasn't suppose to own a gun uses a printed one to do something bad.
confused.png


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...er-600-rounds/
 
Fadaar

Fadaar

That guy
11,081
12,091
I guess someone that works with my roommate has a 3D printer and made a grip just to test. Doesn't fit right, it's a tad bit too small to fit over the trigger area without either re-making it or filing it down a lot.
 
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,661
16,106
opiate82_sl said:
Most evidence actually shows that handling foods that are going to be cooked w/o gloves is actually safer than if they wear gloves. You are more aware of what is on your hands and more likely to wash them where as people accidentally brush their gloved hands against grossness but are never aware of it. Obviously every state is different, but in WA the health department actually asks that we don't use gloves when handling any food that will eventually be cooked.
Click to expand...
did I mention that I lick my hands clean? Cause I meant to mention that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.