Was there a time when we had vehicles before DMVs were a thing? How did that come about, from registering to licensing to mandating liability insurance. Like we need to figure out how to start down that road.
Was there a time when we had vehicles before DMVs were a thing? How did that come about, from registering to licensing to mandating liability insurance. Like we need to figure out how to start down that road.
Is this where I find out the automobile industry fought against things like licenses, registration, seatbelts, etc? Did some dipshit once argue that even having breaks is a violation of “muh freedoms”?
Was there a time when we had vehicles before DMVs were a thing? How did that come about, from registering to licensing to mandating liability insurance. Like we need to figure out how to start down that road.
Is this where I find out the automobile industry fought against things like licenses, registration, seatbelts, etc? Did some dipshit once argue that even having breaks is a violation of “muh freedoms”?
Seatbelts for sure, but I'll go ahead and put money on the other things being true as well.
I want these people to be pestered until they cave or they come right out and state that they don't give a shit. Like at this point I don't care which it is but stop pulling this thoughts and prayers shit and moving on after you've made a show of feeling bad and doing nothing.
Also, I did some measurements (because apparently that's what I get to do today; figure out numbers for things that should be getting me on some kind of google watch list) and figured out a cathartic (if theatric) response to Ted cruz and company doing everything they can to prevent sensible gun laws from passing:
Get these:
Fill them with pigs blood and then pour those 3 buckets of blood on them while the senate is in session after they demure about how they can't do anything about it.
Why 3 buckets instead of one? Because based off my quick and dirty math that's about how much innocent blood was spilled because of the carnage in Uvalde; 15 gallons.
Hey folks, much as I agree with the sentiment, please don't endorse what would be considered felony assault on politicians on these here publicly indexed forums. You can endorse harassing them in ways that are not illegal all you want, though.
So, we have one post about how maybe we can build a better world where a person uses a word and several people who clearly did not read the entire post (because there is no way "the jackpot" could be misconstrued that way if you read the entire post) call that person a monster. And we have this post where a person coldly calculates how much blood of children was spilled and suggests that a like amount of pigs blood should be splashed on politicians and the mod says, "I agree with the sentiment, but it might be illegal." This place is truly horrific.
To be clear, ElJeffe and the mods have a vested interest in not letting people openly discuss criminal behavior since the last thing they need is the FBI swinging by to ask everyone questions and/or threatening Gabe and Tycho (Who don't really give a shit about the forum and would likely sleep soundly after deleting it from the internet so that they can avoid a legal debacle.
Was there a time when we had vehicles before DMVs were a thing? How did that come about, from registering to licensing to mandating liability insurance. Like we need to figure out how to start down that road.
The states just did what seemed prudent with the increasing number of vehicles because there was no frothing at the mouth Supreme Court insisting that they couldnt, and because restricting obtaining a car was never a priority so much as trying to make drivers safer. You register your car after the sale is done, the seller reports it, but you've already walked away with the car, nobody is stopping the transaction and any enforcement is going to be ad hoc.
We still have problems with the elderly driving long after they shouldnt, for example, and taking their licenses doesnt work very well without family support of them not driving because a) you cant detect it and b) throwing them in jail isnt gonna happen unless they kill someone or whatever.
I dunno that driving regulation has any lessons for gun ownership, since making obtaining a gun difficult in the first place is the challenge in a country with so, so, so many guns.
tbh someone with like, 100+ guns is someone with their shit together enough to fund an expensive collection, I'm not really worried about them, especially because those collections aren't like 100 AR-15s, but probably a bunch of Curio and Relic stuff. Nobody is knocking over a liquor store or commiting a mass shooting with a Turkish Mauser from 1938. They probably also have a federal FFL, which is subject to some serious background checks (unlike purchasing a single firearm), zoning and storage requirements, etc.
Its a non-issue. It's the 18 year old with one gun, an AR-15 he bought the day before, or the infinite number of straw purchased handguns floating around the street.
A lot of people with 100+ guns are not elegant collectors but hoarders who compulsively buy guns as the right wing media scares them about the liberals coming for their guns or the “urban ferals” coming to rob and murder them. They gain comfort from buying guns like a shopoholic gets from buying designer shoes. Its a way to gain control over a scary world.
I've seen the term hobbyist used a couple times in recent days. Can we just call it what it is? It's a fetish.
I'm sure there are true collectors out there. Those who acquire rare and/or historically significant weapons. And as long as they're secured, and made inert, fine.
But if you've got multiple mass produced, recently produced weapons, especially of the same type/style, it's not about the collecting.
Normally I won't kinkshame, but then again, most people's kinks don't harm others (and those that do, are by consent).
But that's what it is for a lot of these people. The kind of slavish devotion to lethal weaponry of this nature, we should NOT see being considered "normal". It's not the worst "hobby" someone can have, but it's not far off.
Note, I'm not calling out gun owners. If you've a rifle, a handgun and a shotgun, fine. Or collectors. You've got WWII era M1911a, and a Colt Peacemaker, and a WW2 era Browning, and a couple others, fine.
I'm referring to the people who have more than a couple rifles, all the same general kind, all produced in significant number, in the last 20 years.
Like the displays we see behind Boebert and Trump Jr in their Zoom calls. Where they're at best props, at worst... fetishistic.
Some reports coming out that the border patrol agents that did eventually go in and shoot him did so without specific orders because they had grown frustrated with the situation and delay. All with a grain of salt, could just be various groups trying to make themselves look like the good guys, but it sounds plausible because it does seem like there was an order not to go in from up top, at least at some point. If true this means that even when they did go in they were still under orders to sit on their thumbs waiting for ???
Honestly it’s stunning to me that the sherrif or whatever who said “we made the wrong decision” didn’t immediately follow it up with “and therefore I resign”. Every single person who had any sort of command role in this should resign
I’m coming around to the idea that the thing to legislate against isn’t around whether something is or isn’t an assault rifle, but rather something directly measurable, how much force the bullets hit with at a given distance. This article from the Atlantic talks about how the bullet sounds from the AR15 are different and less survivable than those of a handgun.
So say that if a weapon is able to deliver a certain amount of force or fire a bullet of a certain size, it must be a single shot weapon, no magazines permitted. Add laws around aftermarket conversion kits, and legislate that converted weapons are also not permitted. So sure, you can have a weapon that can take down a moose. But you can’t have one that can take down a herd of moose in seconds.
I realize that this doesn’t go nearly far enough, but banning weapons based on how much damage they could do seems more practical to me than focusing on “what is an assault rifle?”
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
So is the mayor of the town still replying to the criticism with "you're a sick sovovabitch!"
I'm surprised the people of Uvalde haven't been protesting outside his house for 24 hours already. But I guess they're mostly on his side.
So many of them seem genuinely mortified that people would be angry and want action or some sort of promise of change. They seem to think anyone who doesn’t just sit solemnly and watch the usual press conferences come and go is “disrespectful” and “sick”.
Was there a time when we had vehicles before DMVs were a thing? How did that come about, from registering to licensing to mandating liability insurance. Like we need to figure out how to start down that road.
Is this where I find out the automobile industry fought against things like licenses, registration, seatbelts, etc? Did some dipshit once argue that even having breaks is a violation of “muh freedoms”?
The list of things car companies (and also oil companies largely in service of car usage) have done to cause millions of deaths is long and horrifying, mostly having to do with cities and infrastructure but also the way the cars themselves are designed. ...but probably off-topic.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Was there a time when we had vehicles before DMVs were a thing? How did that come about, from registering to licensing to mandating liability insurance. Like we need to figure out how to start down that road.
Is this where I find out the automobile industry fought against things like licenses, registration, seatbelts, etc? Did some dipshit once argue that even having breaks is a violation of “muh freedoms”?
Most of the safety features of automobiles have resulted not from legislation but from lawsuits.
Automobile manufacturers literally arguing in court "look we are following all the safety regulations on the books" as a defense against knowing about deadly design flaws that could be fixed, but it would cost more money to implement them.
A lot of the gun huggers and associated nutters (I was going to say fringe but it's a lot wider than that anymore) are convinced they are part of a silent majority. That people who want to take their guns are just a small very vocal minority mostly in San Fransisco or NYC. That the numbers supporting gun control are massaged or utterly falsified.
They isolate into real life and online communities that support this even further.
So that a bunch if children died and people nationwide are actually mad - not just some people performatively on Twitter for a day, but real normal people where this isn't just going away is hard for them to grasp. Because honestly most mass shootings are in the news for 24-48 hours and people get real mad before the next news cycle.
I've seen the term hobbyist used a couple times in recent days. Can we just call it what it is? It's a fetish.
I'm sure there are true collectors out there. Those who acquire rare and/or historically significant weapons. And as long as they're secured, and made inert, fine.
But if you've got multiple mass produced, recently produced weapons, especially of the same type/style, it's not about the collecting.
Normally I won't kinkshame, but then again, most people's kinks don't harm others (and those that do, are by consent).
But that's what it is for a lot of these people. The kind of slavish devotion to lethal weaponry of this nature, we should NOT see being considered "normal". It's not the worst "hobby" someone can have, but it's not far off.
Note, I'm not calling out gun owners. If you've a rifle, a handgun and a shotgun, fine. Or collectors. You've got WWII era M1911a, and a Colt Peacemaker, and a WW2 era Browning, and a couple others, fine.
I'm referring to the people who have more than a couple rifles, all the same general kind, all produced in significant number, in the last 20 years.
Like the displays we see behind Boebert and Trump Jr in their Zoom calls. Where they're at best props, at worst... fetishistic.
I mean, I'm not sure that I would necessarily dismiss this entirely as a fetish (Particularly since fetish denotes sexual pleasure which... I'm not sure where you're bracing that that you can experience pleasure...) as opposed to a hobby, but I think that said their really does need to be a point where the various hobbyists need to sit up and say this is not OK.
I'm a Roleplayer, a person who loves to do collective storytelling games with groups of friends through mediums like Dungeons and Dragons, Rifts, Shadowrun. Vampire the masquerade and at one time a play by post forum called Gaming guardians (sadly passed from this world). I've been doing this long enough and with enough verve that I could rightly be called a grognard, one of the old grumblers and remember the days of Satanic Panic when parents (my own included) clutched pearls over how it would "corrupt youth". I legitimately love the medium and watching when narrative intimacy occurs: that moment when a player is fully open and aware and rules, dice, numbers and everything else just slips away so that a pure expression of the character can exist.
If I thought for one second that their was real, honest to god physical danger present I would take steps to put it down. I've had players in the past that were menacing others and I've booted them. I've had people who were too deep into character and had to bring them back to earth. And If I thought for one second that the hobby I've invested some 30+ years into posed an actual honest to god physical threat I'd take whatever steps (up to and including burning a thousand dollars or so RPG stuff) to prevent it from happening.
Instead you have people hiding behind what a bunch of guys who have been dead for no less then 186 years thought was a good idea based on how the world was in 1791 when the standard long gun of the americas (the brown bess) had a rate of fire of around 3-4 rounds a minute while also ignoring how they both wanted the constitution to change as society needed it,
Was there a time when we had vehicles before DMVs were a thing? How did that come about, from registering to licensing to mandating liability insurance. Like we need to figure out how to start down that road.
Is this where I find out the automobile industry fought against things like licenses, registration, seatbelts, etc? Did some dipshit once argue that even having breaks is a violation of “muh freedoms”?
Seatbelts for sure, but I'll go ahead and put money on the other things being true as well.
Brakes and some things I don't think so, but in college I had a professor who developed one of the early systems to prevent injuries from airbag deployments while he worked at Ford. It was a pretty comprehensive system (it wasn't just a weight sensor but tracked body position and could alter deployment strength), but it would have added about $600 to the manufacture cost of vehicles because it needed a much heftier computer than cars were equipped with in the 90's. Ford cancelled the project because wrongful death settlements were only adding about $450 in costs per vehicle.
However, worth comparing this kind of "Eh, it's cheaper for now to pay the lawsuits so we'll wait for a cheaper solution," apathy and Daniel Defense's "train your child up," advertisement, which literally says your kid will die from a gun but if you teach them now maybe they'll take somebody else with them. This is more akin to Ford running an ad saying, "THIS TRUCK IS HUUUUGE LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU CAN RUN OVER! FUCKER AIN'T EVEN SLOWIN' DOWN DAMN!"
Even corporate evil can't compare when guns are involved.
Some reports coming out that the border patrol agents that did eventually go in and shoot him did so without specific orders because they had grown frustrated with the situation and delay. All with a grain of salt, could just be various groups trying to make themselves look like the good guys, but it sounds plausible because it does seem like there was an order not to go in from up top, at least at some point. If true this means that even when they did go in they were still under orders to sit on their thumbs waiting for ???
Honestly it’s stunning to me that the sherrif or whatever who said “we made the wrong decision” didn’t immediately follow it up with “and therefore I resign”. Every single person who had any sort of command role in this should resign
No. Everyone who was directly involved with this from that department should resign at a minimum for this absolutely horrific act of incompetence. More specifically their should be an investigtion to figure out whether or not people should be charged for negligence owing to the fact that they (in the "best" scenario) wildly violated procedure by refusing to engage for the better part of an hour.
+3
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
A lot of the gun huggers and associated nutters (I was going to say fringe but it's a lot wider than that anymore) are convinced they are part of a silent majority. That people who want to take their guns are just a small very vocal minority mostly in San Fransisco or NYC. That the numbers supporting gun control are massaged or utterly falsified.
They isolate into real life and online communities that support this even further.
So that a bunch if children died and people nationwide are actually mad - not just some people performatively on Twitter for a day, but real normal people where this isn't just going away is hard for them to grasp. Because honestly most mass shootings are in the news for 24-48 hours and people get real mad before the next news cycle.
the reality is that if the government singled out maybe 1% of the US population, specifically, they could get rid of about 80% of the firearms in the country.
the other reality is that the 1% they need to harass to do this is also tied into the other 1% that buys votes.
I also think the government should fund a buyback program at the national level. If we can do three rounds of stimulus checks, we should be able to do one round of $800 checks, per firearm turned in.
The flip to that though is that until we put manufacturing and import limits in place as well, then US companies are just going to double production for the next decade.
it's very... "in this two hour video I'll describe my 30 point plan" and I wish it wasn't.
I think the next two big changes that need to come down are manufacturing and import limits, but I also think that about most of the planets goods and resources
I've seen the term hobbyist used a couple times in recent days. Can we just call it what it is? It's a fetish.
I'm sure there are true collectors out there. Those who acquire rare and/or historically significant weapons. And as long as they're secured, and made inert, fine.
But if you've got multiple mass produced, recently produced weapons, especially of the same type/style, it's not about the collecting.
Normally I won't kinkshame, but then again, most people's kinks don't harm others (and those that do, are by consent).
But that's what it is for a lot of these people. The kind of slavish devotion to lethal weaponry of this nature, we should NOT see being considered "normal". It's not the worst "hobby" someone can have, but it's not far off.
Note, I'm not calling out gun owners. If you've a rifle, a handgun and a shotgun, fine. Or collectors. You've got WWII era M1911a, and a Colt Peacemaker, and a WW2 era Browning, and a couple others, fine.
I'm referring to the people who have more than a couple rifles, all the same general kind, all produced in significant number, in the last 20 years.
Like the displays we see behind Boebert and Trump Jr in their Zoom calls. Where they're at best props, at worst... fetishistic.
Yes, that's largely who are in command at team gun. I worked with many of them. I probably was nearly one at one point.
But there are a small number of what I'd consider poor people who have (as you mentioned above) less military level firearms but are also not collectors. Often they have a family weapon used almost exclusively for food hunting.
I'm not posting to defend them, though. I just want to point out that they, too, have been spoon fed THE FEAR, and consequently will be very opposed even if they do agree with the stance on military level hardware.
I think that's something that probably worked very well in how Australia did this 25 years ago. But that was also before the modern US hypersexualization of all things that shooty shoot.
It's just something that I've been thinking about, honestly for years since around Sandy Hook. How do you get those folks on our side?
I’m coming around to the idea that the thing to legislate against isn’t around whether something is or isn’t an assault rifle, but rather something directly measurable, how much force the bullets hit with at a given distance. This article from the Atlantic talks about how the bullet sounds from the AR15 are different and less survivable than those of a handgun.
So say that if a weapon is able to deliver a certain amount of force or fire a bullet of a certain size, it must be a single shot weapon, no magazines permitted. Add laws around aftermarket conversion kits, and legislate that converted weapons are also not permitted. So sure, you can have a weapon that can take down a moose. But you can’t have one that can take down a herd of moose in seconds.
I realize that this doesn’t go nearly far enough, but banning weapons based on how much damage they could do seems more practical to me than focusing on “what is an assault rifle?”
Banning intermediate rounds would be a good start. Like I said earlier, their legitimate uses are very limited.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I’m coming around to the idea that the thing to legislate against isn’t around whether something is or isn’t an assault rifle, but rather something directly measurable, how much force the bullets hit with at a given distance. This article from the Atlantic talks about how the bullet sounds from the AR15 are different and less survivable than those of a handgun.
So say that if a weapon is able to deliver a certain amount of force or fire a bullet of a certain size, it must be a single shot weapon, no magazines permitted. Add laws around aftermarket conversion kits, and legislate that converted weapons are also not permitted. So sure, you can have a weapon that can take down a moose. But you can’t have one that can take down a herd of moose in seconds.
I realize that this doesn’t go nearly far enough, but banning weapons based on how much damage they could do seems more practical to me than focusing on “what is an assault rifle?”
Banning intermediate rounds would be a good start. Like I said earlier, their legitimate uses are very limited.
I think targeting the specification of a round is faulty reasoning because its very doing will just create a lot of loopholes that gun people will be excited to fill.
Capacity and rate of fire is much easier to legislate and I think more directly related to mass deaths.
Intermediate rounds were developed specifically to increase lethality, yes, but that's on a battlefield. Many pistol rounds in succession is almost as devastating in a civilian occupied space.
Clinical, not important stuff behind spoiler about intermediate rounds
Do you go for cartridge size? Shape? Energy? Ballistics? Bullet design/content? I can say from experience that all that would do is create a new challenge of trying to be as lethal while fitting the new rule book.
Maybe a GST on gun control would be a better place for this discussion?
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Pretty much this. Go ahead and allow people to keep the ones they have with the understanding that they have to register them, can't get parts to fix/restore them and that they can't sell them.
Basically make them into wall hangers.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
How about regulating msx rate of fire to cover things like after market modifiers like the shoulder bumper thing used in vegas or twitch triggers allowing for rapid fire?
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
How about regulating msx rate of fire to cover things like after market modifiers like the shoulder bumper thing used in vegas or twitch triggers allowing for rapid fire?
If you stop semiautomatic weapons you stop the after market, in theory, but yeah all of the trigger mods need to be banned as well, and what constitutes a "trigger mod" needs to be reworded so they don't sell gatling gun cranks for ARs in Bass Pro anymore.
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
How about regulating msx rate of fire to cover things like after market modifiers like the shoulder bumper thing used in vegas or twitch triggers allowing for rapid fire?
Bump stocks would be eliminated by any court looking at the spirit of the law. If the US had such a court, and an active enforcement agency, then they'd never have made it to market.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
How about regulating msx rate of fire to cover things like after market modifiers like the shoulder bumper thing used in vegas or twitch triggers allowing for rapid fire?
If you stop semiautomatic weapons you stop the after market, in theory, but yeah all of the trigger mods need to be banned as well, and what constitutes a "trigger mod" needs to be reworded so they don't sell gatling gun cranks for ARs in Bass Pro anymore.
Yes, one step at a time tho, correct?
I always feel when people say "let's ban semis" the response is "BUT WHAT ABOUT <X>"
Yes. X as well. But the removal of semiautomatics is key. And getting a government favorable to it is even more key.
+21
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Restrictions on auto-loading/semi-auto firearms is pretty much the solution. Everything else is just bait for cheeky workarounds.
Well, magazine limits are also helpful.
...Though tbh if you get rid of the semiauto part that stops being relevant. You're not going on a spree shooting like the ones America is used to with ten magazines for your bolt action rifle.
Gun violence would drop like a stone with target shooting and hunting virtually unaffected if semiautomatic weapons were banned.
+39
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
How about regulating msx rate of fire to cover things like after market modifiers like the shoulder bumper thing used in vegas or twitch triggers allowing for rapid fire?
If you stop semiautomatic weapons you stop the after market, in theory, but yeah all of the trigger mods need to be banned as well, and what constitutes a "trigger mod" needs to be reworded so they don't sell gatling gun cranks for ARs in Bass Pro anymore.
Yes, one step at a time tho, correct?
I always feel when people say "let's ban semis" the response is "BUT WHAT ABOUT <X>"
Yes. X as well. But the removal of semiautomatics is key. And getting a government favorable to it is even more key.
Oh absolutely. That should be step one, the immediate focus.
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
How about regulating msx rate of fire to cover things like after market modifiers like the shoulder bumper thing used in vegas or twitch triggers allowing for rapid fire?
Bump stocks are currently illegal, and there have a been a few ATF crackdowns on triggers that let a semi-automatic rifle be operated with fire rates that approach full auto.
But really, legislation on this stuff will always be a step behind. Restrict access to semi-automatic firearms and you don't have to play catch up.
But as I mentioned earlier, when congress won't even pass a universal background check law, it seems a little futile to discuss like it's the logical next step.
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
Waiting for a parts supply to dry up won’t work mostly because accurate, precise, and cost effective CNC machines are a thing now.
You have to ban them and then buy them back and destroy them to stop the flow. It’s the only way.
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Maybe start by banning the sale semiautomatic guns, offering a buy back program for any existing guns
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
How about regulating msx rate of fire to cover things like after market modifiers like the shoulder bumper thing used in vegas or twitch triggers allowing for rapid fire?
Bump stocks are currently illegal, and there have a been a few ATF crackdowns on triggers that let a semi-automatic rifle be operated with fire rates that approach full auto.
But really, legislation on this stuff will always be a step behind. Restrict access to semi-automatic firearms and you don't have to play catch up.
But as I mentioned earlier, when congress won't even pass a universal background check law, it seems a little futile to discuss like it's the logical next step.
Hey I've been thinking on this, and what about a push in Blue states to ban firearm travel across state lines. Like the political equivalent of supply line disruption. Make it so where you can't go from one state to another with a weapon on you, transport them for sale, etc. There's already shipping laws similar to this in several states as-is. Like you can't order blackpowder firearms and have them delivered in Jersey and a bunch of other places.
Also just not allowing firearms within city/town limits seems like another good first step. A lot of counties have the ability to set regulations for their towns, so maybe starting with local office officials is worth it too.
Something I think about when people make the argument about percentage of gun owners not giving up their large magazine rounds and AR-15s equaling out that being a million people and some such, is how many gun owners actually own assault weapons? Handguns for self defense are pretty common, and I know its anecdotal, but as someone who grew up in rural southern Indiana and still am in contact with lots of those people, the amount of gun owners I know who would actually be hit by an assault weapons ban is quite low? Again, handgun magazine size is maybe, but a lot of them owned revolvers. Most of them own a rifle, or if they own multiple guns its stuff like a musket for musket season for deer hunting, a bolt action for rifle season for deer/turkey, and a shotgun for hunting squirrel (or a 22). None of those guns would be hit by an assault weapons ban, and it makes me wonder, even among gun owners, how many of them actually own assault weapons?
I guess its in the end, what I think about when I read/hear 40% of households own at least one gun.
So, in the end, I don't think there would be that much hooplah by gun owners overall for the removal of assault weapons from a numbers standpoint.
I get the idea, but it mostly feels like leaning into the culture war, widening the divisions there, and making guns the defining difference between red and blue states.
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I get the idea, but it mostly feels like leaning into the culture war, widening the divisions there, and making guns the defining difference between red and blue states.
Something I think about when people make the argument about percentage of gun owners not giving up their large magazine rounds and AR-15s equaling out that being a million people and some such, is how many gun owners actually own assault weapons? Handguns for self defense are pretty common, and I know its anecdotal, but as someone who grew up in rural southern Indiana and still am in contact with lots of those people, the amount of gun owners I know who would actually be hit by an assault weapons ban is quite low? Again, handgun magazine size is maybe, but a lot of them owned revolvers. Most of them own a rifle, or if they own multiple guns its stuff like a musket for musket season for deer hunting, a bolt action for rifle season for deer/turkey, and a shotgun for hunting squirrel (or a 22). None of those guns would be hit by an assault weapons ban, and it makes me wonder, even among gun owners, how many of them actually own assault weapons?
I guess its in the end, what I think about when I read/hear 40% of households own at least one gun.
So, in the end, I don't think there would be that much hooplah by gun owners overall for the removal of assault weapons from a numbers standpoint.
They're all imagining Waco-style raids, which is not at all how it'd go. I really wouldn't worry about the hold-outs; just slap on restrictions and recognize that it's going to take 10+ years to get most of them out of private ownership through attrition rather than kicking in doors.
Like I said in an earlier post, violations of the National Firearms Act are punishable by 10 years in federal prison. That hanging over people's heads is at least an incentive.
So, in the end, I don't think there would be that much hooplah by gun owners overall for the removal of assault weapons from a numbers standpoint.
The problem is that the gun advocates always frame it as the "slippery slope" argument, or an obscene bastardization of the Martin Niemöller poem.
"If they can take my AR-15, they're coming for your handgun next. Then his hunting rifle."
It's the same way as Republicans hold power. You get everyone to stay in lock-step, even if you don't agree with shit. See Collins and Murkowski holding the party line on abortion codification protection (Manchin also, but he doesn't advocate for RvW like those two do).
So that's why ANY measure is opposed, and everyone toes that line, even if they disagree or are ambivalent.
Posts
Is this where I find out the automobile industry fought against things like licenses, registration, seatbelts, etc? Did some dipshit once argue that even having breaks is a violation of “muh freedoms”?
Seatbelts for sure, but I'll go ahead and put money on the other things being true as well.
To be clear, ElJeffe and the mods have a vested interest in not letting people openly discuss criminal behavior since the last thing they need is the FBI swinging by to ask everyone questions and/or threatening Gabe and Tycho (Who don't really give a shit about the forum and would likely sleep soundly after deleting it from the internet so that they can avoid a legal debacle.
The states just did what seemed prudent with the increasing number of vehicles because there was no frothing at the mouth Supreme Court insisting that they couldnt, and because restricting obtaining a car was never a priority so much as trying to make drivers safer. You register your car after the sale is done, the seller reports it, but you've already walked away with the car, nobody is stopping the transaction and any enforcement is going to be ad hoc.
We still have problems with the elderly driving long after they shouldnt, for example, and taking their licenses doesnt work very well without family support of them not driving because a) you cant detect it and b) throwing them in jail isnt gonna happen unless they kill someone or whatever.
I dunno that driving regulation has any lessons for gun ownership, since making obtaining a gun difficult in the first place is the challenge in a country with so, so, so many guns.
A lot of people with 100+ guns are not elegant collectors but hoarders who compulsively buy guns as the right wing media scares them about the liberals coming for their guns or the “urban ferals” coming to rob and murder them. They gain comfort from buying guns like a shopoholic gets from buying designer shoes. Its a way to gain control over a scary world.
I'm sure there are true collectors out there. Those who acquire rare and/or historically significant weapons. And as long as they're secured, and made inert, fine.
But if you've got multiple mass produced, recently produced weapons, especially of the same type/style, it's not about the collecting.
Normally I won't kinkshame, but then again, most people's kinks don't harm others (and those that do, are by consent).
But that's what it is for a lot of these people. The kind of slavish devotion to lethal weaponry of this nature, we should NOT see being considered "normal". It's not the worst "hobby" someone can have, but it's not far off.
Note, I'm not calling out gun owners. If you've a rifle, a handgun and a shotgun, fine. Or collectors. You've got WWII era M1911a, and a Colt Peacemaker, and a WW2 era Browning, and a couple others, fine.
I'm referring to the people who have more than a couple rifles, all the same general kind, all produced in significant number, in the last 20 years.
Like the displays we see behind Boebert and Trump Jr in their Zoom calls. Where they're at best props, at worst... fetishistic.
Honestly it’s stunning to me that the sherrif or whatever who said “we made the wrong decision” didn’t immediately follow it up with “and therefore I resign”. Every single person who had any sort of command role in this should resign
So say that if a weapon is able to deliver a certain amount of force or fire a bullet of a certain size, it must be a single shot weapon, no magazines permitted. Add laws around aftermarket conversion kits, and legislate that converted weapons are also not permitted. So sure, you can have a weapon that can take down a moose. But you can’t have one that can take down a herd of moose in seconds.
I realize that this doesn’t go nearly far enough, but banning weapons based on how much damage they could do seems more practical to me than focusing on “what is an assault rifle?”
I'm surprised the people of Uvalde haven't been protesting outside his house for 24 hours already. But I guess they're mostly on his side.
The list of things car companies (and also oil companies largely in service of car usage) have done to cause millions of deaths is long and horrifying, mostly having to do with cities and infrastructure but also the way the cars themselves are designed. ...but probably off-topic.
Most of the safety features of automobiles have resulted not from legislation but from lawsuits.
Automobile manufacturers literally arguing in court "look we are following all the safety regulations on the books" as a defense against knowing about deadly design flaws that could be fixed, but it would cost more money to implement them.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
They isolate into real life and online communities that support this even further.
So that a bunch if children died and people nationwide are actually mad - not just some people performatively on Twitter for a day, but real normal people where this isn't just going away is hard for them to grasp. Because honestly most mass shootings are in the news for 24-48 hours and people get real mad before the next news cycle.
I mean, I'm not sure that I would necessarily dismiss this entirely as a fetish (Particularly since fetish denotes sexual pleasure which... I'm not sure where you're bracing that that you can experience pleasure...) as opposed to a hobby, but I think that said their really does need to be a point where the various hobbyists need to sit up and say this is not OK.
I'm a Roleplayer, a person who loves to do collective storytelling games with groups of friends through mediums like Dungeons and Dragons, Rifts, Shadowrun. Vampire the masquerade and at one time a play by post forum called Gaming guardians (sadly passed from this world). I've been doing this long enough and with enough verve that I could rightly be called a grognard, one of the old grumblers and remember the days of Satanic Panic when parents (my own included) clutched pearls over how it would "corrupt youth". I legitimately love the medium and watching when narrative intimacy occurs: that moment when a player is fully open and aware and rules, dice, numbers and everything else just slips away so that a pure expression of the character can exist.
If I thought for one second that their was real, honest to god physical danger present I would take steps to put it down. I've had players in the past that were menacing others and I've booted them. I've had people who were too deep into character and had to bring them back to earth. And If I thought for one second that the hobby I've invested some 30+ years into posed an actual honest to god physical threat I'd take whatever steps (up to and including burning a thousand dollars or so RPG stuff) to prevent it from happening.
Instead you have people hiding behind what a bunch of guys who have been dead for no less then 186 years thought was a good idea based on how the world was in 1791 when the standard long gun of the americas (the brown bess) had a rate of fire of around 3-4 rounds a minute while also ignoring how they both wanted the constitution to change as society needed it,
Brakes and some things I don't think so, but in college I had a professor who developed one of the early systems to prevent injuries from airbag deployments while he worked at Ford. It was a pretty comprehensive system (it wasn't just a weight sensor but tracked body position and could alter deployment strength), but it would have added about $600 to the manufacture cost of vehicles because it needed a much heftier computer than cars were equipped with in the 90's. Ford cancelled the project because wrongful death settlements were only adding about $450 in costs per vehicle.
However, worth comparing this kind of "Eh, it's cheaper for now to pay the lawsuits so we'll wait for a cheaper solution," apathy and Daniel Defense's "train your child up," advertisement, which literally says your kid will die from a gun but if you teach them now maybe they'll take somebody else with them. This is more akin to Ford running an ad saying, "THIS TRUCK IS HUUUUGE LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU CAN RUN OVER! FUCKER AIN'T EVEN SLOWIN' DOWN DAMN!"
Even corporate evil can't compare when guns are involved.
No. Everyone who was directly involved with this from that department should resign at a minimum for this absolutely horrific act of incompetence. More specifically their should be an investigtion to figure out whether or not people should be charged for negligence owing to the fact that they (in the "best" scenario) wildly violated procedure by refusing to engage for the better part of an hour.
the reality is that if the government singled out maybe 1% of the US population, specifically, they could get rid of about 80% of the firearms in the country.
the other reality is that the 1% they need to harass to do this is also tied into the other 1% that buys votes.
I also think the government should fund a buyback program at the national level. If we can do three rounds of stimulus checks, we should be able to do one round of $800 checks, per firearm turned in.
The flip to that though is that until we put manufacturing and import limits in place as well, then US companies are just going to double production for the next decade.
it's very... "in this two hour video I'll describe my 30 point plan" and I wish it wasn't.
I think the next two big changes that need to come down are manufacturing and import limits, but I also think that about most of the planets goods and resources
Yes, that's largely who are in command at team gun. I worked with many of them. I probably was nearly one at one point.
But there are a small number of what I'd consider poor people who have (as you mentioned above) less military level firearms but are also not collectors. Often they have a family weapon used almost exclusively for food hunting.
I'm not posting to defend them, though. I just want to point out that they, too, have been spoon fed THE FEAR, and consequently will be very opposed even if they do agree with the stance on military level hardware.
I think that's something that probably worked very well in how Australia did this 25 years ago. But that was also before the modern US hypersexualization of all things that shooty shoot.
It's just something that I've been thinking about, honestly for years since around Sandy Hook. How do you get those folks on our side?
Banning intermediate rounds would be a good start. Like I said earlier, their legitimate uses are very limited.
- John Stuart Mill
I think targeting the specification of a round is faulty reasoning because its very doing will just create a lot of loopholes that gun people will be excited to fill.
Capacity and rate of fire is much easier to legislate and I think more directly related to mass deaths.
Intermediate rounds were developed specifically to increase lethality, yes, but that's on a battlefield. Many pistol rounds in succession is almost as devastating in a civilian occupied space.
Clinical, not important stuff behind spoiler about intermediate rounds
Maybe a GST on gun control would be a better place for this discussion?
The main problem with that, is pricing it right
You don't pay enough, people are going to sell second hand. You pay too much, people are going to use it to upgrade.
Kinda defeats the purpose of a buyback if someone sells, turns around, and uses that cash to buy a different weapon.
EDIT- I didn't read the part about banning the relevant guns first. I'm dumb.
Restrictions on auto-loading/semi-auto firearms is pretty much the solution. Everything else is just bait for cheeky workarounds.
Pretty much this. Go ahead and allow people to keep the ones they have with the understanding that they have to register them, can't get parts to fix/restore them and that they can't sell them.
Basically make them into wall hangers.
Yes. Stopping the flow of semiautomatic firearms should be priority #1. There's numerous ways to get the currently existing stockpile out of circulation, from buybacks to just waiting for them to break and not providing parts.
How about regulating msx rate of fire to cover things like after market modifiers like the shoulder bumper thing used in vegas or twitch triggers allowing for rapid fire?
If you stop semiautomatic weapons you stop the after market, in theory, but yeah all of the trigger mods need to be banned as well, and what constitutes a "trigger mod" needs to be reworded so they don't sell gatling gun cranks for ARs in Bass Pro anymore.
Bump stocks would be eliminated by any court looking at the spirit of the law. If the US had such a court, and an active enforcement agency, then they'd never have made it to market.
Yes, one step at a time tho, correct?
I always feel when people say "let's ban semis" the response is "BUT WHAT ABOUT <X>"
Yes. X as well. But the removal of semiautomatics is key. And getting a government favorable to it is even more key.
Well, magazine limits are also helpful.
...Though tbh if you get rid of the semiauto part that stops being relevant. You're not going on a spree shooting like the ones America is used to with ten magazines for your bolt action rifle.
Gun violence would drop like a stone with target shooting and hunting virtually unaffected if semiautomatic weapons were banned.
Oh absolutely. That should be step one, the immediate focus.
Bump stocks are currently illegal, and there have a been a few ATF crackdowns on triggers that let a semi-automatic rifle be operated with fire rates that approach full auto.
But really, legislation on this stuff will always be a step behind. Restrict access to semi-automatic firearms and you don't have to play catch up.
But as I mentioned earlier, when congress won't even pass a universal background check law, it seems a little futile to discuss like it's the logical next step.
Waiting for a parts supply to dry up won’t work mostly because accurate, precise, and cost effective CNC machines are a thing now.
You have to ban them and then buy them back and destroy them to stop the flow. It’s the only way.
Hey I've been thinking on this, and what about a push in Blue states to ban firearm travel across state lines. Like the political equivalent of supply line disruption. Make it so where you can't go from one state to another with a weapon on you, transport them for sale, etc. There's already shipping laws similar to this in several states as-is. Like you can't order blackpowder firearms and have them delivered in Jersey and a bunch of other places.
Also just not allowing firearms within city/town limits seems like another good first step. A lot of counties have the ability to set regulations for their towns, so maybe starting with local office officials is worth it too.
I guess its in the end, what I think about when I read/hear 40% of households own at least one gun.
So, in the end, I don't think there would be that much hooplah by gun owners overall for the removal of assault weapons from a numbers standpoint.
I think abortion will be filling that role.
They're all imagining Waco-style raids, which is not at all how it'd go. I really wouldn't worry about the hold-outs; just slap on restrictions and recognize that it's going to take 10+ years to get most of them out of private ownership through attrition rather than kicking in doors.
Like I said in an earlier post, violations of the National Firearms Act are punishable by 10 years in federal prison. That hanging over people's heads is at least an incentive.
The problem is that the gun advocates always frame it as the "slippery slope" argument, or an obscene bastardization of the Martin Niemöller poem.
"If they can take my AR-15, they're coming for your handgun next. Then his hunting rifle."
It's the same way as Republicans hold power. You get everyone to stay in lock-step, even if you don't agree with shit. See Collins and Murkowski holding the party line on abortion codification protection (Manchin also, but he doesn't advocate for RvW like those two do).
So that's why ANY measure is opposed, and everyone toes that line, even if they disagree or are ambivalent.