NationStates

Valgora wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Actually it's more like:
Gun control advocates ignore any logical and rational idea that would help prevent mass shootings because it doesn't involve banning firearms or taking away people's rights.

Telconi wrote:I'd like to point out, 75% of NSG posters polled wanna nuke dogs.

Tell me again how popular gun control is?

Telconi wrote:I'd like to point out, 75% of NSG posters polled wanna nuke dogs.

Tell me again how popular gun control is?

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
This is why we need a new political party that addresses rightly the woes of the workers on both sides of the political spectrum!

Tbh I’d rather we switch to a non-partisan system instead, political parties almost always end up being garbage.

Torrocca wrote:

Telconi wrote:I'd like to point out, 75% of NSG posters polled wanna nuke dogs.

Tell me again how popular gun control is?

Nonsense, it's the neighbor that gets nuked. We adopt the doggo.

Valgora wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Nonsense, it's the neighbor that gets nuked. We adopt the doggo.

If it's a Chihuahua, I'm nuking it.

Valgora wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Actually it's more like:
Gun control advocates ignore any logical and rational idea that would help prevent mass shootings because it doesn't involve banning firearms or taking away people's rights.

Albrenia wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Pretty much, just with both sides calling each other immoral, underhanded murderers of various stripes. Personally I think we should throw in the towel and see about trying to do as much as we can with non-gun control methods.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Manchin-Toomey 2013.

A ban on a central gun registry, including up to 15 years in prison for anyone attempting to centralise gun records. Expansion on interstate sales to include hand guns via licensed sellers. Military members able to buy guns in their home state as well as the state they're stationed in Liability shield to private sellers who sell to a person who passed a background check. Increased funding for the NICS. A reduction in waiting times before a seller can complete a transfer in the event the check with NICS is taking time. A commission to study the causes of gun violence including mental health, guns, school safety and portrayals of violence in the media.

All to require background checks on all sales at gun shows and over the internet.

Seems like quite a compromise to me....

Not nearly enough for UBC's if you ask me, I don't really gain anything from that. FOPA already bans non-NFA registries and pretty much the only other decent thing in there that interests me is the bit about military members but given how few people that impacts I'm not gonna take that in exchange for everyone else having to deal with a ton more hassle.

Saiwania wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Stevens always was anti-gun and regularly ruled as such when he was on the court. This isn't news.

He was anti-gun, but presumably never went so far until now- as to want the 2nd amendment rights gone entirely.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
Pretty much, just with both sides calling each other immoral, underhanded murderers of various stripes. Personally I think we should throw in the towel and see about trying to do as much as we can with non-gun control methods.

Nah, we just need to be smarter about selling the guns.

That's all I want, to not give guns to crazy people.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
Pretty much, just with both sides calling each other immoral, underhanded murderers of various stripes. Personally I think we should throw in the towel and see about trying to do as much as we can with non-gun control methods.

Nah, we just need to be smarter about selling the guns.

That's all I want, to not give guns to crazy people.

The South Falls wrote:

Valgora wrote:
Actually it's more like:
Gun control advocates ignore any logical and rational idea that would help prevent mass shootings because it doesn't involve banning firearms or taking away people's rights.

I wouldn't really say that. While arming teachers and other things to that effect would work if teachers were good at shooting, even police officers have been found to have 25% accuracy in live fire situations. Giving teachers more guns doesn't solve anything.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
Pretty much, just with both sides calling each other immoral, underhanded murderers of various stripes. Personally I think we should throw in the towel and see about trying to do as much as we can with non-gun control methods.

Nah, we just need to be smarter about selling the guns.

That's all I want, to not give guns to crazy people.

Tobleste wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Tbh I’d rather we switch to a non-partisan system instead, political parties almost always end up being garbage.

I think a two party system is always likely to end up being garbage. Each has a monopoly on one side of the issue so the centre is not that rewarding. If a third party was possible, one that included the likes of McHaskill, Lamb and McCain, there'd be a party defending abortion rights but with term limits and gun access but with background checks and certain limits and the other two would have to sharpen up.

On the subject of the Parkland students, I found this interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... f1e0ba750d

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Nah, we just need to be smarter about selling the guns.

That's all I want, to not give guns to crazy people.

Given you count people who have other people cash their checks as crazy I don't think we should really take your advice on this topic.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Not nearly enough for UBC's if you ask me, I don't really gain anything from that. FOPA already bans non-NFA registries and pretty much the only other decent thing in there that interests me is the bit about military members but given how few people that impacts I'm not gonna take that in exchange for everyone else having to deal with a ton more hassle.

It wasn't a bill mandating UBCs. Just checks at gun shows and on internet sales. Transfers between friends and family are unaffected. Sticking an advert on the notice board at work or church? Not affected. Selling to a guy you met in the pub? Not affected.

Valgora wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Actually it's more like:
Gun control advocates ignore any logical and rational idea that would help prevent mass shootings because it doesn't involve banning firearms or taking away people's rights.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Not nearly enough for UBC's if you ask me, I don't really gain anything from that. FOPA already bans non-NFA registries and pretty much the only other decent thing in there that interests me is the bit about military members but given how few people that impacts I'm not gonna take that in exchange for everyone else having to deal with a ton more hassle.

It wasn't a bill mandating UBCs. Just checks at gun shows and on internet sales. Transfers between friends and family are unaffected. Sticking an advert on the notice board at work or church? Not affected. Selling to a guy you met in the pub? Not affected.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Given you count people who have other people cash their checks as crazy I don't think we should really take your advice on this topic.

But I don't.

But that bill was better then nothing.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Given you count people who have other people cash their checks as crazy I don't think we should really take your advice on this topic.

But I don't.

But that bill was better then nothing.

Spirit of Hope wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Nah, we just need to be smarter about selling the guns.

That's all I want, to not give guns to crazy people.

Define crazy people and how we stop selling guns to them. We already have a background check system in place, though it has some issues with proper data not being put into it and with law enforcement not using the tools at their disposal with regards to it. If you want universal back ground checks, make the system we have open to the public, work on making sure the proper data is reported, and have law enforcement use the tools at their disposal.

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
It wasn't a bill mandating UBCs. Just checks at gun shows and on internet sales. Transfers between friends and family are unaffected. Sticking an advert on the notice board at work or church? Not affected. Selling to a guy you met in the pub? Not affected.

Most sales at a gun show already require a background check, as most gun show sellers are FFL's. Over the internet any sale that crosses state lines would immediately require a background check and have to go through an FFL.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Given you count people who have other people cash their checks as crazy I don't think we should really take your advice on this topic.

But I don't.

But that bill was better then nothing.