What Can Gun Control Compromise Look Like?

[Col Hogan]

Motherfuckers come to confiscate the guns that I don't have and I'm going down fighting.

You got my “package’ for safe keeping???

[AZGrizFan]

Motherfuckers come to confiscate the guns that I don't have and I'm going down fighting.

You got my “package’ for safe keeping???

[Chizzang]

Motherfuckers come to confiscate the guns that I don't have and I'm going down fighting.

Confiscate guns..?
I've got guns... and give zero fucks
And every time I hear somebody say this I think... Who exactly?

So who is it in our government that would show up to "confiscate privately owned weapons"
What department is tasked with this..?

Think about how governments work for a second
and ponder exactly how this would play out

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Well part it would play out like this.....they show up they get shot. Then more of them show up and I may get a couple more before they kill me and plant a manifesto

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Col Hogan]

Motherfuckers come to confiscate the guns that I don't have and I'm going down fighting.

Confiscate guns..?
I've got guns... and give zero ****
And every time I hear somebody say this I think... Who exactly?

So who is it in our government that would show up to "confiscate privately owned weapons"
What department is tasked with this..?

Think about how governments work for a second
and ponder exactly how this would play out

I know what you’re saying, but if you read some of the liberal comments on the Daily Kos articles...in HuffPost...and my favorites were in the Hartford Courant shortly after Connecticut passed its “assault weapons” ban, the local police and sheriffs offices will lead the raiding parties...

One 2A supporter wondered if any of those brave liberals would volunteer to lead a stack on a raid...

[CID1990]

we are getting more and more violent - our level of violence is directly proportional to our proximity to each other - we are social animals but we aren't TOO social - and the world population rise, coupled with increasing migration to population centers AND the amplifying effect that our inter connectivity has on the perception that we are just too on top of each other... these mass shootings and other violent acts are going to get worse and worse. We might even see some group or another try to carve out part of a state or two for themselves

By that time it will be too late for gun laws to matter (if they even would in the first place) - but it will happen... because government ALWAYS gets around to doing next week what it should have done this week (depending on if you agree with the "should")

But the bottom line here is two fold-

1) we cannot get along

2) we are getting more numerous

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

3. Sick fucks shoot up unarmed places

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

I don't see the generals going for it

Ok, Nostradumbass.

weak. You've lost a step, Z.

[houndawg]

There is no WAY I would want the US Government to know how many and what kind of guns I have (if I had any, which I don't, totally hypothetical for those government spies listening/reading)...THEY are the last group I'd ever be willing to "register" my (theoretical) weapons with.

\thread

..all henny-penny and the sky is falling...

[houndawg]

we are getting more and more violent - our level of violence is directly proportional to our proximity to each other - we are social animals but we aren't TOO social - and the world population rise, coupled with increasing migration to population centers AND the amplifying effect that our inter connectivity has on the perception that we are just too on top of each other... these mass shootings and other violent acts are going to get worse and worse. We might even see some group or another try to carve out part of a state or two for themselves

By that time it will be too late for gun laws to matter (if they even would in the first place) - but it will happen... because government ALWAYS gets around to doing next week what it should have done this week (depending on if you agree with the "should")

But the bottom line here is two fold-

1) we cannot get along

2) we are getting more numerous

In 1968 a science fiction writer named John Brunner wrote a novel that was his take on the world 50 years in the future. Not very well-written but the premise was interesting, based on a famous psychology experiment using rats to study the effects of crowding. In the book people just wig out and attack those in their immediate area.

Eventually as the crowding continues the cops will no longer be able to keep the general populace from invading the much larger and less densely settled terroritory controlled by the uber-wealthy, (their real purpose), and it won't go well for the oppressor. I stopped to fap at that part of the book and never finished reading it, but I thought it was interesting.

[kalm]

we are getting more and more violent - our level of violence is directly proportional to our proximity to each other - we are social animals but we aren't TOO social - and the world population rise, coupled with increasing migration to population centers AND the amplifying effect that our inter connectivity has on the perception that we are just too on top of each other... these mass shootings and other violent acts are going to get worse and worse. We might even see some group or another try to carve out part of a state or two for themselves

By that time it will be too late for gun laws to matter (if they even would in the first place) - but it will happen... because government ALWAYS gets around to doing next week what it should have done this week (depending on if you agree with the "should")

But the bottom line here is two fold-

1) we cannot get along

2) we are getting more numerous

In 1968 a science fiction writer named John Brunner wrote a novel that was his take on the world 50 years in the future. Not very well-written but the premise was interesting, based on a famous psychology experiment using rats to study the effects of crowding. In the book people just wig out and attack those in their immediate area.

Eventually as the crowding continues the cops will no longer be able to keep the general populace from invading the much larger and less densely settled terroritory controlled by the uber-wealthy, (their real purpose), and it won't go well for the oppressor. I stopped to fap at that part of the book and never finished reading it, but I thought it was interesting.

Sagan had a chapter on the same study in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Increased violence, sexual deviancy, mob mentality...in rats.

CID's right. We're social, but meant to live in groups of 20-30. That's where fear of the outsider comes from.

[houndawg]

In 1968 a science fiction writer named John Brunner wrote a novel that was his take on the world 50 years in the future. Not very well-written but the premise was interesting, based on a famous psychology experiment using rats to study the effects of crowding. In the book people just wig out and attack those in their immediate area.

Eventually as the crowding continues the cops will no longer be able to keep the general populace from invading the much larger and less densely settled terroritory controlled by the uber-wealthy, (their real purpose), and it won't go well for the oppressor. I stopped to fap at that part of the book and never finished reading it, but I thought it was interesting.

Sagan had a chapter on the same study in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Increased violence, sexual deviancy, mob mentality...in rats.

CID's right. We're social, but meant to live in groups of 20-30. That's where fear of the outsider comes from.

Stand on Zanzibar was the book, interesting now as a 1968 view of the future.

[houndawg]

In 1968 a science fiction writer named John Brunner wrote a novel that was his take on the world 50 years in the future. Not very well-written but the premise was interesting, based on a famous psychology experiment using rats to study the effects of crowding. In the book people just wig out and attack those in their immediate area.

Eventually as the crowding continues the cops will no longer be able to keep the general populace from invading the much larger and less densely settled terroritory controlled by the uber-wealthy, (their real purpose), and it won't go well for the oppressor. I stopped to fap at that part of the book and never finished reading it, but I thought it was interesting.

Sagan had a chapter on the same study in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Increased violence, sexual deviancy, mob mentality...in rats.

CID's right. We're social, but meant to live in groups of 20-30. That's where fear of the outsider comes from.

Yep. The planet is way out of balance.

[CID1990]

3.5 billion people when I was born

7.5 billion now

Almost 10 billion in 2050 - and that's VERY conservative

We are not heading for good things - I'm sorry my kids are going to have to see it

[bandl]

Motherfuckers come to confiscate the guns that I don't have and I'm going down fighting.

You remind me of this guy.
Well, without the trust fund and the frolicking around the world and all the hot chicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ge%2Fstory

[ASUG8]

Interesting read on the issue.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... story.html

[GannonFan]

Interesting read on the issue.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... story.html

Thanks for the read - I thought it a good piece and it sums up a lot of the problem with gun control - measures normally floated as gun control, more often than not, will have no impact on and will not stop any of these mass shootings and, more importantly, will do little to stop the much larger number of gun-related deaths.

With that said, I still want to do something. I don't see the harm in a registry, with the right protections sewn into it that it can never be a confiscatory-related registry. From your article, it talks about domestic violence-related gun deaths. With a registry, if a guy who has a restraining order entered against him (or her for that matter), you can quickly access what guns they might have and act accordingly. Same with a person who ends up entering a medical facility with a mental illness. And a registry would help to possibly stop those guns from being part of the unseen market of guns being sold and traded without any knowledge of where they are going. It's not going to solve everything, it will never solve the problem of a crazed loon (like Vegas, like Orlando, or like most any mass shooting) with no history suddenly causing mass carnage, but it could, at least, help in those cases mentioned above.

[AZGrizFan]

Motherfuckers come to confiscate the guns that I don't have and I'm going down fighting.

You remind me of this guy.
Well, without the trust fund and the frolicking around the world and all the hot chicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ge%2Fstory

You don't know me.

[bandl]

You remind me of this guy.
Well, without the trust fund and the frolicking around the world and all the hot chicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ge%2Fstory

You don't know me.

Well duh.
But when I think about you (no homo)...............I don't even know where to go with this, so I'll just stop

[AZGrizFan]

With that said, I still want to do something. I don't see the harm in a registry, with the right protections sewn into it that it can never be a confiscatory-related registry. From your article, it talks about domestic violence-related gun deaths. With a registry, if a guy who has a restraining order entered against him (or her for that matter), you can quickly access what guns they might have and act accordingly. Same with a person who ends up entering a medical facility with a mental illness. And a registry would help to possibly stop those guns from being part of the unseen market of guns being sold and traded without any knowledge of where they are going. It's not going to solve everything, it will never solve the problem of a crazed loon (like Vegas, like Orlando, or like most any mass shooting) with no history suddenly causing mass carnage, but it could, at least, help in those cases mentioned above.

How cute. You are not really THAT naive, are you?

[89Hen]

Thanks for the read - I thought it a good piece and it sums up a lot of the problem with gun control - measures normally floated as gun control, more often than not, will have no impact on and will not stop any of these mass shootings and, more importantly, will do little to stop the much larger number of gun-related deaths.

With that said, I still want to do something.

It won't work, but I want to do something.

phpBB [video]

[AZGrizFan]

You don't know me.

Well duh.
But when I think about you (no homo)...............I don't even know where to go with this, so I'll just stop

Good idea. First rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to put down the shovel.

[bandl]

Well duh.
But when I think about you (no homo)...............I don't even know where to go with this, so I'll just stop

Good idea. First rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to put down the shovel.

Also to step out of the hole.

[AZGrizFan]

Good idea. First rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to put down the shovel.

Also to step out of the hole.

As long as you haven't dug it too deep. I think you stopped juuuuuuust in time.

[bandl]

Also to step out of the hole.

As long as you haven't dug it too deep. I think you stopped juuuuuuust in time.

Always good to bring a ladder as well. Or at least a friend with a rope.