The Political Quinceañera Thread

[Elerond]

 

 

I've heard about regulating guns the same way we regulate cars might be a solution, though I'm not sure how that would work exactly since the function of a gun and a car are completely different.

 

 

In Finland we changed our gun regulations to be morelike our car regulations after school shooting:

1. Person needs to be over 18 or over 20 in case of pistols and revolvers

2. Person needs to pass mental evaluation (which is done for majority by our military during enrollment [as we have compulsory military service]) and get green light from interviewing police officer who handles their gun permit case

3. People whose medical records show drug abuse and other things that may interfere in person's ability to handle guns, will most likely be denied permit

4. When person seeks permit they need to state purpose for why they want to buy the gun.

5. There are five accepted purposes, hobby shooting, hunting, sport shooting, job and weapon collecting

6. In case of hobby shooting you need to show testimony from certified gun trained that you have practices shooting continuously for 2 years (if you served in military during that time half of your service time is counted). In case of hunting you need to show testimony from your hunting club that you have actively participated in type of hunting where such gun is needed. In case of job you need to show certificate that you now how to handle gun and testimony from your employer that job requires a gun. In case of collecting weapons you need weapon collector permit (which is its own quite lengthy process to acquire).

7. Gun which you seek permit needs to be suitable to purpose which you seek it, meaning that its caliber, ammunition capacity or other features can't be such that it has unnecessary firepower or is too effective in stated purpose.

8. Person seeking gun permit needs to have storage space for the gun/s which police has accepted to be suitable for storing guns or parts of guns which you seek permit.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Elerond

[ShadySands]

Problem is that gun ownership is a right, for us anyway, and driving a car is a privilege. You have to prove you're capable of operating a vehicle before you can drive but the opposite it true for firearms, you have to prove they shouldn't have them.  I don't see how we could change it without a constitutional amendment.

[Gfted1]

I would LOVE mental evaluations for drivers licenses. The more people off the road the better!

[HoonDing]

I rember when they came for my gun.

[smjjames]

Number 5 and the general idea of proving you’re going to use it for what you want to use it for seem reasonable to me. Speaking of burying gun purchases in red tape, Japan takes it to the extreme.

 

If we are using the Florida shooting as a specific case, it’s hard to tell what could have stopped him from obtaining the gun. Sure, there’s the mental illness angle, but as guarddog said, there are ethical problems with confiscating a firearm due to mental illness. Police officers and FBI agents aren’t psychologists and we shouldn’t necessarily ask them to be one.

[Gfted1]

The thought of cops going door to door inspecting gun storage spaces makes me lol.

[Ethics Gradient]

Problem is that gun ownership is a right, for us anyway, and driving a car is a privilege. You have to prove you're capable of operating a vehicle before you can drive but the opposite it true for firearms, you have to prove they shouldn't have them.  I don't see how we could change it without a constitutional amendment.

Yeah.  From the American perspective, it's sometimes difficult to convey the thorny way constitutional rights fit into our political landscape.

 

Sure, we can argue the precise limit of which the Second Amendment grants the right of firearm ownership; we've been fine-tuning that angle for well over 50 years now.  But civilian ownership of firearms in some extent is ensconced in both the Constitution and the American cultural fabric.  When there is already an explicit guarantee that you are allowed to own a firearm, it is hard, if not impossible, to take that off the table.

 

America already tried a constitutional amendment to ban a thing during the Prohibition Era, and politicians along all ends of the spectrum are loathe to even consider further "you can't have that!" alterations to America's founding document.

 

Anyway, with the 75% state ratification threshold for any additional amendments, any top-level change is about as likely as getting the majority of EU member states to agree on who has the best football team.

[HoonDing]

Maybe build a wall around every school.

[Zoraptor]

The thought of cops going door to door inspecting gun storage spaces makes me lol.

 

It's a once per decade 'inspection' here. It's in soft quotes because every inspection I've had has taken about 10s for the actual inspection, they literally check you have a trigger lock of some sort and keep ammo/ bolt and gun locked separately. The entire process involving the 'police'- usually a cushy job for retired police- takes five minutes including the interview*. Ten, if you offer them tea and biscuits. It's more exacting (though not necessarily impossible) if you have red flags like prior drug use, but that's kind of the point. Different culture though, our police don't even carry firearms routinely.

 

*The questions are pretty much literally "You [or the person you're refereeing] aren't a homicidal maniac, are you?" level.

[Gfted1]

Or drones and robodogs. The students and staff could be identified via facial recognition software and any person not in the datatbase that enters school properties....BAM....a face full of pepper spray.

[Malcador]

It will probably come to that, first scanners at the doors that can raise an alarm then Reapers orbiting the school.

[Amentep]

It will probably come to that, first scanners at the doors that can raise an alarm then Reapers orbiting the school.

 

Eventually education will probably be moved to an online delivery format.

[Malcador]

 

It will probably come to that, first scanners at the doors that can raise an alarm then Reapers orbiting the school.

Eventually education will probably be moved to an online delivery format.

I prefer my dystopian nightmare

[Chilloutman]

 

 

It will probably come to that, first scanners at the doors that can raise an alarm then Reapers orbiting the school.

Eventually education will probably be moved to an online delivery format.

I prefer my dystopian nightmare

 

 

I demand direct internet to brain download of knoweledge

[Guard Dog]

 

It will probably come to that, first scanners at the doors that can raise an alarm then Reapers orbiting the school.

 

Eventually education will probably be moved to an online delivery format.

 

You know I'm surprised this isn't commonplace now. 

[smjjames]

 

 

It will probably come to that, first scanners at the doors that can raise an alarm then Reapers orbiting the school.

 

Eventually education will probably be moved to an online delivery format.

 

You know I'm surprised this isn't commonplace now. 

 

 

Commonplace for colleges. Though not all classes obviously.

[injurai]

It's becoming very common in early undergrad classes. Some students start their time at uni off-campus and take all online classes for a period of time. Older large campuses typically have satellite campuses, but those aren't being invested in anymore.

[Guard Dog]

His Public Defenders have become targets on social media now apparently. There is no sense in that. They have a job to do, and a rather thankless one at that. They didn't choose him as their client.  

[smjjames]

Pretty sure that happens with every notorious or particularily despicable criminal, someone has to defend them because our justice gives the accused a chance to get a public defender or defense lawyer.

[redneckdevil]

 

 

 

 

Gun Owner "My Gun Didn't Kill Anyone" Position

From my viewpoint over here in merry olde England, it isn't so much about "yes, your gun didn't kill anyone", it's that it seems to damned easy for any idiot to get hold of them over there.

I can point to many friends around the world and say "Yes, they are competent, intelligent people who can be responsible with a car, with a gun, what have you." But I can also point to a whole bunch more of people who are just idiots I wouldn't trust with a stapler, let alone some form of automatic weaponry. But if they are in the good ol US of A...

That is the problem right there. So how do you protect the responsible people from the irresponsible people without violating civil rights? If the freedom of the individual is the paramount concern then I really don't see how we can. And if it isn't a concern, well there is always repression, confiscations, concentration camps, forced hospitalization and just making people disappear.

 

The difference between here and most other countries is the guns are already here. Millions of them. Billions perhaps. Making them suddenly illegal changes nothing. It was illegal for that bastard to bring a gun on school campus yesterday. It was illegal for him to even BE on that campus. It was illegal to use a smoke bomb, pull the fire alarm, and certainly to shoot people. None of those broken laws stopped him. So for gun control to work the government has to go and confiscate them. How do you think that will go?

Your previous post aside, that's a completely valid point about responsible people vs the irresponsible people. You say that regulating who can have what guns (outside of the really heavy weapon stuff only the military can use) will just lead to a slippery slope, then what are your ideas for solutions? It seems like the exact same ideological impasse between the two of us (though at least we can agree to disagree without going all knives at each others throats) is part of the problem in that neither side has solutions the other likes, though it often seems like one side often does not want solutions at all.

 

I've heard about regulating guns the same way we regulate cars might be a solution, though I'm not sure how that would work exactly since the function of a gun and a car are completely different.

Honestly I don't know. Raising the age of full legal majority nationwide to 21 makes sense to me. It could have prevented the shooter from buying his weapon legally. However much of a hindrance that is. Force hospitalization of people deemed mentally ill sounds very Nazi-like to me. Now people are having their freedom taken over a subjective standard that is way too likely to be abused. Infringing on individual rights is not the way to go either. Increasing the availability of mental health can't hurt but in they end the best system can only help the willing. Turning schools into armed camps does not strike me as the best way to go, although one armed teacher could have stopped this yesterday. Maybe plain clothes security, like Air Marshals for each campus. But even then they can't be everywhere at once.

How about doing away with "gun free" zones? I'm wondering if we have had any mass shootings in the past 20 years where people were allowed to be armed themselves?

[Guard Dog]

 

How about doing away with "gun free" zones? I'm wondering if we have had any mass shootings in the past 20 years where people were allowed to be armed themselves?

 

No one has shot up a police station lately have they? The "gun free zone" didn't deter this bastard did it? In fact it likely encouraged him. 

 

There is a reason why Shelby County is 3rd in the nation in home invasions but the rural surrounding areas have virtually none. You pull that s--t out here and you will be shot dead.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Guard Dog

[redneckdevil]

I'm looking it up and it's "weird". Sadly the everyday report counts mass family murders as a mass shootings and those count for 54% of their findings. Also they say that only 10% were in "no guns" places BUT 54% of those are the person's home and then the remaining 36% it says a good chunk was in "non-public' areas such as in closed offices and such, which even if allowed to carry guns in the area the jobs do not allow the guns to be carried during work hours which seems like a "no gun" zone though not "federal".

 

When trying to deal with public mass shootings, having half the data is from someone in the family killing their own family doesn't help.

Edited February 16, 2018 by redneckdevil

[Raithe]

Scientific American: 6 Things to Know About Mass Shootings in America

 

A US criminologist breaks a few things down...

Edited February 16, 2018 by Raithe

[Raithe]

"We should arm every teacher!"

 

"...Wait, you bastards won't even buy them enough pencils and printer ink... Now you got the budget for Glocks??"

[Malcador]

 

 

 

 

 

Gun Owner "My Gun Didn't Kill Anyone" Position

From my viewpoint over here in merry olde England, it isn't so much about "yes, your gun didn't kill anyone", it's that it seems to damned easy for any idiot to get hold of them over there.

I can point to many friends around the world and say "Yes, they are competent, intelligent people who can be responsible with a car, with a gun, what have you." But I can also point to a whole bunch more of people who are just idiots I wouldn't trust with a stapler, let alone some form of automatic weaponry. But if they are in the good ol US of A...

That is the problem right there. So how do you protect the responsible people from the irresponsible people without violating civil rights? If the freedom of the individual is the paramount concern then I really don't see how we can. And if it isn't a concern, well there is always repression, confiscations, concentration camps, forced hospitalization and just making people disappear.

 

The difference between here and most other countries is the guns are already here. Millions of them. Billions perhaps. Making them suddenly illegal changes nothing. It was illegal for that bastard to bring a gun on school campus yesterday. It was illegal for him to even BE on that campus. It was illegal to use a smoke bomb, pull the fire alarm, and certainly to shoot people. None of those broken laws stopped him. So for gun control to work the government has to go and confiscate them. How do you think that will go?

Your previous post aside, that's a completely valid point about responsible people vs the irresponsible people. You say that regulating who can have what guns (outside of the really heavy weapon stuff only the military can use) will just lead to a slippery slope, then what are your ideas for solutions? It seems like the exact same ideological impasse between the two of us (though at least we can agree to disagree without going all knives at each others throats) is part of the problem in that neither side has solutions the other likes, though it often seems like one side often does not want solutions at all.

 

I've heard about regulating guns the same way we regulate cars might be a solution, though I'm not sure how that would work exactly since the function of a gun and a car are completely different.

Honestly I don't know. Raising the age of full legal majority nationwide to 21 makes sense to me. It could have prevented the shooter from buying his weapon legally. However much of a hindrance that is. Force hospitalization of people deemed mentally ill sounds very Nazi-like to me. Now people are having their freedom taken over a subjective standard that is way too likely to be abused. Infringing on individual rights is not the way to go either. Increasing the availability of mental health can't hurt but in they end the best system can only help the willing. Turning schools into armed camps does not strike me as the best way to go, although one armed teacher could have stopped this yesterday. Maybe plain clothes security, like Air Marshals for each campus. But even then they can't be everywhere at once.

How about doing away with "gun free" zones? I'm wondering if we have had any mass shootings in the past 20 years where people were allowed to be armed themselves?

Have to guess several, just that no one was paranoid to arm themselves in a church or nightclub. Was a cop at this school, I believe, but he didn't engage with the shooter.

.