2024 USA Presidential Election

[Khromak | 835]

17 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

But the letter of the law literally means Armalite Rifle types.

Does it? What does "AK type" stand for? Avtomat Kalashnikova? Are they banning all of that brand?

IDK, to me it seems like they're banning....a type and not a brand. They used the word type and not the word model, brand, or anything like that on purpose. They listed some examples and said anything that is these models or an attempt to pretend to be this model to get around this law. They also listed exceptions lower down in the bill and I think it includes some AR brand models?

[Khromak | 835]

22 minutes ago, ThePhleo said:

Seriously, go ahead and make millions of people felons overnight and see how serious people take the legal system afterwards.

It doesn't have to be a felony, and it doesn't have to be overnight. This is just taking it to the very furthest extreme to point out that something is impossible and could never work. You can pick any date you want to make it happen, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, whatever you want.

Then if after people have had 5 years to turn in their guns they choose not to, or pretend they lost them in a boating accident, they get thrown in prison when they are found in their possession, because they lied and broke the law. Now you are a felon because you had lots of time to obey the law and chose not to, which is like...the definition of a felon I guess?

[fcgamer | 4,965]

18 hours ago, Brickman said:

You’re still able to buy guns in Australia so I don’t know why people always bring up the 2nd amendment. Australian’s still have the right to bear arms, it’s just that there are insanely strict laws and also the majority think owning a gun unless you’re on a farm is stupid. This will never happen in the US, it’s too ingrained and brain washed into people that they need to own a gun.

I've never owned a gun, and never even fired one.

[DefaultGen | 5,714]

3 hours ago, JamesRobot said:

Ban 'em all

We are on the same page Why did we stop at automatic weapons

[JamesRobot | 6,011]

3 hours ago, Khromak said:

Does it? What does "AK type" stand for? Avtomat Kalashnikova? Are they banning all of that brand?

That is exactly what AK stands for.  And I'd say yes the definition affects the entire brand.  But as you mentioned, neither of us are lawyers.  And the law is open to interpretation. And to be clear, it passed the House but the Senate did not move the bill.  So no actual ban is on effect.

But the real point is that defining an "assault weapon" is pointless.  At least by proposed definitions. Given two mechanically identical weapons and by law we would ban only one of them because it looks scary is ludicrous.  Everyone should have a healthy fear of all firearms. 

[JamesRobot | 6,011]

1 hour ago, DefaultGen said:

We are on the same page Why did we stop at automatic weapons

I'm actually more for general regulation over straight banning all firearms.  But it doesn't really matter because criminals that seek out guns will have no issue accessing them.  Ban or no ban.

[Khromak | 835]

5 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

But it doesn't really matter because criminals that seek out guns will have no issue accessing them.  Ban or no ban.

This is another talking point that gets thrown out all the time and I think it's kind of missing the point because it presumes the "good guys with a gun" vs "bad guys with a gun" narrative. Loads of people involved in mass shootings, suicides, gun accidents, domestic violence, etc. aren't career criminals going to the black market to get weapons with their serial numbers scraped off, they're just disgruntled spouses, employees, or angsty boys. These aren't the kinds of people who are going to ask their drug dealer if they know a weapons dealer who can get them a semi-automatic rifle.

I think a lot of harm could be reduced if we added barriers to obtaining weapons, safety training for owners, and made it easier to raise concerns and follow up on them (from co-workers, teachers, family members, law enforcement, etc.). Many of these people, especially in the most tragic scenarios, aren't gang members; they're regular people who bought one/many guns following the law and used them to inflict awful suffering on loads of people.

Not trying to say anything about you specifically, but I think a lot of people just throw their hands up in the air and give up because of barriers that could be overcome if we wanted to. I think the real problem is that there just isn't enough will to change this, political or grass roots, which is really sad. One last opinion: I think part of the reason there isn't support among the population is because of defeatist statements like these.

[Khromak | 835]

As an aside I must say, between this and other politically-charged topics on this forum I have been really impressed with everyone's relatively calm demeanor and willingness to talk these topics out and debate, despite not precisely agreeing and in some cases vehemently disagreeing about the topics at hand.

Kudos and thanks to everyone I've engaged with on being polite, courteous, and trying to stick to facts/data as much as possible. I've had some really great conversations on here and it's always nice to know that it won't degrade into mud-slinging as so often happens with these topics.

Appreciate you guys, including/especially the ones I disagree with.

[avatar! | 1,927]

5 hours ago, Khromak said:

This is another talking point that gets thrown out all the time and I think it's kind of missing the point because it presumes the "good guys with a gun" vs "bad guys with a gun" narrative...One last opinion: I think part of the reason there isn't support among the population is because of defeatist statements like these.

I can understand why such a statement sounds defeatist: "But it doesn't really matter because criminals that seek out guns will have no issue accessing them. Ban or no ban." But that said, I think it's realistic -- to a degree.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift.

So first I would say first there needs to be some basic training and education -- for instance, do NOT leave a gun unattended in a car! Common sense gun laws that prohibit a family member/friend from gifting someone with either a criminal past or mental health issues -- and if it is given anyway, the family/friend should be charged severely were anything to happen. Obviously the 43% which get it off the black market there's not that much you can do apart from trying to take down gun traffickers -- but when one goes down, another rises. BUT I think it should be as difficult as possible for criminals to get their hand son guns -- and again, we can make a huge dent in gun-related homicides by just adopting some common sense laws.

[Khromak | 835]

Interesting stat, thanks. It's also much easier for the black market to "source" their guns if anyone with a pulse can buy a gun in like...25 states.

There's definitely a problem with gun availability, but it's not unsolvable. Another 6% could be reduced by...not having guns in every household for criminals to steal from us.

It just seems to me whenever this discussion comes up anywhere the same points are raised:

"That would never work in the US, we have too many guns already"

"That would never work in the US, we have a strong gun culture"

"That would never work in the US, the country is just too big"

"That would never work in the US, we have the second amendment"

"That would never work in the US, people would just get guns illegally"

et cetera et cetera et cetera, until they're blue in the face, and then we throw up our arms in the air and say "Oh well, guess it's an unsolvable problem! We just love our rights and our culture too much to change them to save our lives"

Not saying it would be easy, but I think there's a lot of negativity and hopelessness towards change and, to me, it seems like people give up before even trying. This is also directly caused by the narratives being pushed by the gun lobby, NRA, and their ilk. People absorb these beliefs and spout them as if they were fundamental laws of the universe that can't be changed. Obviously the US doesn't want to change these things, we've shown that time and time again, but that doesn't mean we can't change them, it just means we don't want to.

[Link | 2,878]

When I said Australia did "it" and it might be relevant to the US I meant "gun control", not that America should try a ban. The direct comparisons are off in the weeds. 

[Silent Hill | 281]

11 hours ago, Khromak said:

Interesting stat, thanks. It's also much easier for the black market to "source" their guns if anyone with a pulse can buy a gun in like...25 states.

There's definitely a problem with gun availability, but it's not unsolvable. Another 6% could be reduced by...not having guns in every household for criminals to steal from us.

It just seems to me whenever this discussion comes up anywhere the same points are raised:

"That would never work in the US, we have too many guns already"

"That would never work in the US, we have a strong gun culture"

"That would never work in the US, the country is just too big"

"That would never work in the US, we have the second amendment"

"That would never work in the US, people would just get guns illegally"

et cetera et cetera et cetera, until they're blue in the face, and then we throw up our arms in the air and say "Oh well, guess it's an unsolvable problem! We just love our rights and our culture too much to change them to save our lives"

Not saying it would be easy, but I think there's a lot of negativity and hopelessness towards change and, to me, it seems like people give up before even trying. This is also directly caused by the narratives being pushed by the gun lobby, NRA, and their ilk. People absorb these beliefs and spout them as if they were fundamental laws of the universe that can't be changed. Obviously the US doesn't want to change these things, we've shown that time and time again, but that doesn't mean we can't change them, it just means we don't want to.

I still think the overarching problem boils down to the extreme position on guns (e.g., total ban / ban ARs) are an attempt at treating the symptom rather than the actual illness, so to speak. I really believe we'd have much better success at lowering gun violence if we address some of the root causes like mental illness, gang culture, and socioeconomic issues while in parallel, tightening up some laws/regulations around access to guns. Any time there's any mention or push to ban guns, especially when reality doesn't match the claim(s), it sets us back a bit. 

[Khromak | 835]

6 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

I still think the overarching problem boils down to the extreme position on guns (e.g., total ban / ban ARs) are an attempt at treating the symptom rather than the actual illness, so to speak. I really believe we'd have much better success at lowering gun violence if we address some of the root causes like mental illness, gang culture, and socioeconomic issues while in parallel, tightening up some laws/regulations around access to guns. Any time there's any mention or push to ban guns, especially when reality doesn't match the claim(s), it sets us back a bit. 

I'm all for addressing multiple causes but let's be honest here: the USA isn't the worst country in the world, far from it, when it comes to mental illness, gang culture, or socioeconomic issues.

The reason our youth are shooting each other (and us) is because there are guns everywhere. I think there are one or two countries in the world where teens are more likely to be exposed to poor socioeconomic conditions than the US and where there isn't a therapist, counselor, or psychiatrist within a 500 mile radius of them, but their rate of gun death is still significantly lower than the USA. I wonder why...maybe there is some other X factor causing this problem.

Not accusing you of this, and to be clear I agree that these are factors, but it seems like another one of the NRA's talking points too, insidiously creeping into our minds:

"It's not the guns that are the problem, it's a mental health issue"

The real problem is that when someone has a mental health issue here, they have 20 guns in their closet and when someone has a mental health issue in Germany, they have 0. Should we improve our mental health services and try to support poor people? Sure. It would also help if we didn't have guns all over the place and easy access to them for any adult who can fill out some paperwork (and lie on it).

[Silent Hill | 281]

2 minutes ago, Khromak said:

I'm all for addressing multiple causes but let's be honest here: the USA isn't the worst country in the world, far from it, when it comes to mental illness, gang culture, or socioeconomic issues.

The reason our youth are shooting each other (and us) is because there are guns everywhere. I think there are one or two countries in the world where teens are more likely to be exposed to poor socioeconomic conditions than the US and where there isn't a therapist, counselor, or psychiatrist within a 500 mile radius of them, but their rate of gun death is still significantly lower than the USA. I wonder why...maybe there is some other X factor causing this problem.

Not accusing you of this, and to be clear I agree that these are factors, but it seems like another one of the NRA's talking points too, insidiously creeping into our minds:

"It's not the guns that are the problem, it's a mental health issue"

The real problem is that when someone has a mental health issue here, they have 20 guns in their closet and when someone has a mental health issue in Germany, they have 0. Should we improve our mental health services and try to support poor people? Sure. It would also help if we didn't have guns all over the place and easy access to them for any adult who can fill out some paperwork (and lie on it).

"The reason our youth are shooting each other (and us) is because there are guns everywhere." - That's what I'm talking about. People aren't getting shot because of guns, it's because of underlying issues. I totally get the concept of not having a gun means you can't shoot someone, and that itself would lower gun violence, but those people would still carry out some type of violence if the underlying cause isn't addressed, albeit without a gun, the violence may be less severe. 

To your point about other countries that are stricken with poverty and mental health issues, you're right that there are other factors contributing to their lack of gun violence beyond the difficulty in obtaining a gun. Things like culture, family, and how those with mental health issues are addressed within those (outside of professional help) are probably just as big of contributors, if not bigger, than the lower volume of guns.

On similar logic, somewhere like Venezuela has much stricter gun laws with high punishments yet still has an alarming rate of gun violence which is normally attributed to poverty and a big gang culture. 

I'd like to think that we can all agree that we're chasing our tails a bit with anything related to banning guns or a wide swath of guns. But that doesn't necessarily mean we're throwing our hands up at the issue but want to shift focus to the "why" and not so much the "how". 

PS: Interesting background on mental health impacted mass shooters - https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings. In theory, nearly all of these can be prevented by addressing mental health, but even at a minimum, making sure guns are secured in the home since a decent percentage got their weapon from a family member/inside the home. 

 

[fcgamer | 4,965]

1 hour ago, Khromak said:

The real problem is that when someone has a mental health issue here, they have 20 guns in their closet and when someone has a mental health issue in Germany, they have 0. Should we improve our mental health services and try to support poor people? Sure. It would also help if we didn't have guns all over the place and easy access to them for any adult who can fill out some paperwork (and lie on it).

There's little help for those suffering from mental illness in Taiwan. Guns are also illegal, outside of police having them, some aboriginal people for hunting in the mountains, military. There's unfortunately been a rise in stabbings though, and I've heard that knife crime is also quite severe in other countries where people don't have guns. Furthermore, in Taiwan, the gangsters do have guns and if I had the money and wanted one, I know folks who could get me one. 

From my opinion, the problem is a cultural one, but not the one people may think (i.e. I'm American, I need to have my guns). We're desensitized to violence and gun crimes, and there's also a sense that the value of life is cheap. If you watch the amount of crime documentaries as I do, some of the stuff you hear is quite frightening. If people had a bit more respect for each other this sort of stuff wouldn't be happening nearly so much imo. 

[Khromak | 835]

I'd much rather have someone attempting to stab me than attempting to shoot me. Especially so if they want to go on a mass killing spree. It's a whole lot different to stab yourself to death than it is to pull a gun's trigger.

Knives and knife violence are perhaps more visceral, but they're a lot less lethal and easier to stop.

I fully agree that some people will eventually become violent for a variety of reasons. I think those people not having access to an arsenal of guns is the biggest lever to stop them from being able to effectively enact that violence, whether on themselves or others, and not trying to prevent the thing that caused them to become violent in the first place. This is principally because of the points you all are making: even in countries with fewer guns, people still get violent. This is, unfortunately, a part of human nature.

[MagusSmurf | 579]

ATTN: Biden

gtfo

I don't care who replaces him, the man is a walking corpse. The Democrats are holding an empty hand with him as the nominee. Choosing someone else could go terribly but even so that would just leave us in a situation only as bad as the status quo, because Biden's almost certainly not winning.

 

Edited July 19 by MagusSmurf

[Gloves | 12,231]

53 minutes ago, Khromak said:

I'd much rather have someone attempting to stab me than attempting to shoot me. Especially so if they want to go on a mass killing spree. It's a whole lot different to stab yourself to death than it is to pull a gun's trigger.

Knives and knife violence are perhaps more visceral, but they're a lot less lethal and easier to stop.

I fully agree that some people will eventually become violent for a variety of reasons. I think those people not having access to an arsenal of guns is the biggest lever to stop them from being able to effectively enact that violence, whether on themselves or others, and not trying to prevent the thing that caused them to become violent in the first place. This is principally because of the points you all are making: even in countries with fewer guns, people still get violent. This is, unfortunately, a part of human nature.

Take away the guns and vehicular manslaughter will go up. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,909]

57 minutes ago, MagusSmurf said:

ATTN: Biden

gtfo

I don't care who replaces him, the man is a walking corpse. The Democrats are holding an empty hand with him as the nominee. Choosing someone else could go terribly but even so that would just leave us in a situation only as bad as the status quo, because Biden's almost certainly not winning.

 

At some point it's a lost cause (already is IMO), and many of the presumed replacements probably have little interest in being a sacrificial lamb.

Now the focus needs to be on Trump's age (among other things).  That fucker is also about to start a term at the age of 78.  Because that's what we do, evidently.

[Gloves | 12,231]

12 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

At some point it's a lost cause (already is IMO), and many of the presumed replacements probably have little interest in being a sacrificial lamb.

Now the focus needs to be on Trump's age (among other things).  That fucker is also about to start a term at the age of 78.  Because that's what we do, evidently.

Basically everyone: "Out of touch old white dudes are the problem." 

US presidents:

[avatar! | 1,927]

2 hours ago, Khromak said:

Knives and knife violence are perhaps more visceral, but they're a lot less lethal and easier to stop.

I agree that guns are easier to use, no doubt. They also have a range that knives never will. That said, I think knives are easier to stop in the sense that you can shoot an assailant, but that also requires someone having a gun right then and there.

Apparently in the USA there are about 1600+ murders committed with knives per year. Small in comparison to the murders by firearms, but certainly not negligible nor "small" in the whole sense.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36148686/

[avatar! | 1,927]

1 hour ago, Reed Rothchild said:

At some point it's a lost cause (already is IMO), and many of the presumed replacements probably have little interest in being a sacrificial lamb.

Now the focus needs to be on Trump's age (among other things).  That fucker is also about to start a term at the age of 78.  Because that's what we do, evidently.

There are still a few months left, but I think if the Democrats are going to do anything NOW is the time to do it! Have Harris run for president and make sure she chooses a good VP candidate (in my opinion it should be Josh Shapiro who I think in polls has shown he has a better chance of defeating Trump than Biden).

[Khromak | 835]

8 minutes ago, avatar! said:

That said, I think knives are easier to stop in the sense that you can shoot an assailant, but that also requires someone having a gun right then and there.

You can also...run away? Or overpower them with your superior muscles. I mean, I can't, but someone could.

That's kind of the point of my knives vs guns point: you don't need a gun to stop someone with a knife. You can stop them with a log, or a bat, or your fists, legs, a pipe, etc. Good luck trying to take down a shooter with a rifle and 2 handguns with a baseball bat.

Also: the second you get shot in your face, you're done. If you get stabbed, there's a very high chance you can continue to fight (and maybe survive).

They're not really comparable. There's a reason we don't use knives as our primary weapons of war.

[ChTe | 5]

Reading this over, I can see how this might be perceived as inflammatory or divisive. I was pretty much just reading through this forum, saw the poll, and felt the need to vent. I love this little community, but that doesn't stop me from being critical of viewpoints that I feel are simply not grounded. Remove or ignore if need be.

Spoiler

I find it incredibly frustrating and disturbing to see how much support former President Trump still has, and in too many cases I've found people are just unable to change their views once they are cemented. Like, this dude is literally on the record speaking with Georgia's Security General, where he said, verbatim "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state." How do you reconcile with this as a supporter of his? Not to mention his lawyers literally tried to overturn the election. Unprecedented. Unreal. Un-American.

Every time I try to bring up the above paragraph to someone online, it's always the same responses. Woah, that's crazy. I don't believe that actually happened. Yeah, I know it's crazy, but it's literally the truth. Or That isn't true. It's a bunch of lies made up by the liberal media. I get disagreements among issues without clear information or disagreeing over the facts presented, but how are you going to go out there and literally deny what every reputable source, every expert in the field, and even certain Republicans are saying? It's like we live in two different realities.

I find it incredibly unlikely that because something was attempted and happened to fail, there is no longer a threat or even a possibility of another attempt. Why vote the threat in once again? Is it because the other candidate is a few years older?

[Reed Rothchild | 9,909]

Speaking broadly, because they either

a) don't believe it

or

b) believe Trump is better for the country, regardless of any and all, uh... "shortcomings", than any Dem is, full stop.

...or

c) because they will always go with their "side" because politics are basically the equivalent of a college football rivalry nowadays.