froghawk on 17/6/2016 at 01:28
Quote Posted by catbarf
Given that froghawk has so far not come across as either a hippy or anarchist, I would imagine he means disarming police at the same time as disarming the citizenry rather than outright disbanding the military. In London, only your equivalent to SWAT teams carry firearms, right? Here in the US all police are armed with guns, and non-compliance can very quickly turn lethal. If we were to implement something like Australia's buyback, I too would expect state governments to disarm as well to match. I know this may seem like conspiracy nonsense but the idea of disarming the populace while keeping a handgun and rifle in the hands of every policeman doesn't sit well with me considering the problems we've had with police overreach in this country.
This. Thank you. You nailed it!
Plus I think there's a sense of hypocrisy in the outrage people have over violence happening in the west while turning away from all the innocents the US is killing globally. So I'd also like their to be a dialogue about the violence overseas our interventionist foreign policy causes in tandem with reducing violence here
Tony_Tarantula on 17/6/2016 at 03:03
Quote Posted by MrDuck
As someone who comes from a country where a lot (or most, tbh) of the gun violence -in a country already more violent and dangerous than the US- is a direct consequence of the US selling (legally or otherwise) guns that end up in criminal hands, I have this to say: fuck you US and your goddamn 2nd amendment.
Which is, ironically enough, something I've been harping on. The government is the CAUSE of a lot of the gun violence.
Quote:
I think you're right that guns would start to dry up following a ban, but I think there are other factors that need to be considered- like I mentioned before, criminologists estimate anywhere from 300k to over 1mil defensive gun uses per year in the US depending on who you ask, and the question of how an armed populace affects petty crime is conjecture at best. In an ideal world we wouldn't have all these guns in the first place, but since we have so many already in criminal hands I think legislation has to consider how removing the legally-owned ones will affect things in the intervening decades before that illegal supply dries up.
I don't believe they would. Let's just say that I have some old friends, who in turn hang out with an extremely bad crowd(think Hell's Angels bad). Banning the weapons would do all of jack shit when you have an effectively limitless supply coming up from Mexico.
Quote Posted by PigLick
actually catbarf (you should really think about your nick) has given me a lot of food for thought regarding gun ownership, thanks for the perspective. From where I stand the US sounds like a shit-arse place to live, but I am sure its mostly propaganda, just like Australia is full of deadly animals waiting to kill you once you step outside your home.
although kangaroos man, dont mess with those fuckers
Well...it is and it isn't. You have to keep in mind that most of these problems didn't exist in most areas of the United States until the previous ten years. Most Americans lived in relatively safe neighborhoods, with intact infrastructure, and no real risk of violence or drug crime. During the past decade alone crime has become more widespread, previously nice neighborhoods now have shady characters loitering about, the police have become extremely confrontational and hostile (a combination of budget-strapped municipalities, corrupt judges, and asset forfeiture laws incentivize aggressive police behavior), and many working families who were previously financially secure are now hanging on by a thread...scared that any day now their employer will announce the factor is moving to China and they will be thrown into a drug crime ridden neighborhood.
The US isn't quite a "shitty place to live". What's happening is much more complicated than that. If you have an in-demand white collar specialty...you're an engineer, work in high finance, etc. then you probably have a nice apartment in a gentrified area. If you're not then you probably live in a shitty, crime ridden neighborhood plagued by both drugs and trigger happy, unaccountable police. There's not as much in between anymore and , as I touched on earlier, the transformation from a nation that was about as close as humanity has gotten to a meritocracy in the 80's and 90's is becoming one of lords and serfs.
Incidentally I think some of the points Catbarf made explain why previously "nutter" candidates like Trump and Sanders are popular. When the decline has been this rapid, this fast, who can blame people for wanting to try ANYTHING different than the status quo?
Tony_Tarantula on 17/6/2016 at 03:07
It already is illegal to sell guns to kids.
It's actually illegal for kids to HAVE guns, let alone to sell them guns.
(
http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-firearms-policy-summary/)
Quote:
This. Thank you. You nailed it!
Plus I think there's a sense of hypocrisy in the outrage people have over violence happening in the west while turning away from all the innocents the US is killing globally. So I'd also like their to be a dialogue about the violence overseas our interventionist foreign policy causes in tandem with reducing violence here
In this instance it's necessary to note that the people and the US political establishment have sharply divergent views. Every establishment candidate is on the record as supporting military interventionism and has historically done so, E.G. the Obama administration's support of the "Arab Spring. The candidates that were popular with voters, Trump and Sanders, both loudly advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy and withdrawing US military involvement in developing nations.
We don't like it anymore than you do. It wastes valuable financial resources that could be used at home.
froghawk on 17/6/2016 at 03:43
By sell guns FOR kids, I meant the actual marketing should be illegal. It is with tobacco and alcohol, but clearly this company is getting away with it.
faetal on 17/6/2016 at 08:25
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
I don't believe they would. Let's just say that I have some old friends, who in turn hang out with an extremely bad crowd(think Hell's Angels bad). Banning the weapons would do all of jack shit when you have an effectively limitless supply coming up from Mexico.
Perhaps it wouldn't dry up then, but it would cut the availability stream down, given that those guns would need to be smuggled and would likely carry a higher cost. That's a lot of back-pressure versus living in a sea of legal guns to pick from.
Tony_Tarantula on 17/6/2016 at 13:09
I agree that it would raise cost, but it would do little else.
faetal on 17/6/2016 at 13:13
It would probably slow the movement down too. Illegal border smuggling versus diffuse availability would carry way different kinetics.
Especially since it would allow a huge shift in anti-gun enforcement to focus on border checks.
Tony_Tarantula on 17/6/2016 at 13:15
What border checks? The US has more or less ceased border checks.
faetal on 17/6/2016 at 13:19
Hence my latter point about diverting gun crime enforcement to the borders. It would enable them to do that - but I guess that's no guarantee they would do it.
It's academic either since I doubt the US is ever going to find the political will to make any real changes so long as the money keeps flowing.
Tony_Tarantula on 17/6/2016 at 13:24
They're already capable of doing that. What I'm referring to is pressure from the Obama administration to cease previous enforcement measures.
Which is well....I know a lot of Americans arent thinking beyond "Dey Terk Our Jerbs!!", but there are some very real security and crime issues associated with that open border thanks to Mexico's descent to a failed narco-state.
