The Politics Thread v2

[dman11235]

Background checks don't cost the customer anything.  Nor do they cost the mechant anything.  It's a toll free thing.  And by expanding them and solidifying the rules and process, you can eliminate the cost to anyone but the FBI.  It's not like it's a huge cost anyways, it's all automated and computerized, there's no real cost to the people involved in the purchase.

And the whole "people will get them by stealing them!"?  Stop moving the goal posts man.  This isn't about that.  It's about fixing the legal purchases.  not the crimes.  And even then, it STILL helps.  Because it gives a bigger incentive to report stolen weapons.  But in reality, that's a small part of the discussion.

And finally, Raineh is right.  If you have background checks at all, they have to be applied in all cases or else they're completely useless.  Someone who wouldn't be able to buy it legally in a store can just go somewhere else and buy it.  Easy.  By expanding the background checks you make it harder.  That will necessarily reduce the number of people who shouldn't have guns who can get them.

Finally, it's important to note that this is NOT intended to fix all of gun problems.  It's asinine to expect or say people expect this to fix everything.  It's a step forward, and it fixes some things, and makes it more likely that some people don't get guns who shouldn't.

[MrWolfe]

Background checks don't cost the customer anything.  Nor do they cost the mechant anything.  It's a toll free thing.  And by expanding them and solidifying the rules and process, you can eliminate the cost to anyone but the FBI.  It's not like it's a huge cost anyways, it's all automated and computerized, there's no real cost to the people involved in the purchase.

Actually:

"It doesn't matter where you conduct your business: from a store, at gun shows or over the internet. If you're in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks," the White House said in a statement emailed Monday night, outlining the policy.

(Emphasis mine.)

Licenses generally require fees. So yes, this does cost the merchant something.

And the whole "people will get them by stealing them!"?  Stop moving the goal posts man.  This isn't about that.  It's about fixing the legal purchases.  not the crimes.  And even then, it STILL helps.  Because it gives a bigger incentive to report stolen weapons.  But in reality, that's a small part of the discussion.

It's being sold as a solution to our mass shooting problem, and it isn't. That is what I have been saying the entire time.

And finally, Raineh is right.  If you have background checks at all, they have to be applied in all cases or else they're completely useless.  Someone who wouldn't be able to buy it legally in a store can just go somewhere else and buy it.  Easy.

I agree. And since it's impossible to apply background checks in all cases (ie: illegal, under the table sales) they are useless, as someone who wouldn't be able to pass a background check will just go somewhere else.

By expanding the background checks you make it harder.  That will necessarily reduce the number of people who shouldn't have guns who can get them.

Now you're just contradicting yourself.

Finally, it's important to note that this is NOT intended to fix all of gun problems.  It's asinine to expect or say people expect this to fix everything.  It's a step forward, and it fixes some things, and makes it more likely that some people don't get guns who shouldn't.

Any yet that's how it's being marketed. Here's the headline for that article that was used on facebook: "With tears in his eyes, Obama just announced the executive action Americans have been waiting for."

Oh praise jaysus, our teary eyed savior has taken it upon himself to end gun violence forever! Only, y'know, he basically hasn't done shit. I agree, it's pretty asinine--but that's politics for you.

Speaking as someone who has friends on both sides of the law, I can assure you it isn't as easy as you think.  Criminals do sell guns to other criminals, yes.  But the caveat there is they sell to people they know personally and have judged to be not stupid.  In other words, joe bad guy will sell you an illegal gun if you need one to defend yourself in the act of committing burglaries, and aren't likely to squeal about it if you get caught.  On the other hand if you're unknown to the criminal community, look mentally unstable, or say you need a gun to "fuck somebody up", you're more likely to be on the receiving end of that gun than have it sold to you. 

They may be an illegal business, but they are a business after all.  They don't need to sell to people who could bring them heat.  And more likely than not the best they can sell you is a handgun, because bigger and better stuff is reserved for higher level guys in organized crime who are well known.  Criminals are far more paranoid on average than regular citizens, even about other criminals (cause technically they are rivals after all).  Then there's other issues.  On average an illegal gun will cost you quite a bit more than a legal one, and if it doesn't you have a pretty good chance it's a piece of shit (or you're damn close friends with someone).  And if it doesn't fire or malfunctions and injures you?  Well fuck you then, we don't offer refunds.  Sorry about your luck.  Want an unregistered or untraceable one with no serial number?  Well the price is bigger.  If it's not, that guns been used to do something and they need to be rid of it, but are hoping to still make a little money in the process.

Makes sense. I guess being offered one by an almost-stranger on my way to the fricking 7-11 kinda' skewed my perspective about how easy or difficult it might be. I still doubt that forcing backround checks at gun shows is going to have much of an effect on mass shootings though--especially since IIRC most of the guns used in mass shootings so far were either legally purchased (with background checks) and registered to the shooter, or stolen prior to the attack.

Besides, mass shootings are a social issue. You don't fix the problem by restricting gun sales, you fix the problem by identifying what causes these violent rampages in the first place and doing something about it.

[Raineh Daze]

And finally, Raineh is right.  If you have background checks at all, they have to be applied in all cases or else they're completely useless.  Someone who wouldn't be able to buy it legally in a store can just go somewhere else and buy it.  Easy.

I agree. And since it's impossible to apply background checks in all cases (ie: illegal, under the table sales) they are useless, as someone who wouldn't be able to pass a background check will just go somewhere else.

So because we can't stop illegal activity, and because smart people planning to do something illegal would avoid needing background checks... it should be easy for them? Because that's more convenient for everyone else? Amazing.

Besides, mass shootings are a social issue. You don't fix the problem by restricting gun sales, you fix the problem by identifying what causes these violent rampages in the first place and doing something about it.

'Having lots of guns and ammo around' seems to be step one. Though inevitably Switzerland gets brought up.

Not that the USA's ever solving that problem...

[dman11235]

Licenses generally require fees. So yes, this does cost the merchant something.

I'm sorry, did I say license earlier?  No?  Right, I said background checks.  Licenses are already required for gun ownership.  That's not a new thing, and yes it does cost something.  So what?  And it's not an applicable thing to bring up in this discussion about background checks.

I agree. And since it's impossible to apply background checks in all cases (ie: illegal, under the table sales) they are useless, as someone who wouldn't be able to pass a background check will just go somewhere else.

That's a very disingenuous response.  We aren't talking about illegal sales here.  Well, we are.  But you can't regulate the illegal ones.  And it doesn't matter that you can't.  Because it still reduces the events.  And you know what?  Even if it doesn't reduce the number of large mass shootings (10+), that's okay.  Because large mass shootings are rare.  It will reduce, over the next few years, the number of gun injuries.  That's also not a good thing because even though it'll be working, people on the "never government!" side of things are going to point at the lack of reduction of those because the ones that still exist will be covered more intensely and the whole psychological thing with that will convince them it's worse, not better.  (same thing with how people think air travel is dangerous despite it being in every way safer than car travel except disease health)

[Raineh Daze]

There's another way air travel's more dangerous: dying of boredom.

[MrWolfe]

So because we can't stop illegal activity, and because smart people planning to do something illegal would avoid needing background checks... it should be easy for them? Because that's more convenient for everyone else? Amazing.

It requires neither smarts nor planning to circumvent background checks--as evidenced by all the dumbass kids who get ahold of their parent's guns and then accidentally shoot themselves.

The point you seem to be missing is that it's already easy for people who shouldn't have guns to get a hold of them. I'd argue that someone contemplating a crime--whether impulsively or methodically--is more likely to try and get a gun from someone they know than go to a licensed dealer or a gun show. You might argue, as Bhu has, that it's not as easy as people think to buy a gun on the street, but that argument relies on criminals consistently showing a level of professionalism and good judgement that, frankly, doesn't strike me as realistic.

Besides, mass shootings are a social issue. You don't fix the problem by restricting gun sales, you fix the problem by identifying what causes these violent rampages in the first place and doing something about it.

'Having lots of guns and ammo around' seems to be step one. Though inevitably Switzerland gets brought up.

Not that the USA's ever solving that problem...

Guns don't magically make people violent.

They can make it easier to act on violent impulses and magnify the potential consequences of doing so, but if someone shoots up a public place it's not because they happened to get their hands on a firearm. Even if you could snap your fingers and make all the guns disappear forever, you'd still need to deal with the underlying problem that made then want to shoot people in the first place.

Conversely, if you could properly identify and address those causes, it wouldn't matter if everyone walked around toting miniguns and rocket launchers.

Licenses generally require fees. So yes, this does cost the merchant something.

I'm sorry, did I say license earlier?  No?  Right, I said background checks.  Licenses are already required for gun ownership.  That's not a new thing, and yes it does cost something.  So what?  And it's not an applicable thing to bring up in this discussion about background checks.

Not a license to own a gun. A license to sell. And the discussion is not just about background checks, it's about the Obama administration's recent policy decisions regarding gun laws. Considering that bit about licenses is from an official White House statement regarding the policy, it is absolutely applicable to this discussion.

I agree. And since it's impossible to apply background checks in all cases (ie: illegal, under the table sales) they are useless, as someone who wouldn't be able to pass a background check will just go somewhere else.

That's a very disingenuous response.

(click to show/hide)

We aren't talking about illegal sales here.  Well, we are.  But you can't regulate the illegal ones.  And it doesn't matter that you can't.  Because it still reduces the events.  And you know what?  Even if it doesn't reduce the number of large mass shootings (10+), that's okay.  Because large mass shootings are rare.  It will reduce, over the next few years, the number of gun injuries.  That's also not a good thing because even though it'll be working, people on the "never government!" side of things are going to point at the lack of reduction of those because the ones that still exist will be covered more intensely and the whole psychological thing with that will convince them it's worse, not better.  (same thing with how people think air travel is dangerous despite it being in every way safer than car travel except disease health)

No it isn't. It's a pretty straightforward analysis of why your argument was shit.

To sum up: Your own logic contradicts your position. Here's an example of some actual disingenuous responses:

The argument of "they'll break the law to get the gun anyways!" is just stupid and asinine.  I mean, yeah, they will.

We aren't talking about illegal sales here.  Well, we are.

Do you have any evidence to back up the claims you've made in the section I spoilered? Or even a theoretical chain of reasoning?

[Raineh Daze]

So because we can't stop illegal activity, and because smart people planning to do something illegal would avoid needing background checks... it should be easy for them? Because that's more convenient for everyone else? Amazing.

It requires neither smarts nor planning to circumvent background checks--as evidenced by all the dumbass kids who get ahold of their parent's guns and then accidentally shoot themselves.

The point you seem to be missing is that it's already easy for people who shouldn't have guns to get a hold of them. I'd argue that someone contemplating a crime--whether impulsively or methodically--is more likely to try and get a gun from someone they know than go to a licensed dealer or a gun show. You might argue, as Bhu has, that it's not as easy as people think to buy a gun on the street, but that argument relies on criminals consistently showing a level of professionalism and good judgement that, frankly, doesn't strike me as realistic.

And your argument is that they're going go to do it anyway so why bother? You're basically saying "we can't see people not-doing something whilst we can see people doing it, so we should assume that group #1 doesn't exist".

Besides, mass shootings are a social issue. You don't fix the problem by restricting gun sales, you fix the problem by identifying what causes these violent rampages in the first place and doing something about it.

'Having lots of guns and ammo around' seems to be step one. Though inevitably Switzerland gets brought up.

Not that the USA's ever solving that problem...

Guns don't magically make people violent.

They can make it easier to act on violent impulses and magnify the potential consequences of doing so, but if someone shoots up a public place it's not because they happened to get their hands on a firearm. Even if you could snap your fingers and make all the guns disappear forever, you'd still need to deal with the underlying problem that made then want to shoot people in the first place.

Conversely, if you could properly identify and address those causes, it wouldn't matter if everyone walked around toting miniguns and rocket launchers.

Right, so guns make the human condition worse.

Therefore, guns can be restricted or we can solve the entirety of human psychology and try to prevent someone ever giving in to violent impulses. Simply for the sake of having deadly weapons around.

[MrWolfe]

Dude, do you even words man? None of that is even close to what I'm saying, and that part you put in quotes doesn't even make sense.

[Raineh Daze]

Dude, do you even words man? None of that is even close to what I'm saying, and that part you put in quotes doesn't even make sense.

The simple version: by arguing for non-universal background checks to remain, you imply that they never work and anyone committing criminal actions will get a gun anyway. Therefore, your argument rests upon nothing ever being prevented by screening before handing out guns. This consequently means proving that no background check has prevented anything. Even if it inconveniences millions and one person's saved, that seems like good value.

As for the second part: you can only address causes so far without redefining humanity.

[MrWolfe]

Dude, do you even words man? None of that is even close to what I'm saying, and that part you put in quotes doesn't even make sense.

The simple version: by arguing for non-universal background checks to remain, you imply that they never work and anyone committing criminal actions will get a gun anyway. Therefore, your argument rests upon nothing ever being prevented by screening before handing out guns. This consequently means proving that no background check has prevented anything. Even if it inconveniences millions and one person's saved, that seems like good value.

Aside from the fact that your conclusion doesn't follow logically from your premise, when, precisely, did I ever argue for that?

I have argued that background checks are ineffective at preventing gun violence and crimes, particularly mass shootings.
I have argued that requiring sellers to purchase a license and perform background checks burdens law abiding citizens more than it does criminals.
I have argued that criminals are unlikely to try to buy guns from legitimate merchants.
I have argued that the entire thing is basically a meaningless publicity stunt, and that universal background checks are impossible.

I do not recall ever arguing for "non-universal background checks to remain."

As for the second part: you can only address causes so far without redefining humanity.

Oh please. Mass shootings are not a defining characteristic of humanity. They aren't even that common here in the states, and they're even less common in other nations.

[bhu]

Makes sense. I guess being offered one by an almost-stranger on my way to the fricking 7-11 kinda' skewed my perspective about how easy or difficult it might be. I still doubt that forcing backround checks at gun shows is going to have much of an effect on mass shootings though--especially since IIRC most of the guns used in mass shootings so far were either legally purchased (with background checks) and registered to the shooter, or stolen prior to the attack.

Besides, mass shootings are a social issue. You don't fix the problem by restricting gun sales, you fix the problem by identifying what causes these violent rampages in the first place and doing something about it.

What he was offering you was likely the blame for something he or someone else had done.  After all once you've had it for a few days it'll be your prints on the gun, and the cops don't need to find this mysterious gun selling stranger if they already have you.  The gun show thing will have an effect on criminals and would be terrorists as lots of them make straw purchases there.  Mass shooting not as much.

Mass shootings are a social issue, and their cause is easily identifiable: people are being shit on day to day, and some of them cope with it better than others. Ever hear the saying "Pile enough dust and you have a mountain"?  It's come to mean different things over the years, but one modern meaning is this:  You can take a lot of individual humiliation, degradation and suffering because each one is a handful of dust, and like a handful of dust it's quickly forgotten.  But over time, that dust piles up, and those little humiliations don't seem so fucking little anymore, and now you're staring at a mountain.  Some will realize they're in over their heads and seek help, and a rare few may find it.  The rest are more likely to end up suiciding out, the only difference is some of them want revenge enough to take people with them.  It's not mental illness so much as the endless, soul-crushing indignity of living knowing that the society you live in considers you either a liability to be disposed of or an expendable asset to be worn out and discarded (along with the knowledge that there's sweet fuck all you can do about it).  Our society has devolved to the point where we are separated into quarreling tribesmen who gnash our teeth at one another without bothering to consider that others being different from us is not an existential threat to our existence.  We poke and poke and poke at one another, and then have the gall to be surprised when someone we gleefully pushed over the edge blows up in our faces. 

Unlike law that's not changeable, at least not in any time span measuring less than a century.  We are a species of endoparasitic, mildly socipathic narcissists with pretensions towards being something better.  If you want to make the world a better place the answer is simple: exterminate our species, or be patient enough for us to mature into being something other than human.

[MrWolfe]

What he was offering you was likely the blame for something he or someone else had done.  After all once you've had it for a few days it'll be your prints on the gun, and the cops don't need to find this mysterious gun selling stranger if they already have you.  The gun show thing will have an effect on criminals and would be terrorists as lots of them make straw purchases there.  Mass shooting not as much.

That was more or less the impression I got. He said he had bought it (unregistered) from someone else, used it at the practice range a couple of times, then decided to sell it because he hadn't really been doing anything with it and the ammo was too expensive to keep target shooting on a regular basis. I figured best case scenario he was telling the truth and was just getting too nervous about having an unregistered gun in his possession and wanted to pawn the headache off on somebody else.

In any event, had I been inclined to go shoot someplace up I could have taken him up on the offer, so this is another scenario in which criminals--particularly the mass-shooter variety--could obtain a gun illegally. Honestly, "let this dipshit go get famous and take the heat for whatever we did with the gun" sounds like a pretty solid plan for a criminal with a firearm they need to dispose of, so I wouldn't be surprised if that method got used with some frequency.

Mass shootings are a social issue, and their cause is easily identifiable: people are being shit on day to day, and some of them cope with it better than others. Ever hear the saying "Pile enough dust and you have a mountain"?  It's come to mean different things over the years, but one modern meaning is this:  You can take a lot of individual humiliation, degradation and suffering because each one is a handful of dust, and like a handful of dust it's quickly forgotten.  But over time, that dust piles up, and those little humiliations don't seem so fucking little anymore, and now you're staring at a mountain.  Some will realize they're in over their heads and seek help, and a rare few may find it.  The rest are more likely to end up suiciding out, the only difference is some of them want revenge enough to take people with them.  It's not mental illness so much as the endless, soul-crushing indignity of living knowing that the society you live in considers you either a liability to be disposed of or an expendable asset to be worn out and discarded (along with the knowledge that there's sweet fuck all you can do about it).  Our society has devolved to the point where we are separated into quarreling tribesmen who gnash our teeth at one another without bothering to consider that others being different from us is not an existential threat to our existence.  We poke and poke and poke at one another, and then have the gall to be surprised when someone we gleefully pushed over the edge blows up in our faces. 

Unlike law that's not changeable, at least not in any time span measuring less than a century.  We are a species of endoparasitic, mildly socipathic narcissists with pretensions towards being something better.  If you want to make the world a better place the answer is simple: exterminate our species, or be patient enough for us to mature into being something other than human.

While I agree with most of what you've said here, I'd argue that there's more behind the phenomenon of mass shootings--such as the way our culture, in particular, has a history of glorifying gun violence. I'd also argue that those negative tendencies you mention are not innate but a product of our society, and that if we actually got off our asses and started changing things you'd see a difference fairly quickly. The problem is that most people are heavily indoctrinated into the current system, and violently resist any attempt to change it--and the attempts of others to pull away from it and live separately.

[SolEiji]

Check out my massive gains!  Flex flex!

[dman11235]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-obamas-executive-action-gun-control-means-you/

[MrWolfe]

Fun article. Very different take from how the media and the White House itself tried to present this. From the official statements they made it sound like anyone attempting to sell a gun would have to get a dealer's license and perform background checks--something that could be rather onerous for a private citizen and at the very least expands a really bad precedent.

So, Plus side: it really does basically nothing...

Downside: ...Except provide unjustified hype for do-nothing politicians, and fuel the same bullshit circular rhetorical debates that keep people distracted from the real threats to their freedom and safety.

[bhu]

It does do a little tho.

I should always take codeine before visiting the political thread.  Makes it seem much less uptight.  Granted I could do without the dentistry that comes before it...

[linklord231]

I found this site rather interesting.

[Raineh Daze]

Apparently, 96% Sanders. And also 96% Clinton.

Not really surprising, that.

[MrWolfe]

I found this site rather interesting.

*Sigh*

You do realize sites like this are just big data-mining operations, right?

Not that the old phone polls and whatnot weren't, but at least they didn't try to lure you in by making it seem 'fun', and it was marginally entertaining to hang up on them.

[Raineh Daze]

Wow, I'm voluntarily supplying data? The horror.