PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

505

Joined

2 yr. ago

He just wouldn't follow through the moment someone told him his idea was bad for rich people.

The answer has been given over and over again but it doesn't meet the pro-gun communities deliberately impossible standards. Why bother answering it yet again?

Aren't you forgetting something? Every gun owner is a super cool action hero and if anyone tries to break into their house they'll be all "blam blam blam" and they'll be able to turn on their wives again.

You should really make a token effort to read the article before trying to be a smug fuck about it.

Why would they bother to disarm you? They make billions of dollars a year selling you guns and you're no threat to them at all, physically or politically.

Straw purchasing isn't an issue in most countries. Buying a weapon may include background checks, psychological evaluation, safety training, being a member at a range or club for 6+ months or even military service. It doesn't end there either, with many countries requiring registration of purchased firearms with heavy fines if you're unable to produce the weapon when asked.

Luckily for cartels and criminals, Americas gun laws are dogshit. With private sales, you don't even need to pass a background check in some places. Straw purchasing isn't just viable, it's the fastest, easiest, lowest risk way to secure practically any semi-automatic weapon you want.

But no matter how serious or widespread those failures are, the pro-gun community staunchly opposes addressing them, backed by lobby groups who are keenly aware their profits would be quartered if gun regulations worked.

It also makes it nearly impossible for independent researchers to uncover bot networks and AstroTurfing, just in time for fully automated AI propaganda.

The profits must flow.

I just have to wait. One day, the millions of school children that Republicans, gun owners and the gun lobby sold out will have to send their own children to school.

Semantic bullshit designed to drag out the conversation instead of addressing the problem. Nobody has gloves in their glove compartment but everybody knows what the glove compartment is.

Multiple attempts have been made to close this loophole and have been blocked by the pro-gun community, rendering background checks optional -- if you don't want your background checked, buy privately.

If you want to make effective regulations, then you need to understand what regulations already exist, how guns work, and how loopholes are exploited.

There is no gun control legislation that the pro-gun crowd will support. It doesn't matter how minor, or how perfectly written.

Otherwise, you get another AWB that bans a bunch of cosmetic features that really don't matter.

No problem, we'll just ban all sales of semi-automatic weapons and firearms under a certain length (such as revolvers). After 20+ years, it's clear the pro-gun crowd has no solution.

The very first prompt this AGI is given will be "secure as much wealth as possible without breaking any laws that might see us punished".

Them banging people doesn't upset them, only that their wives and daughters might do the same.

Who cares what you've seen? Nobody is interested in the pinkie promises of the pro-gun community -- they want actual regulations with actual enforcement but every step of the way, corporate interests and useful idiots are there to block them.

Background checks are optional. Gun safety is optional. This is what the pro-gun community insists on time and time again.

The sales mean more to them than someone else's children.

When the birth control pill was first released, people opposed it by claiming that women would just take trains of lovers while their husband was at work, since there was no longer the risk of pregnancy.

That was 64 years and many of those people became politicians and church leaders or passed their shitty views down to their shitty children.

Are all gun owners members of the National Guard? Are people in the National Guard expected to bring their own guns?

Sounds to me like you're just pretending that the National Guard is the militia mentioned in the second amendment when it's clearly not.

Well regulated in this sense means kept in good order

A definition that millions of gun owners also fail to meet. How exactly does a militia made up of morbidly obese, mentally ill men with no demonstrable ability to safely handle or use a weapon count as "in good order"?

You're reinforcing my point, not rebutting it. People steal things that are there to steal. Its why they can steal cars and alcohol but not fighter jets and hand grenades. Things don't magically pop into existence for people to steal.

The majority of firearms used in crime are stolen or purchased via straw purchases.

Then storage laws and background checks are completely inadequate for vetting gun owners.

So if you're car is ever stolen and then used to run down someone or commit a crime, you think you should be held responsible right?

We can apply your deeply stupid "laws must be the same for all things" in the other direction too.

Should companies that use high explosives be able to just leave them laying around untracked and shrug off responsibility when they're stolen and used to kill people? Should you be able to sell explosives to anybody you want with no obligation to ensure they licensed to have them?

That's not what the CEO of the company thought.

There is no magic gun fairy arming children.

At some point, a "responsible gun owner" owned that gun and allowed it to end up in the hands of a teenager. Any other country would hold them accountable.