All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[CSTowle]

They're not convincing, but they're also not wrong in that it's a near impossible hurdle to overcome. We're hamstrung by the "foresight" of the forefathers.

[numberthirty]

I still say we should regulate guns the same way we regulate cars. Each gun has to be registered and inspected for safety on a regular basis. And anyone with a history of criminal violence never gets a gun license.

I've said the same since forever and I've yet to see an argument against it other than, "bUt mY FrEeDuMs!" or "tHe cOnStItUtIoN!" and neither are convincing in the least.

Sure there is...

Most of the cars involved in drunk driving fatalities?

Probably perfectly capable of passing a "Safety..." inspection.

No real reason to believe that would be much different when it came to guns.

Would it curb crimes involving stolen guns?

Sure.

Would it curb a lot of the recent gun crimes of note?

That's a bit more hazy.

[Username taken]

I still say we should regulate guns the same way we regulate cars. Each gun has to be registered and inspected for safety on a regular basis. And anyone with a history of criminal violence never gets a gun license.

Exactly.

Gun ownership should be more regulated than it is.

It's not really a complicated debate, to be honest.

[skyvolt2000]

Exactly.

Gun ownership should be more regulated than it is.

It's not really a complicated debate, to be honest.

Here is the thing those same folks crying about their freedoms are going to fight that.

And anyone with a history of criminal violence never gets a gun license.

What do you do about those with mental issues and those who just snap? How many times have we seen the guy the hot girl rejects gets a gun?

What about the bullied kid or person?


And we can't have this conversation because we are dealing with guys like the Buffalo shooter who thinks POC are going to replace him.

[AnakinFlair]

Hey look, another one!

2 dead, 3 critically injured in shootout at Texas flea market

But please, tell me again why some form of gun control wouldn't make any difference.

[Tendrin]

Hey look, another one!

2 dead, 3 critically injured in shootout at Texas flea market

But please, tell me again why some form of gun control wouldn't make any difference.

Clearly, the answer to this is more guns.

[Zelena]

Your conversation made me wonder how the firearms are regulated in France. Here what the law says (automatic translated by DeepL):

First, it should be remembered that possession is very different from carrying a firearm. The carrying of weapons is strictly reserved for members of the administration for professional use. There are, however, a few very rare exemptions for threatened persons or personalities, based on exceptional decisions by the administration. The possession of firearms is well defined by the law. It concerns sport shooters, hunters and also certain threatened persons. The weapon must then be kept in a safe, with ammunition placed aside. The transport is only authorized between the residence and the place of use.

Weapons - and among them firearms - are classified in France by categories from A to D. From these four groups will depend the possibility or not to hold a weapon. "The criterion of these categories is not the dangerousness but the mode of functioning and the caliber", points out Laurent-Franck Lienard, criminal lawyer, specialist in the law of weapons.

The first category (category A) contains automatic weapons of war (firing in bursts) or rocket launchers for example. They are prohibited in France for private individuals.

Category B includes handguns (pistols, revolvers, etc.), long guns (semi-automatic rifles), electric impulse weapons and tear gas canisters. They require an authorization from the prefecture to be purchased. This authorization, issued within the framework of sport shooting, requires a 6-month training in a shooting range and will be valid for a period of 5 years. A list of offences automatically makes this authorization impossible. A criminal record check is therefore carried out, but only every five years, at the time the authorization is issued by the prefecture and at its renewal. Laurent-Franck Lienard argues, "This check should be made annual, instead of expanding an already extremely long list of offenses," as Gérald Darmanin plans to do. It should be noted that a prefect may at any time prohibit by special decision and reverse an authorization.

Category C includes semi-automatic long guns, or air guns. It is possible to buy them freely for sport shooters, hunters or collectors, but it is mandatory to declare them to the prefecture. The administration can obviously oppose the possession of the weapon. In this case, the applicant is notified that he must relinquish it, and then must justify it. If he does not do so within three months, "the police will intervene," explains Laurent-Franck Lienard.

Finally, the weapons of category D are generally on free sale, prohibited nevertheless to the minors. These are, for example, certain tear gas bombs or certain electrical impulse weapons, the list of which can be found on the service-public website.

[JackDaw]

Clearly, the answer to this is more guns.

The old “What stops a bad guy with a gun? chestnut.

But…of course…life becomes easier if you prevent the bad guy having a gun in the first place.

But where Mets is right (I think) is that you’re not going to get really substantial benefits by fine tuning the present gun laws.

What surprises me is that there’s not a much stronger appetite for really substantial change. To be honest it’s as if the second amendment has become a fundamental religious tenet which people are afraid to challenge.

[Zelena]

The old “What stops a bad guy with a gun? chestnut.

But…of course…life becomes easier if you prevent the bad guy having a gun in the first place.

If it is your freedom to carry a gun, it’s also your freedom not to carry a gun… And what will protect you, then?

[numberthirty]

The old “What stops a bad guy with a gun? chestnut.

But…of course…life becomes easier if you prevent the bad guy having a gun in the first place.

But where Mets is right (I think) is that you’re not going to get really substantial benefits by fine tuning the present gun laws.

What surprises me is that there’s not a much stronger appetite for really substantial change. To be honest it’s as if the second amendment has become a fundamental religious tenet which people are afraid to challenge.

"Appetite..." will run up against "The Federal Government Is Largely Bought And Paid For..."

There are enough people that want to be able to turn a buck off of the current system that any real rocking the boat as far as that money goes will be unlikely.

Even when it comes to something where the public largely supports it changing.

Never take things not changing in America for Americans not wanting things to change.

[JackDaw]

"Appetite..." will run up against "The Federal Government Is Largely Bought And Paid For..."

There are enough people that want to be able to turn a buck off of the current system that any real rocking the boat as far as that money goes will be unlikely.

Even when it comes to something where the public largely supports it changing.

Never take things not changing in America for Americans not wanting things to change.

So does Democratic Party need leftwing equivalent of Tea Party to force some sensible changes through?

If not, what does stand a chance of getting changes through that I imagine a large number of people through?

It’s surely got to point that no honest person can really be surprised, let alone shocked, when next mass shooting happened. I’m really baffled that it’s got to point where people accept schools need heavy duty protection from gunmen. That’s not freedom!

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Hey look, another one!

2 dead, 3 critically injured in shootout at Texas flea market

But please, tell me again why some form of gun control wouldn't make any difference.

Of course. Predictably, right wingers groused about how a good guy with a gun would've stopped the Buffalo shooter, problem was, the good guy (the security guard) DID have a gun, but the bad guy was armored like Iron Man, so the good guy ended up dead when his bullets failed to stop the bad guy. So much for THAT myth.

[Zelena]

Of course. Predictably, right wingers groused about how a good guy with a gun would've stopped the Buffalo shooter, problem was, the good guy (the security guard) DID have a gun, but the bad guy was armored like Iron Man, so the good guy ended up dead when his bullets failed to stop the bad guy. So much for THAT myth.

And the element of surprise: in your daily life, you don’t expect people to shoot you…

[WestPhillyPunisher]

And the element of surprise: in your daily life, you don’t expect people to shoot you…

Exactly that. Chances are that in such situations, a so-called good guy, even if carrying a weapon would freeze if he suddenly found himself in a armed confrontation with a bad guy hellbent on spilling blood because he didn't have the required training to act accordingly, so he'd still end up dead. And THAT'S why the "good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun" myth needs to be destroyed since it's all Grade-A bullshit.

[Tendrin]

There was a 'good guy with a gun' at the market.

He was the security guard. He tried to shoot the guy. The shooter had body armor, so he just died instead.