Charleston shooting

[Greenday]

Let's see, one is about personal priorities over party priorities and the other is about party priorities over societal priorities.

It's the difference between priorities between two groups vs priorities of a group vs the entire nation.

Just a wee bit of difference there... just a bit... >_>

They are both ignoring the needs of the country. Both are equally worthless in my opinion.

[Nekojin]

They are both ignoring the needs of the country. Both are equally worthless in my opinion.

They're alike in many ways, but only one of them wants to shove God down your throat, force women to suffer with unwanted pregnancies, and keep gays in the closet.

Edit: And those are only the first three differences off the top of my head... I know that there are many more.

[Estil]

Meanwhile, liberal Democrats want to shove speech codes and big gov't regulations down our throat, insist that cruelly butchering children is only an expression of choice and reproductive freedom (while they typically DON'T support the "right to choose" when it comes to firearms, being a dues paying union member or not, vouchers so you can have free choice of schools...or even what kinds of bags I can get a grocery store for Pete's sake!!), opposition to their views is "dangerous", "divisive", "ignorant"...let's see, expect that all minority groups and women be a monolithic block supporting their views no questions asked (rather than think of people as individuals who have minds of their own). And that's just the ones off the top of my head.

So the religious right might insist I'm gonna burn in hell for not buying any of that "one true faith" and "LGBTs and other groups we don't like are gonna BURN!!!"...better than being labeled a racist or "against women" or "ignorant" by liberal Democrats I suppose...

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah. How dare those evil Democrats want to enact legislation to ensure that the environment is still habitable for our children's children... We'll be dead by then! Who cares about the environment!



Oh, yeah, totally better to suffer active discrimination for not being the majority than to be labeled a bigot for, well, being a bigot... >_>

[s_stabeler]

Meanwhile, liberal Democrats want to shove speech codes and big gov't regulations down our throat, insist that cruelly butchering children is only an expression of choice and reproductive freedom

As has been said before, the abortion limit is set before the foetus can feel anything IIRC- and in situations after the abortion limit, generally that only occurs if the mother is likely to be killed by continuing the pregnancy- or if the kid would not likely live long after birth anyway. Please don't turn this inot an abortion thread though.

(while they typically DON'T support the "right to choose" when it comes to firearms,

actually, nobody, IIRC, has ever said anything about banning all firearms- just that there should be restrictions to make sure people aren't going to go out and commit crimes with said firearm.

being a dues paying union member or not,

I haven't heard anything about thsi one, but there ARE arguments both ways. ( basically, if you get the benefits of union membership, you really should contribute to the cost of getting those benefits- on the converse, I CAN see how someone who thinks the union is being an idiot igt resent the dues)

vouchers so you can have free choice of schools...

it's more that voucher programs are usually an attempt to get government money for faith schools- and that such programs reduce the government's ability to ensure a school receiving government funding actually does teach the kids properly.

or even what kinds of bags I can get a grocery store for Pete's sake!!),

which is a measure designed to reduce the amount of plastic bags that end up just causing a nuisance. (it's not even really inconvenient to bring your own bags in from home...)

opposition to their views is "dangerous", "divisive", "ignorant"

it's not merely opposing their views- but when someone more-or-less goes "I dont' care what you say, this is the truth" without offering any evidence to back up their assertations, you are GOING to piss people off.

...let's see, expect that all minority groups and women be a monolithic block supporting their views no questions asked (rather than think of people as individuals who have minds of their own).

that's an issue with politicians, not their supporters.

So the religious right might insist I'm gonna burn in hell for not buying any of that "one true faith" and "LGBTs and other groups we don't like are gonna BURN!!!"...better than being labeled a racist or "against women" or "ignorant" by liberal Democrats I suppose...

I'm sorry that we aren't an echo chamber for your views, but amazingly enough, when you present views that are racist, against women, or otherwise ignorant, you WILL get people calling you out on your bullshit.

[Andara Bledin]

actually, nobody, IIRC, has ever said anything about banning all firearms...

There are actually a few politicians who would just as soon that nobody had access to guns. They're stupid and damage the case for better gun control, but they do exist. They're less successful than their opposite number who are out for banning science in schools, however, so not really representative of the Democratic party as a whole.

[Gravekeeper]

There are actually a few politicians who would just as soon that nobody had access to guns.

I tried to find one that actually holds this position but googling it unleashed a torrent of fucking insanity the likes of which made me worry for the future of our species. >.>

They're stupid and damage the case for better gun control, but they do exist.

I don't see how. The majority of Republicans already believe Obama wants to repeal the second amendment and take all their guns as is. These are not people with a firm grasp on reality to begin with. There's not exactly anything there to damage. Its already broken.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't see how. The majority of Republicans already believe Obama wants to repeal the second amendment and take all their guns as is. These are not people with a firm grasp on reality to begin with. There's not exactly anything there to damage. Its already broken.

They end up working against people who might otherwise align with them.

Feinstein is one of the better known, having said in 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." She's still working to strip Americans of their right to bear arms, but much of the work she and her ilk have done legislatively has been struck down or repealed.

[Gravekeeper]

Feinstein is one of the better known

Feinstein has seen a lot of bad shit in her life. I would hardly call her current position stupid. Also that quote is specifically referring to assault weapons. Not all guns. So no, she doesn't fit the bill. Banning all guns is not her position. She was and still is after assault weapons, high capacity magazines. military grade features and the like.

All of which have long been hot topics of discussion in proposed ( and even passed in the case of the original ban during the Clinton years ) gun control laws.

Anyone else?

[Greenday]

She was and still is after assault weapons, high capacity magazines. military grade features and the like.

I always find this interesting? Why ARE these the guns that are constantly being targeted with these laws? Handguns are used way more often than rifles in the mass shootings that the media has us convinced is happening on a daily basis.

I just...a lot of the gun laws proposed don't make sense. Smaller magazines won't change anything. Fully automatic guns are already illegal. Most gun owners agree with background checks. A lot of guns involved people who had no history of illness so they passed background checks or they stole the gun or it was a straw purchase (Which is generally illegal already anyway).

[Gravekeeper]

I always find this interesting? Why ARE these the guns that are constantly being targeted with these laws? Handguns are used way more often than rifles.

Yes, handguns with high capacity magazines and military features. The majority of mass shootings use assault weapons, high capacity magazines or both. These are the guns targeted by these laws because these are the guns being used. These are the guns that law enforcement and the ATF recommended be addressed as the most problematic. Both in terms of mass shootings and street crime.

They aren't just randomly banning guns they think are bad. "Assault weapon" is a somewhat nebulous term but high capacity magazines and the like are a concrete problem with mass shootings and gun crime.

The original 94 assault weapons ban actually had a significant impact on firearm related crime rates and there was a corresponding significant rebound after it expired. The proposed new ban in 2013 specifically sought to address mass shootings as well. Though it obviously had no hope with the current clown car that is congress.

Still, the idea is not to just ban all guns and hope for the best but to target the "mass shooting" capacity of specific firearms and products such as high capacity magazines. This approach was recommended by law enforcement as the best way to go about trying to address to the problem rather than trying to figure out some clear definition of "assault weapon". Minimize the "mass" part by restricting access to the kind of equipment that lets you squeeze off 20+ rounds into a crowd without having to pause to reload.

[Greenday]

Yes, handguns with high capacity magazines and military features. The majority of mass shootings use assault weapons, high capacity magazines or both. These are the guns targeted by these laws because these are the guns being used. These are the guns that law enforcement and the ATF recommended be addressed as the most problematic. Both in terms of mass shootings and street crime.

No, no they don't. Rifles are used in about a quarter of all mass shootings and pistols are used about twice that.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cr...rticle/2542118

Assault weapons used in 24.6% of mass shootings. Handguns in 47.9%.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ass-shootings/

Of all mass shootings where 5 or more people were killed (Between early 80s and the time of the article which was the beginning of 2013), pistols were used 66.1% of the time, shotguns 19.4% of the time, and rifles 14.5% of the time.

Minimize the "mass" part by restricting access to the kind of equipment that lets you squeeze off 20+ rounds into a crowd without having to pause to reload.

A high-capacity magazine is generally considered to be more than 10 rounds. So that's still 10 rounds that can be fired off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksZqzPWm7VQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b1tvcW-Gic

Nope, you're right. Preventing people from having huge magazines will drastically reduce the number of rounds that can be fired in a minute.

[Nekojin]

I'm one of the people who is against the politicians who start flailing every time there's a shooting (News flash - there's 320 million of us, it's not hard to find X outrage every day of the week, even if it's a one-in-a-million scenario), but I've come to the conclusion that this is predominantly voter-bait. I live in California, one of the most anti-gun states in the US, and my ability to buy and own guns is now better than it has been for almost my entire life. California's "May-Issue" system was shot down as unconstitutional (which it was, because it was being used as a way to deny most people their right to own a weapon), and some of their other lunacy, despite getting some absurd laws passed (such as the "mandatory microstamping" law), is still not really doing much damage overall.

[Gravekeeper]

No, no they don't. Rifles are used in about a quarter of all mass shootings and pistols are used about twice that.

I said one or both. Assault weapons and/or high capacity magazines.

High capacity magazines can, obviously, be used and are used with handguns. Virginia Tech, the deadliest mass shooting in US history, the guy used high capacity magazines with two handguns. Second deadliest: Sandy Hook. High capacity magazines with an M4 carbine. He fired 154 shots total.

Fort Hood? High capacity magazines
Tuscon? High capacity magazines ( Ones that he could not have legally bought under the 94 ban at that. Officers specifically cited the mags as being the biggest problem. )
Northern Illinois University? High capacity magazines
Oak Creek? High capacity magazines
Columbine? High capacity magazines

So on and so forth. Its further worth noting that in incidents where the shooter does not commit suicide they have on more than a few occasions been stopped while reloading as it gave an opening.

So while I applaud your usage of research you didn't address my actual statement to begin with. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

It's worth noting that high capacity magazines and fancy drums tend to jam up and cause the weapon in question to become unusable entirely. This happened with several of the recent incidents, including Sandy Hook and Aurora (just off the top of my head).