6 ms·

Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US is leading to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.

by MrPatan 4y ago

croes 4y ago
I see nothing of a ban
- WFHRenaissance 4y ago
  No ban, just increasingly restrictive laws on ownership and use that end up resulting in something tantamount to a ban. Look at gun ownership in most countries in Europe if you want an idea of what the future could look like. Then give some thought to what Europe was like in the early 20th century!
  - mulmen 4y ago
    As always, correlation doesn't imply causation. It's not clear that gun laws themselves even enabled the rise of fascism or that they had any negative impact on quality of life. With widespread gun ownership early 20th century Europe could have been even worse. This argument is so tired it has it's own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument > "The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson's suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on."
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      That argument is a bit of a straw-man though. Nobody is realistically claiming the Jews, or East Germans, or Soviet citizens, or Syrian citizens, could defeat their government with personal weapons. The more reasonable version of the argument is that the unofficial purges, before the evil becomes fully embraced by the government (the Nazis), or where hidden and unofficial (the KGB), can be deterred by armed civilians. If you know the Stasi are coming to take you away in the night to certain death you'll be willing to fight, and if armed you have a real chance at inflicting casualties. And if every raid leads to dead troops and PR disasters the state is less likely going to get to the point where the terrorists adopt the mantle of government (Nazi Germany) and can then bring the sum total of state forces to bear. tl;dr the argument is more about resisting unsanctioned or non-governmental terrorism so it doesn't become governmental.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Events such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising showed some Jews really were willing to defend themselves with arms. The Jews were not cowards and the characterization as people who won't "mount resistance" is woefully wrong. It may be true they may have not been able to successfully overthrow the Nazis, but it is possible some of the oppressed may have survived another 10 or 15 minutes (in the Warsaw Ghetto, days) after initiating self defense and even if them being armed would have made things worse for them, that should have been their choice to make and not yours. There is some sort of fundamental honor as well to allow to allow someone the tools to at least maybe shoot a Nazi on their way out, as one last act of resistance before certain death. Arms are a right even when desperate circumstance make it almost only symbolic. Edit: also some may enjoy this amusing bumper sticker, created by a Jewish organization in America who themselves criticize Nazi gun control (https://store.jpfo.org/40-large_default/-all-in-favor-of-gun-control-sticker.jpg https://store.jpfo.org/40-large_default/-all-in-favor-of-gun...).
      - mulmen 4y ago
  - alangibson 4y ago
    As is typical, you know nothing of what you are talking about. Most guys I know here in the Austria boonies have a hunting rifle. You might want to actually look at gun ownership numbers before repeating tired and very wrong Right talking points
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - namecheapTA 4y ago
      Austrians owning guns is only helping his point about not having guns during ww2 being a problem.
    - WFHRenaissance 4y ago
      > Most guys I know here in the Austria boonies have a hunting rifle. First of all, Austria is the only country in the European Union where firearms are only partially licensed. Second of all... Sorry, what I really meant was to say was that European gun ownership (broadly speaking) is very different from USian gun ownership. Europeans generally need permits, reasons for ownership, training, et cetera just to own a firearm. Carrying is heavily discouraged, and often illegal without a permit... which the state is under no obligation to give you. Magazine size restrictions are rampant. In the United States, in many territories, we don't have equivalent policies. Many states allow for entirely permit-less ownership and carrying of firearms. We don't need to ask permission – that's the difference I'm trying to indicate here.
  - rurp 4y ago
    Laws so restrictive only a lucky 100 million americans have managed to purchase one legally!
- notch656a 4y ago
  There is expansion of the ban every time they add new types of "felons." The government has focused the past ~60 years years on greatly expanding who is a felon, and then enshrining that they do not have the same civil rights as others after serving their sentence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bb88 4y ago
    I, for one, believe that felons should lose some rights. Personally I think felons should keep speech and voting rights, but anything related to violence should be prohibited.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      Why? A felony doesn’t imply violence. If someone serves their time I don’t see why they should be a lesser person for life.
      - bb88 4y ago
        But it does show a lack of respect for the rule of law, as well often a lack of empathy for others. The best predictor of whether you will commit a crime in the future, is if you've committed one in the past. I think the hardest one to talk about is the non-violent sex offender -- CSAM and the like. They have a high re-offending rate, and rehabilitation efforts aren't very effective in this area. On one hand they're only a handgun away from being a violent offender, but on the other we don't want to lock them up for life. Personally I think it's a good tradeoff.
        notch656a 4y ago
        1) The deterrent effect of gun-laws on felons are questionable when obtaining arms is trivial for anyone. Although I won't argue the punitive aspect of "justice" still remains. Note that just because laws don't always work doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, but see below. 2) If the punishment does actually have a deterrent effect (which is questionable, but lets presume it is true), then it should have a deterrent effect on the underlying violent crimes like murder or assault with a deadly weapon. Assuming the punishments for murder and assault with deadly weapon are worse than felon-in-possession (and I would hope they would be), one would conclude the marginal deterrent effect against violent crime is minimal for felon-in-possession laws. On the other hand defending genuine threat to life with a weapon is generally legal, so the deterrent effect for felon-in-possession is nearly all constituted of felon-in-possession laws. That is the felon-in-possession laws likely have little to no marginal effect on preventing violent crime while they may have significant marginal effect on the ability of felons to legitimately defend themselves. Put simply, it moves armed self defense from "legal" to "super illegal" while moving violent crimes from "super illegal" to "more super illegaler" -- which just seems like an extremely poor tradeoff. 3) In a world where arms are trivial to obtain (felon or no), if people can't be trusted in public not to kill others they should not be released from jail. The idea people would be ok with killing others (or other armed violence) but too scared to break the law to 3d print a gun just seems ridiculous. Releasing people who legitimately are believed to be a threat to the public in the event they obtain weapons just seems bat-shit insane to me. If you want a half-step of probation under which no weapons are allowed while they are closely monitored by a PO, to me that makes more sense. But a free man off probation can be assumed to be able to get weapons whenever they like, so we can't be releasing people to be free if we expect them to kill others with weapons. 4) >The best predictor of whether you will commit a crime in the future, is if you've committed one in the past. I mean that's probably true. If someone owns a pot plant today, it's not unreasonable to guess they will own one tomorrow. Which if they own guns at the same time, is federally a felony. Of course many of those people were never a particularly worrisome threat, that is until you made that illegal which in your own words turns them into people likely to commit crime again. It's the government taking peaceful people committing a victimless crime and damning them into situation where by your own admission makes them more likely to be trapped into a world of crime in the future (perhaps because felony record hurts their job prospects). > CSAM and the like. And here's the nuke everyone likes to drop as a bad faith effort to force others to specifically defend CP offenders rather than generically non-violent criminals. If you believe CSAM offenders can't be rehabilitated and their crimes amount to torture/abuse of children, then they need locked away forever or somehow gone from society. Otherwise, they need their rights restored when they are returned. I'd really prefer not to have a conversation revolving around these kind of offenders, because I find it is often just a clever trap to try and make someone out to be a supporter/defender specifically of people involved with materials involving disgusting acts to children. And of course even these people have civil rights, but defending them is so incredibly unpopular (I admit I don't enjoy advocating for their rights), so it's a cheap and easy win to introduce in a debate system with upvote/downvote to grey out comments. I'm of the personal opinion that crimes against children should require some nexus to the physical abuse (i.e. the person that did the filming, abused the child, etc) because digitally planting evidence for this kind of crime is so incredibly trivial for police and so rapidly turns the opinion of jurors and everyone against the subject that in effect it's almost like a blank check for police to put anyone they like in jail for a long time without finding an immediate nexus to the abuse of a child or even any witnesses / claims by the child or their family. People merely found with a photo and the cop says "I promise I did not put it there, I am a good honest person" always sat very poorly with me, and I can't help wondering how many innocent people have been convicted of these offenses. 5) If we're going to cherry pick offenses, I'd like to point out owning scary mushroom or an undersized lobster is a felony as well. You may argue crimes such as even those make one more predisposed to violence, but even if that were true I would argue there must be _some_ amount of time (10 years? 20 years?) without committing further crime when there is a regression back towards, within the noise of error, of the general public. 6) >But it does show a lack of respect for the rule of law When it comes to matters of armed violence I'm far more interested in whether the person respects human life against unjust violence than I am generically about all laws such as whether they used a stock instead of a brace on a "pistol" (felony) or stood in front of a mining truck during a protest (felony in Arkansas I believe, if not one of the adjoining states). One could argue by your (and my) standard the US government should be disarmed.
alangibson 4y ago
Laughable. Nearly 30 years later someone shot up a school with an AR-15. Yep, that government gun grab is riiight around the corner
- notch656a 4y ago
  Gun ownership has a long-term downward trend. Part of this is non-government factors like change in population from rural to urban, changing demographics, occupations, etc. But we can't rule out that part of this drop may be contributed by the additional barriers placed, such as great expansion of who is a felon, expansion of domestic violence firearm restrictions including some local agencies charging someone every single time a policeman is called out for DV no matter what actually happened, NICS (which can wrongly deny people who then have to appeal), increasingly difficult to navigate carry laws such as the gun-free-school-zone act that can incriminate someone for merely being within 1000 feet of a school with a gun. The no-fault divorce era has also seen the weaponization of spousal restraining orders during divorce, which have the effect to disarm while also being a bargaining chip and ace during divorce proceedings and a way to beat down your spouse with the court by leaving them helpless and disarmed even in many cases where the spouse has done nothing criminal. And then there is the attack on anyone who happens to have guns and gasp pot at the same time, as is seen in the federal charges against "FPS russia" who was disarmed because the feds didn't like he smoked a vape pen with his girlfriend. There seems to be a somewhat slow boil in the United States, starting with the NFA, then the GCA, the hughes amendment, and a myriad of state and local laws. https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gu...
  - pksebben 4y ago
    "general downward trend" is light years away from "gun grab". they did the latter in Australia and I hear it was pretty great. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australian-firearms-buyback-and-its-effect-gun-deaths https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australi...
- Alupis 4y ago
  Is anyone proposing without access to an AR-15, or any firearm for the matter, this mentally-troubled yet ignored by all the appropriate authorities youth would not have lashed out violently? It's not too long ago homemade explosives were a seriously real threat in this nation (and others with much more strict regulations, such as the UK). Mass knife stabbings aren't that uncommon around the world, and driving a vehicle through a crowd remains one of the most effective means of violence readily available. The point is... the tool isn't the problem it's the person. It's a figurative band-aid to think we can solve mental health issues by taking away objects and ignoring the actual core problem... which is mental health. Stable, mentally healthy people do not commit these mass violent acts. Full stop.

Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US is leading to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.

croes 4y ago

I see nothing of a ban

WFHRenaissance 4y ago
No ban, just increasingly restrictive laws on ownership and use that end up resulting in something tantamount to a ban. Look at gun ownership in most countries in Europe if you want an idea of what the future could look like. Then give some thought to what Europe was like in the early 20th century!
- mulmen 4y ago
  As always, correlation doesn't imply causation. It's not clear that gun laws themselves even enabled the rise of fascism or that they had any negative impact on quality of life. With widespread gun ownership early 20th century Europe could have been even worse. This argument is so tired it has it's own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument > "The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson's suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on."
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    That argument is a bit of a straw-man though. Nobody is realistically claiming the Jews, or East Germans, or Soviet citizens, or Syrian citizens, could defeat their government with personal weapons. The more reasonable version of the argument is that the unofficial purges, before the evil becomes fully embraced by the government (the Nazis), or where hidden and unofficial (the KGB), can be deterred by armed civilians. If you know the Stasi are coming to take you away in the night to certain death you'll be willing to fight, and if armed you have a real chance at inflicting casualties. And if every raid leads to dead troops and PR disasters the state is less likely going to get to the point where the terrorists adopt the mantle of government (Nazi Germany) and can then bring the sum total of state forces to bear. tl;dr the argument is more about resisting unsanctioned or non-governmental terrorism so it doesn't become governmental.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Events such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising showed some Jews really were willing to defend themselves with arms. The Jews were not cowards and the characterization as people who won't "mount resistance" is woefully wrong. It may be true they may have not been able to successfully overthrow the Nazis, but it is possible some of the oppressed may have survived another 10 or 15 minutes (in the Warsaw Ghetto, days) after initiating self defense and even if them being armed would have made things worse for them, that should have been their choice to make and not yours. There is some sort of fundamental honor as well to allow to allow someone the tools to at least maybe shoot a Nazi on their way out, as one last act of resistance before certain death. Arms are a right even when desperate circumstance make it almost only symbolic. Edit: also some may enjoy this amusing bumper sticker, created by a Jewish organization in America who themselves criticize Nazi gun control (https://store.jpfo.org/40-large_default/-all-in-favor-of-gun-control-sticker.jpg https://store.jpfo.org/40-large_default/-all-in-favor-of-gun...).
    - mulmen 4y ago
- alangibson 4y ago
  As is typical, you know nothing of what you are talking about. Most guys I know here in the Austria boonies have a hunting rifle. You might want to actually look at gun ownership numbers before repeating tired and very wrong Right talking points
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - namecheapTA 4y ago
    Austrians owning guns is only helping his point about not having guns during ww2 being a problem.
  - WFHRenaissance 4y ago
    > Most guys I know here in the Austria boonies have a hunting rifle. First of all, Austria is the only country in the European Union where firearms are only partially licensed. Second of all... Sorry, what I really meant was to say was that European gun ownership (broadly speaking) is very different from USian gun ownership. Europeans generally need permits, reasons for ownership, training, et cetera just to own a firearm. Carrying is heavily discouraged, and often illegal without a permit... which the state is under no obligation to give you. Magazine size restrictions are rampant. In the United States, in many territories, we don't have equivalent policies. Many states allow for entirely permit-less ownership and carrying of firearms. We don't need to ask permission – that's the difference I'm trying to indicate here.
- rurp 4y ago
  Laws so restrictive only a lucky 100 million americans have managed to purchase one legally!
notch656a 4y ago
There is expansion of the ban every time they add new types of "felons." The government has focused the past ~60 years years on greatly expanding who is a felon, and then enshrining that they do not have the same civil rights as others after serving their sentence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bb88 4y ago
  I, for one, believe that felons should lose some rights. Personally I think felons should keep speech and voting rights, but anything related to violence should be prohibited.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    Why? A felony doesn’t imply violence. If someone serves their time I don’t see why they should be a lesser person for life.
    - bb88 4y ago
      But it does show a lack of respect for the rule of law, as well often a lack of empathy for others. The best predictor of whether you will commit a crime in the future, is if you've committed one in the past. I think the hardest one to talk about is the non-violent sex offender -- CSAM and the like. They have a high re-offending rate, and rehabilitation efforts aren't very effective in this area. On one hand they're only a handgun away from being a violent offender, but on the other we don't want to lock them up for life. Personally I think it's a good tradeoff.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        1) The deterrent effect of gun-laws on felons are questionable when obtaining arms is trivial for anyone. Although I won't argue the punitive aspect of "justice" still remains. Note that just because laws don't always work doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, but see below. 2) If the punishment does actually have a deterrent effect (which is questionable, but lets presume it is true), then it should have a deterrent effect on the underlying violent crimes like murder or assault with a deadly weapon. Assuming the punishments for murder and assault with deadly weapon are worse than felon-in-possession (and I would hope they would be), one would conclude the marginal deterrent effect against violent crime is minimal for felon-in-possession laws. On the other hand defending genuine threat to life with a weapon is generally legal, so the deterrent effect for felon-in-possession is nearly all constituted of felon-in-possession laws. That is the felon-in-possession laws likely have little to no marginal effect on preventing violent crime while they may have significant marginal effect on the ability of felons to legitimately defend themselves. Put simply, it moves armed self defense from "legal" to "super illegal" while moving violent crimes from "super illegal" to "more super illegaler" -- which just seems like an extremely poor tradeoff. 3) In a world where arms are trivial to obtain (felon or no), if people can't be trusted in public not to kill others they should not be released from jail. The idea people would be ok with killing others (or other armed violence) but too scared to break the law to 3d print a gun just seems ridiculous. Releasing people who legitimately are believed to be a threat to the public in the event they obtain weapons just seems bat-shit insane to me. If you want a half-step of probation under which no weapons are allowed while they are closely monitored by a PO, to me that makes more sense. But a free man off probation can be assumed to be able to get weapons whenever they like, so we can't be releasing people to be free if we expect them to kill others with weapons. 4) >The best predictor of whether you will commit a crime in the future, is if you've committed one in the past. I mean that's probably true. If someone owns a pot plant today, it's not unreasonable to guess they will own one tomorrow. Which if they own guns at the same time, is federally a felony. Of course many of those people were never a particularly worrisome threat, that is until you made that illegal which in your own words turns them into people likely to commit crime again. It's the government taking peaceful people committing a victimless crime and damning them into situation where by your own admission makes them more likely to be trapped into a world of crime in the future (perhaps because felony record hurts their job prospects). > CSAM and the like. And here's the nuke everyone likes to drop as a bad faith effort to force others to specifically defend CP offenders rather than generically non-violent criminals. If you believe CSAM offenders can't be rehabilitated and their crimes amount to torture/abuse of children, then they need locked away forever or somehow gone from society. Otherwise, they need their rights restored when they are returned. I'd really prefer not to have a conversation revolving around these kind of offenders, because I find it is often just a clever trap to try and make someone out to be a supporter/defender specifically of people involved with materials involving disgusting acts to children. And of course even these people have civil rights, but defending them is so incredibly unpopular (I admit I don't enjoy advocating for their rights), so it's a cheap and easy win to introduce in a debate system with upvote/downvote to grey out comments. I'm of the personal opinion that crimes against children should require some nexus to the physical abuse (i.e. the person that did the filming, abused the child, etc) because digitally planting evidence for this kind of crime is so incredibly trivial for police and so rapidly turns the opinion of jurors and everyone against the subject that in effect it's almost like a blank check for police to put anyone they like in jail for a long time without finding an immediate nexus to the abuse of a child or even any witnesses / claims by the child or their family. People merely found with a photo and the cop says "I promise I did not put it there, I am a good honest person" always sat very poorly with me, and I can't help wondering how many innocent people have been convicted of these offenses. 5) If we're going to cherry pick offenses, I'd like to point out owning scary mushroom or an undersized lobster is a felony as well. You may argue crimes such as even those make one more predisposed to violence, but even if that were true I would argue there must be _some_ amount of time (10 years? 20 years?) without committing further crime when there is a regression back towards, within the noise of error, of the general public. 6) >But it does show a lack of respect for the rule of law When it comes to matters of armed violence I'm far more interested in whether the person respects human life against unjust violence than I am generically about all laws such as whether they used a stock instead of a brace on a "pistol" (felony) or stood in front of a mining truck during a protest (felony in Arkansas I believe, if not one of the adjoining states). One could argue by your (and my) standard the US government should be disarmed.

alangibson 4y ago

Laughable. Nearly 30 years later someone shot up a school with an AR-15. Yep, that government gun grab is riiight around the corner

notch656a 4y ago
Gun ownership has a long-term downward trend. Part of this is non-government factors like change in population from rural to urban, changing demographics, occupations, etc. But we can't rule out that part of this drop may be contributed by the additional barriers placed, such as great expansion of who is a felon, expansion of domestic violence firearm restrictions including some local agencies charging someone every single time a policeman is called out for DV no matter what actually happened, NICS (which can wrongly deny people who then have to appeal), increasingly difficult to navigate carry laws such as the gun-free-school-zone act that can incriminate someone for merely being within 1000 feet of a school with a gun. The no-fault divorce era has also seen the weaponization of spousal restraining orders during divorce, which have the effect to disarm while also being a bargaining chip and ace during divorce proceedings and a way to beat down your spouse with the court by leaving them helpless and disarmed even in many cases where the spouse has done nothing criminal. And then there is the attack on anyone who happens to have guns and gasp pot at the same time, as is seen in the federal charges against "FPS russia" who was disarmed because the feds didn't like he smoked a vape pen with his girlfriend. There seems to be a somewhat slow boil in the United States, starting with the NFA, then the GCA, the hughes amendment, and a myriad of state and local laws. https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gu...
- pksebben 4y ago
  "general downward trend" is light years away from "gun grab". they did the latter in Australia and I hear it was pretty great. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australian-firearms-buyback-and-its-effect-gun-deaths https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australi...
Alupis 4y ago
Is anyone proposing without access to an AR-15, or any firearm for the matter, this mentally-troubled yet ignored by all the appropriate authorities youth would not have lashed out violently? It's not too long ago homemade explosives were a seriously real threat in this nation (and others with much more strict regulations, such as the UK). Mass knife stabbings aren't that uncommon around the world, and driving a vehicle through a crowd remains one of the most effective means of violence readily available. The point is... the tool isn't the problem it's the person. It's a figurative band-aid to think we can solve mental health issues by taking away objects and ignoring the actual core problem... which is mental health. Stable, mentally healthy people do not commit these mass violent acts. Full stop.