Geeto67's Political Playground

[CRed05]

Depending on how this is written, it could be very encompassing and not so good for other things in the industry. Want a better trigger? Nope, can't do that. Want a magazine release? Nope, no more of those either. Buffers, springs, gas blocks, etc; all potentially on the chopping block as they can affect the cyclic rate of a semi-auto firearm.

 

If it just specifically states 'bump stocks', fine, I'll take the hit on that even though I think it's pointless (as well as the stocks themselves) legislation. But, if it says any device capable of increasing the rate of fire, well then, I've got a big issue with that.

 

Right. I'm thinking along the line's of preventing modifications to a firearm to make it function as or mimic the functionality of a fully automatic.

[Geeto67]

You're not serious, are you?

 

Serious as in I think it would happen? no of course not.

 

But, regardless as to how outlandish it seems it's not entirely without basis in the current laws. Think about it like this: most industries have a standard for responsible behavior, and deviations from that standard are often considered as a factor to the outcome and people can be held accountable for that factor.

 

Under the current laws, a seller has the right to refuse to sell a gun if he thinks for any reason that gun will be used for an illegal act (or actually for any reason, but not liking your shoes won't end with a prison sentence). If they do and it can be proven, the seller can be held on related charges and have their license revoked. It's a very very hard thing to prove and doesn't happen often (and when it does it is usually selling a weapon to a person the seller knew to be a felon). So, what if we moved the line a little bit and instead of the government proving that the seller deviated from the standard practice, we make them prove that they took every precaution to vet the person before we release them from liability. I betcha the industry would develop their own standards really quickly. It would also fuel the black market in a big way so it's not a perfect solution. But it's not as outlandish as you might think at first blush.

 

 

Umm. Did he not pass the Federal Background check? WTF else are they supposed to do, start stereotyping and discriminating?

 

I could see how well that would go. "Well, you're a black guy and your kind tends to shoot each other, so I'm not gonna sell this to you even though you jumped through all the hoops the .gov put in place."

 

 

They can already deny to sell for any reason, so you don't think that already happens?

 

How about instead of the government setting the standards, the industry sets them. This happens all the time in other markets, and it usually ends up with more comprehensive public records checks and cooling off periods. The options here are not binary, it isn't just "background check or racial discrimination". The government saying "you are now responsible for the actions of the end user unless you do something other than a standard purchase arrangement" is a pretty good motivator for the industry to self police.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Right. I'm thinking along the line's of preventing modifications to a firearm to make it function as or mimic the functionality of a fully automatic.

 

Which the bump stock still does not do. Vegas guy could have done a lot more damage without one. As with most of these morons who commit these murders, they have proven themselves over and over to not be 'gun guys'. Some of the stupid shit they do (besides the whole murder thing) blows my mind.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Serious as in I think it would happen? no of course not.

 

But, regardless as to how outlandish it seems it's not entirely without basis in the current laws. Think about it like this: most industries have a standard for responsible behavior, and deviations from that standard are often considered as a factor to the outcome and people can be held accountable for that factor.

 

Under the current laws, a seller has the right to refuse to sell a gun if he thinks for any reason that gun will be used for an illegal act (or actually for any reason, but not liking your shoes won't end with a prison sentence). If they do and it can be proven, the seller can be held on related charges and have their license revoked. It's a very very hard thing to prove and doesn't happen often (and when it does it is usually selling a weapon to a person the seller knew to be a felon). So, what if we moved the line a little bit and instead of the government proving that the seller deviated from the standard practice, we make them prove that they took every precaution to vet the person before we release them from liability. I betcha the industry would develop their own standards really quickly. It would also fuel the black market in a big way so it's not a perfect solution. But it's not as outlandish as you might think at first blush.

 

 

 

 

 

They can already deny to sell for any reason, so you don't think that already happens?

 

How about instead of the government setting the standards, the industry sets them. This happens all the time in other markets, and it usually ends up with more comprehensive public records checks and cooling off periods. The options here are not binary, it isn't just "background check or racial discrimination". The government saying "you are now responsible for the actions of the end user unless you do something other than a standard purchase arrangement" is a pretty good motivator for the industry to self police.

 

Are we going to hold car dealers to that same standard if the person they sell to gets drunk and kills someone?

[Geeto67]

Which the bump stock still does not do. Vegas guy could have done a lot more damage without one. As with most of these morons who commit these murders, they have proven themselves over and over to not be 'gun guys'. Some of the stupid shit they do blows my mind.

 

Are you saying vegas shooter was not a "gun guy"? because I'm pretty sure owning 47 of them puts you into some form of that camp.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Are you saying vegas shooter was not a "gun guy"? because I'm pretty sure owning 47 of them puts you into some form of that camp.

 

Clearly wasn't a very educated one.

[Geeto67]

Are we going to hold car dealers to that same standard if the person they sell to gets drunk and kills someone?

 

That standard is already in place, a car dealer can be held accountable if he allows a knowingly intoxicated person to drive a car off the lot. That's such a rare scenario that it almost never happens in the modern age, but many states hold that it is illegal to even sell a car to a visibly intoxicated person because they cannot enter into a purchase contract of sound mind, and doing so would make you responsible for any thing that immediately happens afterwards.

 

There have been proposals in the past to require car dealers to not sell to people with multiple convictions for drunk driving or even people with active suspended licenses. As far as I know none have passed, but people are thinking about this sort of thing.

 

The question is, how close in time are the events to the point of sale purchase. obviously it wouldn't stop Cruz who purchased his AR-15 a year prior to the shooting, but what if the new accountability standard pushed for other factors like mental health stability checks (i.e. a note from a Dr)? The government can't require you to disclose that info without developing it's own forms and system for protecting your privacy, but a private seller could ask for you to voluntarily surrender that info before selling to you - it's his prerogative.

 

Again, this is another thing research could help with. There are a lot of things the government can't do because of the intersection or conflict of other laws. If the industry was really committed to solving this problem they would be open to self policing. Unfortunately, the majority of the industry buys the NRA's extremist position of any control is too much and therefore doesn't do squat.

[Geeto67]

Clearly wasn't a very educated one.

 

that's like saying a car guy isn't a car guy because he likes modded b16 honda civics.

 

This is a stupid road to go down.

[CRed05]

Which the bump stock still does not do. Vegas guy could have done a lot more damage without one. As with most of these morons who commit these murders, they have proven themselves over and over to not be 'gun guys'. Some of the stupid shit they do (besides the whole murder thing) blows my mind.

 

Well that's what they intend to do, right? Whether they do it well or not is a different story.

 

If they wanted to ban guns from being red because it's a threatening color, fuck it, add pink to the list as well cause we all know pink is really just light-red trying to be independent. Choose your battles, I suppose.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Well that's what they intend to do, right? Whether they do it well or not is a different story.

 

If they wanted to ban guns from being red because it's a threatening color, fuck it, add pink to the list as well cause we all know pink is really just light-red trying to be independent. Choose your battles, I suppose.

 

Their intent is to increase rate of fire at the severe loss of accuracy. They do not change the internal function of the gun. Its still one bullet per trigger pull.

[RedRocket1647545505]

that's like saying a car guy isn't a car guy because he likes modded b16 honda civics.

 

This is a stupid road to go down.

 

I agree, buying modded b16 honda civics IS a stupid road to go down. See, we agree on something.

[RedRocket1647545505]

That standard is already in place, a car dealer can be held accountable if he allows a knowingly intoxicated person to drive a car off the lot. That's such a rare scenario that it almost never happens in the modern age, but many states hold that it is illegal to even sell a car to a visibly intoxicated person because they cannot enter into a purchase contract of sound mind, and doing so would make you responsible for any thing that immediately happens afterwards.

 

There have been proposals in the past to require car dealers to not sell to people with multiple convictions for drunk driving or even people with active suspended licenses. As far as I know none have passed, but people are thinking about this sort of thing.

 

The question is, how close in time are the events to the point of sale purchase. obviously it wouldn't stop Cruz who purchased his AR-15 a year prior to the shooting, but what if the new accountability standard pushed for other factors like mental health stability checks (i.e. a note from a Dr)? The government can't require you to disclose that info without developing it's own forms and system for protecting your privacy, but a private seller could ask for you to voluntarily surrender that info before selling to you - it's his prerogative.

 

Again, this is another thing research could help with. There are a lot of things the government can't do because of the intersection or conflict of other laws. If the industry was really committed to solving this problem they would be open to self policing. Unfortunately, the majority of the industry buys the NRA's extremist position of any control is too much and therefore doesn't do squat.

 

 

:dumb:

[CRed05]

Their intent is to increase rate of fire at the severe loss of accuracy. They do not change the internal function of the gun. Its still one bullet per trigger pull.

 

Fuck m8, you're arguing the same thing I already said 2 posts ago.

[cdk 4219]

And it never occurred to you that the other-side sees conservative "tone" as aggressive, demeaning, insensitive, or insulting on the outset? Esp given that usually conservatives write from a different presumed context than progressives? Do you not feel like you may owe 1/2 the problem to the communication breakdown?

 

Actually it is ignorance to the facts. The obama regulation regarding the gun control. Would have actually targeted only estimated 75,000 people who received social security benefits, more specific those receive disability benefits from mental illness.

 

This is a very narrow group of people, and to be more specific, a very narrow group of poor people, in which you and Democrats seem to really embrace. Again this law was to only affect social security recipients, and a very small part of the public.

 

The real criminals are the media, these people are making a living by just telling the story that offends either group. Very little of it tells the whole story, and it is very biased. There is nothing but nasty bashing, from the mainstream media, and never the whole story. The sooner all people know the actual story the better off we will all be. Basing your anger from mainstream information is the real problem.

[cdk 4219]

I may add that I don’t think that the obama gun control would have any affect on this particular incident. I would also add that when I was watching the mainstream when they said that there were 18 shooting incidents this year in schools. With that information only, I was angered,but again the media has there own way to sensationalize. In reality the number was more like 3, counting in incidents like accidental discharge and things like that. While all gun violence especially in schools is unacceptable, from the news broadcast one would think that 18 students shot at school, which is very far from the truth.

[10phone2]

So according to this logic, the internet should be banned because someone learned how to make a bomb to kill people from it.

[BStowers023]

So according to this logic, the internet should be banned because someone learned how to make a bomb to kill people from it.

 

I think we're getting close to banning humans in general.

[cdk 4219]

Not really sure how you got there, but I do believe that more people get their cliff note version of information from the mainstream media. Should anybody have to question the information coming from these people, or do you think you should be able to make proper decisions based on what they are supposed to be paid to do?

Many people are leery of internet information, as they probably should be, but coming from the news, these same people will believe that information. Most people won’t research into it, and even if they do who knows if that information is valid.

Much of the news is very biased, spreading their opinion by only telling the part of the story that sensationalize the story leaving out small parts of the story that could absolutely change your view of the story. Fact checking, and full unbiased reporting isn’t important to them.

 

This is the behavior that starts separating people, and is a good part of the problem. The other part is and has been for some time is the simple fact that the government is in real disarray, with career politicians and seemingly very greedy people. It’s always somebody else’s fault, and this has certainly spread throughout society.

[greg1647545532]

It's Monday, let's get back to talking about how devastating the Nunes memo was.

[Geeto67]

Actually it is ignorance to the facts. The obama regulation regarding the gun control. Would have actually targeted only estimated 75,000 people who received social security benefits, more specific those receive disability benefits from mental illness.

 

This is a very narrow group of people, and to be more specific, a very narrow group of poor people, in which you and Democrats seem to really embrace. Again this law was to only affect social security recipients, and a very small part of the public.

 

That was publicized, so if it was ignorance, it was willful. Still you make a good point here in that it's a measure without a lot of teeth. I don't believe we will have sensible gun control without proper research and data, but given the absence of that it was still pretty sensible given the context of some other measures, and it was something - which is what a lot of people were asking for - just something to move. The fact that it didn't pass speaks to the impact of the Paul Ryan, Mitch Mcconnell, et al devised plan to object to everything Obama did regardless as to whether it had merit or not.

 

 

The real criminals are the media, these people are making a living by just telling the story that offends either group. Very little of it tells the whole story, and it is very biased. There is nothing but nasty bashing, from the mainstream media, and never the whole story. The sooner all people know the actual story the better off we will all be. Basing your anger from mainstream information is the real problem.

 

Depends on the media outlets you are consuming. There are still core news reporting agencies that do a good job of factual and accurate reporting. No news piece is intended to give you "the full story" because there just is not space and time for that - it's intentionally condensed with the intent that if you really want to know more it's on you as the reader to seek out the information. That is, was, and has always been the expectation, even if the medium itself first through TV and then the internet. Most Americans are lazy or just don't have time to seek out the information, but don't put the laziness of most Americans on the media. The infotainment "media" is not doing anything criminal - it is simply filling a need in a market. They are no more "evil" than mcdonalds or Anheiser Busch.

 

The thing that has disappointed me is the rise in popularity of Punditry, which is very biased, and more for entertainment than actual reporting. It used to be things like the Op-Ed section of the paper were there to give opinionated "color" to an otherwise neutral issue - now the consumption of it has lead to people picking teams and adopting other's opinion as their own, and that happens on both sides of the aisle with people like Rachel Madow and Sean Hannity (and formerly Bill O'Reilly) leading the charge. Still we live in a capitalist society, and there is clearly a market for infotainment that outstrips the market for actual reporting.

 

To this end I kinda feel like people overuse the term "liberal media" and often wrongly. There are places like the AP news wire where there is no American liberal bias because it pulls reporting from a global network of reporting and also serves as the fountainhead for a lot of other news orgs to pull their story material from. There are also mediums with traditionally conservative and progressive audiences that actually end up having a reporting bias opposite their target audience (e.g. the Wall Street Journal has a slightly more progressive bias than the New York times, and PBS has a much more conservative bias than the majority of mainstream media). What I think is really interesting is that there was empirically less of an observable bias prior to the conservative media strategy pioneered by Rupert Murdoch of accusing the media of having a liberal bias and touting his own news organization of having a conservative bias. In essence the industry polarized fairly quickly, and gave rise to the market for partisan infotainment, where as before it had more of an academic round table approach (esp on TV).

 

I may add that I don’t think that the obama gun control would have any affect on this particular incident. I would also add that when I was watching the mainstream when they said that there were 18 shooting incidents this year in schools. With that information only, I was angered,but again the media has there own way to sensationalize. In reality the number was more like 3, counting in incidents like accidental discharge and things like that. While all gun violence especially in schools is unacceptable, from the news broadcast one would think that 18 students shot at school, which is very far from the truth.

 

Agreed. But again it was something when the popular opinion wanted something, literally anything, to be done.

 

As for the "18 shootings" number. That reporting didn't originate with "the media". It came from a not for profit activist group set up by former mayor of NY Michael Bloomberg (most recently a republican, but prior to 2001 a democrat). The group has a history of tracking gun violence, esp those that occur on school grounds and so it seemed like a trustworthy source for metrics. The org defines a school shooting as any type of shooting that occurs on school grounds regardless as to origin, and then uses other factors to draw a distinction. Most lay people don't seem to define a school shooting as that - they are more inclined to think of a mass shooting caused by a school affiliate, so right away there is a disconnect and not one that is intentional. I am not saying that the media isn't "sensational" at times, but I think in this particular instance it was more of an accident than it was intentional - here was an easy figure to grab from an otherwise trusted resource that had shock value on it's face that actually required much more in-depth analysis. Also I will point out that many sources, including many that ultra-conservatives accuse of radical liberal bias, immediatly reported on the misunderstanding or printed retractions or corrections (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.ddd080c18699)

[BStowers023]

What about this David Hogg kid? Forgetting the conspiracy theories, why is he so prominent in the media? There were hundreds of kids in the same position as this kid, but why is he the one being publicized so much?

[greg1647545532]

What about this David Hogg kid? Forgetting the conspiracy theories, why is he so prominent in the media? There were hundreds of kids in the same position as this kid, but why is he the one being publicized so much?

 

I haven't heard of David Hogg, I just did a google search and maybe 70% of the articles were literally about how he was attacked by conspiracy theorists. Is it possible that alt-right conspiracy theorists chose to attack him, and that notoriety gave him a larger platform?

[Geeto67]

What about this David Hogg kid? Forgetting the conspiracy theories, why is he so prominent in the media? There were hundreds of kids in the same position as this kid, but why is he the one being publicized so much?

 

probably because he's cute.

 

(also, because a bunch of conspiracy dipshits focused on him, calling him a "crisis actor".)

 

BTW, have you read some of the absolutely insane things people have written about him? Kid is a survivor of a massive tragedy and is rightfully upset and angry about it, and not shy about appearing on camera. Here is one example:

https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/david-hogg-is-a-high-school-bully-mSI3k3Njd0OcUaS-35pFDQ?full=1

 

David Hogg Is A High School Bully, He is using his status as victim to inappropriately and ridiculously attack people while going unchallenged.

 

But welcome to America, where it's perfectly acceptable to treat victims of tragedy like shit because they say things you don't agree with.

[oh8sti]

That Hogg kid has been on CNN non stop. Its become silly. He is a terrible speaker and has canned answers to every question regardless of the question. Its embarrassing.

 

I watched him stumble through an interview with Jake Tapper on Sunday morning. I was in complete awe of how he answered basic questions. Every answer related back to the NRA being the devil somehow. It was so forced. This kid is discrediting the movement by how bad he is at interviews.

[Geeto67]

That Hogg kid has been on CNN non stop. Its become silly. He is a terrible speaker and has canned answers to every question regardless of the question. Its embarrassing.

 

I watched him stumble through an interview with Jake Tapper on Sunday morning. I was in complete awe of how he answered basic questions. Every answer related back to the NRA being the devil somehow. It was so forced. This kid is discrediting the movement by how bad he is at interviews.

 

He's a kid, he's not a pro speaker. What were you doing at his age? Literally his only claim to fame is that he survived a tragedy at his school long enough for some internet trolls to call him nasty names and people like you to show literally 0 empathy for him.