Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: My Case Against Assault Weapons [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)74. Groupthink and an unwillingness to listen to those who disgaree is a recipe for failure
Not amongst your regulars- they will always sing the same tune; I mean
failure to achieve your stated goals in the broader polity
I refer the disinterested reader to *this* thread in GC&RKBA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172169376
which references the following subthread in GCRA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629113#post2
NutmegYankee (9,833 posts)
2. The key on a purchase permit is to ensure that it is completely fair.
People will accept such rules as long as the process is seen as just and fair without opportunity for corruption or bias. In other words, if you apply for the permit and your background check comes back clean, the permit is issued. If some discretion is allowed, there must be a board that can review an appeal to ensure the reason was truly valid. On the other hand, if the permit is left to the discretion or feelings of an officer/official without an appeal or check feature, the process will not be viewed as fair or just. This was the classic Jim Crow setup to deny minorities guns.
Connecticut for instance is effectively shall issue, but officials have some discretion on issuing permits. It has a board that handles appeals, and some of the reasons were extremely petty - One first selectman refused a permit because the other man was a coach whose team beat his child's team in a sport playoff. Another denied an appeal to the wife of a another selectman because he wanted the husband to resign his position.
Keep the system fair and the benefits of preventing the wrong people from getting guns will sell the minor inconvenience.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #2)
Fri Jun 19, 2015, 11:38 PM
Star Member flamin lib (6,568 posts)
3. I got a better idea. You guarantee that the next gun sold won't kill an innocent person
and then we can discuss "fair". Til then just shut down all gun sales. That sounds "fair" to me.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Bullets shot from guns by people holding guns. The difference escapes me.
Reply to this post
Response to flamin lib (Reply #3)
Sat Jun 20, 2015, 08:11 AM
Star Member NutmegYankee (9,833 posts)
4. I come and discuss a completely reasonable method to reduce gun violence...
that would also get the gun owners to come on board rather than listen to the hysterics of the NRA, and you react with anger and disregard the entire thing.
Right here is why we don't have better gun laws.
2. The key on a purchase permit is to ensure that it is completely fair.
People will accept such rules as long as the process is seen as just and fair without opportunity for corruption or bias. In other words, if you apply for the permit and your background check comes back clean, the permit is issued. If some discretion is allowed, there must be a board that can review an appeal to ensure the reason was truly valid. On the other hand, if the permit is left to the discretion or feelings of an officer/official without an appeal or check feature, the process will not be viewed as fair or just. This was the classic Jim Crow setup to deny minorities guns.
Connecticut for instance is effectively shall issue, but officials have some discretion on issuing permits. It has a board that handles appeals, and some of the reasons were extremely petty - One first selectman refused a permit because the other man was a coach whose team beat his child's team in a sport playoff. Another denied an appeal to the wife of a another selectman because he wanted the husband to resign his position.
Keep the system fair and the benefits of preventing the wrong people from getting guns will sell the minor inconvenience.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #2)
Fri Jun 19, 2015, 11:38 PM
Star Member flamin lib (6,568 posts)
3. I got a better idea. You guarantee that the next gun sold won't kill an innocent person
and then we can discuss "fair". Til then just shut down all gun sales. That sounds "fair" to me.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Bullets shot from guns by people holding guns. The difference escapes me.
Reply to this post
Response to flamin lib (Reply #3)
Sat Jun 20, 2015, 08:11 AM
Star Member NutmegYankee (9,833 posts)
4. I come and discuss a completely reasonable method to reduce gun violence...
that would also get the gun owners to come on board rather than listen to the hysterics of the NRA, and you react with anger and disregard the entire thing.
Right here is why we don't have better gun laws.
If you want to run a talking-shop for gun Prohibitionists, go right ahead- but don't
insult our intelligences by pretending that it isn't one...
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
109 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sadly, the gun's ability to inflict major damage and destroy internal organs is what attracts yahoos
Hoyt
Jun 2015
#1
I think you have more of an issue with barrel twist and mag capacity then with the gun itself
Kaleva
Jun 2015
#2
A question and some observations: First, how would you pay for them?
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#106
Welcome to DU :) Please feel free to repost and continue in GCRA if/when this is locked in GD
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#3
A woman once had two sons. One became a sailor, the other only posted to GCRA.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2015
#93
Wow, you scraped and reposted a cartoon! Is there some "critical mass of ridicule"...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#20
Well then, if you feel like you're doing something useful by reposting them...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#38
You've never seen a Beretta 92? 15 round magazine, factory standard. How about the Glock 17?...
Marengo
Jun 2015
#94
I do. If we banned semi-autos, gun sales would all but dry up. Revolvers just don't excite gun guys.
Hoyt
Jun 2015
#16
As usual, time spent with gun banners is always good for a few lulz
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#55
Most states don't allow anything over 5 or so rounds in a rifle while hunting, regardless.
linuxman
Jun 2015
#26
Self-defense is not a sporting event, and imo, there is no moral duty
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#57
It's the "Empathy", "Forced Justification", and "MGAFYGAE/Uncle Ruckus" ploys
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#46
You know how else the story is bullshit? The AF never used a "semi-auto AR-15"
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#88
I am not. The Air Force never had semi-automatic AR-15s. *All* were full-auto
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#105
.223/5.56mm rounds won't penetrate a steel drum full of water while leaving a fist-sized exit hole
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#37
I've seen exit wounds on deer and hogs with 62gr 5.56 and the hole is not that big
aikoaiko
Jun 2015
#17
"I'd give myself the odds against 7 intruders with that gun, actually." Oh, please...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#71
And what if you're sick? Or just unlucky enough to attract enough warm bodies...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#75
The shooting sports sanctioning bodies and most state game departments seem to disagree
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#53
Yes! The Germans, with some of the strictest gun control in Europe, hate the AR-15 SO MUCH!
sir pball
Jun 2015
#54
Pretty much *anyone* can build an AR15, as they are long out of patent
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#59
My point was Germany has no "assault weapons ban", as don't most Continental countries
sir pball
Jun 2015
#60
The Charlie Hebdo shooters got *their* weapons from the trunk of some dude's car
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#65
So far this thread has been a pretty good example of why gun threads are usually limited to the
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#62
"See you in GCRA" Why? The subject can actually be *discussed* at GC&RKBA:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#64
I don't; I prefer vigorous, even heated discussion over crabbed, ever-supicious dogmatism
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#69
Thank you for helping make my point from post #62. If someone wants fight club, then GC&RKBA
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#70
Groupthink and an unwillingness to listen to those who disgaree is a recipe for failure
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#74
And, FWIW, I think his idea has a lot of merit and should be explored in *both* groups
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#78
It was, a week ago. Discussing it there might be a little ...problematic for the GCRA crew, however
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#81
You're asking me to trust guns.com? I'll have to sleep on that. I will get back to you.
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#83
Banning rifles based on how they *look* rather than *function* is absolutely ludicrous.
pablo_marmol
Jun 2015
#72
See reply #62. This part of the discussion is OLD. Been there, done that. NT
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#80
Apparently, it needed to be repeated in order to remind certain parties
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#82
Facts like claiming to be 'certified' on a weapon the Air Force never used:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#89
With my very first read of the OP I had a feeling it might go this way sooner or later.
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#90
Did you know that the military has access to armor-piercing bullets that civilians can't own?
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#107