Politics Thread


#1649

Well it was always like that even before 2005. Conditions were always the same and gun control made things worse.

1 is correct; gangs have considerable power here, depending on state. Foreign weaponry is found here on occasion; many semi automatics illegally imported from US civilian markets and other military stuff from everywhere. Mortars, rocket launchers and anti material rifles are sometimes found with gang members.

2 is not that simple; while there are occasional bribes and favors from police to gangs, some cops are taking over some slums and creating their own extortion crime syndicates. These have been dubbed militias and along with gangs they control a lot of poor areas.

3 yeah. Big country, big guns and big borders aren’t easy to always have police coverage in. Illegal guns are always everywhere.

4 yep.

5 I don’t know. That was a while ago and even with socialist oriented governments (like the one which was in control from 2003-2015) it didn’t change much. Gangs are driven by individualist gains, not political or religious motivations (united they would probably be way worse).

Still the situation in 2005 was similar to what it is now (number 4). Gun control was supposed to help with that and it didn’t; it only got rid of legal weapons which people used to protect themselves. Once criminals knew people were unarmed, nothing could stop them.


#1650

The crux of the problems with Brazil are rooted in this. The issues relating to the reasons for self defence are bigger than needing guns to defend themselves.

The catalyst of these issues are rooted in the socio-economical and political troubles of Brazil. All these issues which you know far better than I are not ones that can be fixed easily. It will take decades of sustained effort championed by a large, loud, and motivated base. Which is already very difficult to achieve. It’s the same issues that other nations face in overcoming their versions of economic and social inequality and discrimination that require very hard questions and difficult answers to fix.


#1651

Well said, but how long would that take? How are we gonna defend ourselves until then?

I’d rather have a gun while things improve than not. It won’t solve the economical problem in the country, but it might solve a personal security problem I could have one day.


#1652

That’s why I am not against gun ownership. I believe people should have a right to defend themselves and their family. I just am leery of not having any common sense standards that prevent someone unstable or the potential towards instability to own a gun.

If you are threatened, it is a human right to get the means to defend yourself.

The issue to me is not that you as a reasonable human being with a moral compass and a real need to protect yourself should not have a gun. My issue is that I can walk into a Wallmart with my Driver’s License and walk out with an assault rifle with no real accountability.

But at the same time, I feel that this is a good thing to strive for: that one day we will live in a world where people do not feel the need to have to have weapons to defend themselves.

Pretty lofty and unrealistic, but a guy can have some dreams.


#1653

That’s a strawman, and one I hear often as someone on the left side of the debate. I want firearms to be more strictly regulated, that doesn’t mean I advocate a blanket ban of all guns. Nobody having access to guns would be an ideal scenario as far as I’m concerned, but I’m well aware it’s a pipe dream. Everyone in America willingly turning in their guns to be destroyed would never happen, and government agents going door to door confiscating people’s private property by force would be a total nightmare. None of that means we can’t invest in extensive research on gun violence and work to enact and enforce some common sense laws to lessen all the senseless deaths.

I’ll take this seriously when someone invents a knife handle that can shoot 900 blades per minute. :wink:

I’d love to keep debating with you (and I say that with zero sarcasm) but on account of computer troubles I’m typing this on my phone and it’s turning out to be really time consuming to make long posts with quotes and everything. So, rain check! :smiley:


#1654

Be encouraged – as far as firearms go, that world already exists in many countries, where as has been noted most police no longer need to carry guns.

It’s true that there are more challenges in getting there in some countries than others (US, Brazil, Afghanistan) but I don’t think that makes it an unrealistic goal.


#1655

Any gun is a bottle opener if you’re determined enough!


#1656

Unfortunately not this one, we backslid since the “anti-terror” craze of 2001, when we were actually close to abolishing it. The current discussion is on adding tasers in addition to the guns, but doing away with the guns, unlike back then, is not on the table now.


#1657

https://www.bja.gov/programs/bja-initiatives-encouraging-responsible-gun-ownership.html

Quote:

BJA Initiatives Encouraging Responsible Gun Ownership

Project ChildSafe Communities
BJA funded the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) to implement an enhanced version of its Project ChildSafe Program in three unique sites known as " Project ChildSafe Communities ."

The goal of the program is to reduce firearms accidents and misuse by creating a culture of firearms safety. By reinforcing the importance of storing firearms responsibly when not in use, this culture is driven through community outreach and events, media efforts, and community partnerships. The intent is to reach new gun owners (particularly those located in urban and suburban areas where new gun ownership has increased) and people who may not have had access to traditional firearms safety classes such as those offered in sport shooting venues.

Two Project ChildSafe Communities chosen for the program were Oklahoma City and Memphis, which kicked off in January 2017 and October 2017. The third, Cleveland, is scheduled to kick off May 30, 2018. The initiative is partnering with local organizations representing conservation groups, mental health and suicide prevention advocates, veterans, faith groups, retailers, and hunting and shooting groups to help share messages and information about responsible firearms storage.

One public service announcement has been produced with two more in the development stage. An online video is also in production.

Lock It Up
BJA also funded an initiative to produce a public education campaign to engage current and prospective firearms owners on the importance of safe firearms storage.

Several TV and radio PSAs were created, as well as several print ads, with a simple call to action for firearms owners to “Lock It Up” when their firearms are not in use.

Sell With Certainty
Every day, gun owners sell their firearms to individuals at residences and gun shows, and through classified and online ads. But many of these private sellers do not have the ability to verify if their buyer is legally permitted to receive or possess a firearm. However, it is possible with a federal firearms licensee (FFL) who can determine if a prospective buyer is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm.

With this in mind, BJA funded an initiative to produce an educational campaign to encourage private sellers to complete the sale of their firearm through an FFL. Print ads and a radio PSA were created for the campaign with a simple message of “Sell With Certainty.”

Contact:
David Adams
Senior Policy Advisor
202-305-5125
david.adams@ojp.usdoj.gov


#1658

(Just to state upfront that just like @poison_mara, I come from a firearm-free place and I really like the way things are now)

Just to note that the initiative above pretty much operates on the assumption that all gun owners are responsible to begin with, and focuses on ‘responsible firearms storage’ - in other words, said gun owners keeping their firearms away from those who are less qualified.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t clarify on who are not qualified to carry firearms. The only guideline singles out those who are legally banned from carrying firearms in the first place (I wonder who those are? What does it take to be legally permitted to own firearms in the US?) and those obviously too young to operate firearms, as is implied by the name ‘Project Childsafe’.

The language sounds good, but I can’t shake the feeling that these initiatives might not be contributing much to the overall gun control effort.

Since the idea of guns vs knives came up just a little earlier in the thread, I’m also considering the example of Japan and how it has implemented sword control (very effectively, considering how many of the things used to proliferate the country once upon a time). Can the US emulate that kind of progress?


#1659

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

Quote:

Identify Prohibited Persons

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

  • convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • who is a fugitive from justice;
  • who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
  • who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
  • who is an illegal alien;
  • who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
  • who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
  • who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 992(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) prohibits the issuance of licenses to persons who have been convicted of :

  • Section 38 of the AECA, 22 USC 2778;
  • Section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 60 USC App. 2410;
  • Sections 7903, 794, or 798 of Title 18, USC, relating to espionage involving defense or classified information;
  • Section 16 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 USC App. 16;
  • Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC 78dd-1, or section 104 of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 USC 78dd-2;
  • Chapter 105 of Title 18, USC, relating to sabotage;
  • Section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 50 USC 783(b), relating to communication of classified information;
  • Sections 57, 92, 101, 104, 222, 224, 225, or 226 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 USC 2077 2122, 2131, 2234, 2272, 2275, and 2276;
  • Section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947, 50 USC 421, relating to the protection of the identity of undercover intelligence officers, agents, and other sources;
  • Section 371 of Title 17, USC, when it involves conspiracy to violate any of the above statutes; and
  • International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 USC 1702 and 1705.

Prohibitions on Certain Types of Firearms

Federal firearms laws prohibit transactions in and possession of certain types of firearms. These include, for example:

  • Transfer or possession of a machinegun, 18 USC 922(o);
  • Manufacture, importation, sale, or possession of any firearm not detectable by airport security devices, 18 USC 922§;
  • and Possession of a firearm not registered as required by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 USC 5861(d).

Last Reviewed September 22, 2016


#1660

The infamous “sword hunts” where whoever was in power at the time scoured the countryside to forcefully confiscate any privately owned weapon, so only the government was armed. Today guns are more or less banned in Japan, with few exceptions. Military, police, and licensed hunters.

A right wing American gun owner’s worst nightmare. Even I can’t get behind a government disarming a populace by force.


#1661

I can guess…

Um… when you see a slab of metal slamming down on someone so hard they split it two… you crave bread?

In the U.S, it’s a state responsibility, some places are really strict (like I hear N.J bans any form of launcher like slingshots) and others are pretty free.

It’s because of that part in our constitution giving states any power the fed government isn’t explicitly given.


#1662

Too much? :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


#1663

Will the American Democratic Party set to lose more ground with the latest scandal of Ralph Northam ?
With the American Presidential election around the corner … seems like the Democrats may not be as “strong” as many people think … and they will be having difficulty winning the votes of Progressive with such setback…


#1664

The election isn’t for almost two years. The Democrats won’t even be phased by this.


#1665

If Northam step down, Republican may capture the governorship of Virginia.


#1666

Or a different Democrat may, let’s not despair just yet.


#1667

Age: 27
Party: Democrat.


#1668

If this passes this may just be the greatest gift to mr. Wilder’s Nexit plans.


Heck! Since the EU doesn’t seem to know how much of our economy now depends on a free and open internet even I might vote for a Nexit under those conditions. I mean if the choice is gonna be between voting for economic collapse with Stasi and big-brother esque censorship and a lurch to the corporate state or without all of that, then give me the second.