Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mediaite)   Congressman who was elected to craft, consider and vote on legislation says: "gun problem can't be solved by legislation." NRA sends him more $$$   (mediaite.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Crime, Police, Law, new gun laws, Rep. James Comer, gun violence, Want, Criminal justice  
•       •       •

1536 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Nov 2022 at 2:05 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



94 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-11-27 6:05:17 PM  
The people have voted. Americans want this.
 
2022-11-27 8:40:22 PM  
How does addressing fentanyl and looting stop school shootings by disturbed incels?
 
2022-11-27 9:19:22 PM  
Or, we could admit the "well armed militia" was for colonized citizenry in order to keep foreign governments such as England from farking colonies over and should have been repealed when the states began sending their youth to die in wars in a federally organized well armed militia.
Which is what that was all about.
Not pumping up the flacid egos of limp dicked racists suffering from toxic masculinity.
 
2022-11-27 9:53:52 PM  
COMER: Well, in places like rural America where just about every other household exercises their Second Amendment right, there aren't a lot of crimes in these areas. And I think one reason is because potential criminals know that these people are poor as hell and have nothing worth stealing.

I may have lightly edited the quote for the slippery bastard.
 
2022-11-27 9:55:51 PM  
What is Rep. James Comer supposed to do with $6,950?

McConnell is the one who got $72,868
 
2022-11-28 1:07:14 AM  
Why does he think passing laws will solve the fentanyl problem?
 
2022-11-28 2:08:31 AM  
This is not a fundamentally anti-gun post. It's not really pro-gun either.  If either one of those positions is all you'll agree with, feel free to "funny" and move on. I realize this is too long to read, but it's 1am and I'm drunk and we just put my cat down today and fark everything I want to throw this in the faces of the people who aren't going to accept the goddamn facts anyway.

So, functionally speaking, he's right. He's right for the wrong reasons, but his core argument is correct. There's no viable legislation or combination of legislation which will solve gun violence.  To whit:
1. Bans on sales won't affect the absolutely massive number of guns already out there (and it's impossible to prevent private transfers, only punish them after the fact and after the guns are already used).
2. Bans on ownership cannot be enforced (as evidenced by the fact that a mere mandatory registration couldn't even be enforced in the notably red state of Massachusetts).
3. There is zero chance of a mandatory turn-in or buy-back working, due to the sheer scale required in order to make a meaningful dent in the number of guns out there (Aussies confiscated 650K guns; about 20% of the total; to match that success rate we'd have to confiscate a minimum of 80 million guns...and there'd still be at least 300 million guns out there in private hands).  So many people are just going to say "no, fark off", that it's impossible to jail or even really punish them all, or even a tiny fraction of them, which is exactly what happened in the aforementioned Massachusetts gun registration; and that was barely 750,000 guns in question, not several hundred million.
4. Actual forced confiscation is a hilarious non-starter, and, frankly, if you're OK with the police or military going door-to-door to take guns at gunpoint, you're exactly the sort of people who make all of the "guns are for shooting tyrants" BS that the right spouts off suddenly seem pretty reasonable. Good job, much wow.

And...that's basically it.  That's about all legislation can do. ("But FD", you're about to type, "what about Universal background checks?".  If someone would bother pitching a UBC legislative package that won't result in a de facto ban on private sales, then hey, sure. But it won't solve the problem, again, of the ~400 million totally uncontrolled guns already out there and which any yahoo can physically hand to you in a parking lot, which are all our population needs to commit 5 mass shootings a day for the next 300 years.)  And even if by some miracle you overturn basically all other jurisprudence and do something like "overturn the 2nd Amendment" or "ban all civilian firearm ownership of any and all guns made post-1500", that still leaves you with the issue of actually getting rid of the damn things, which, also again, is impossible on a practical level.  The scope of the problem is simply too large for top-down solutions.

(If you're still on the "get out there and take them away" train, go figure out the practical physical logistics of banning Harry Potter books, criminalizing their possession, and removing at least 90% of them from civilian circulation [a small, concealable, popular item with hundreds of millions of items to take away]: once you've figured the logistics of that out, you have a road map for guns, and until then, you've got no solution.)

Guns are similar to cigarettes, you're just going to have to wait for the culture to change around shooting.  That will drive private gun ownership into the ground, not legislative action.  Which, to be honest, doesn't seem likely in the short term (measured either in my remaining lifetime nor the lifetime of my kids).  So what the hell can we do to reduce gun violence?  What can Congress do to reduce gun violence?

Basically, the thing that people can do is vote in more Democrats who are actually liberals and progressives, and who are not corporate apologists and beholden to lobbyists and the rich.  That's the single best thing you can work towards.  I'd also accept "reduce the far right wing voting population by virtue of using the damned guns on them, instead of continually being moving, screaming targets that they're shooting at" as a valid answer, but most of Fark doesn't want to hear that.

The legislative things Congress can do is start enacting all of the legislation that the rich and business get mad and lobby about.  Make people's lives suck less, in as many possible ways as they can.  Fair wages, housing, health care (physical AND mental health), education, deprogramming religious indoctrination, and so forth.  Give people a reason not to turn to drugs/crime/despair, and by and large, they won't turn to those things. There will, period, always be a certain number of people who are going to get mad and commit mass shootings no matter what else we do and as long as they have access to guns (which they will for generations to come regardless of legislation), and the larger the overall population, the more common those people are going to be. But we can get rid of a HUGE amount of both the day-to-day violence in this country and the punctuation events by giving the population more comfortable lives and reasons not to throw theirs away.

And once all of that has happened, crime has flatlined for a generation, and we no longer have to fear both the police and an authoritarian takeover of the government with the associated pogroms of undesirables...then, THEN, you might find a population more receptive to laying down their arms by their own choice.  But it'll be once that's happened, and not before.  You have to give people a reason to make the guns go away first, and given that right wingers and cops are waving guns in everyone else's faces and the only thing they respect in return is a show of force right back, they've really got a very good set of reasons to hang on even tighter.  The sooner we get a genuinely progressive Democrat-controlled Congress who stop making guns a damn major party plank and who enact a country that sucks a lot less, the sooner the gun stuff can happen.

So get off Fark and get to it.

/meanwhile, I'm going to go get another dram or four of Laphroaig
//I miss my kitty
///piece of shiat Fark won't let me upload a picture of Mewlius Caesar. Fuck you, Fark.
 
2022-11-28 2:10:37 AM  
"You have to buy insurance to drive a car. Why not if you own a gun?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/17/gun-insurance-reform-uvalde-liability/
 
2022-11-28 2:10:50 AM  
Because the gun deaths are a desired outcome for conservatives.
 
2022-11-28 2:15:26 AM  

king of vegas: How does addressing fentanyl and looting stop school shootings by disturbed incels?


Also, how does he plan to solve THOSE problems without passing any legislation?
 
2022-11-28 2:19:05 AM  
Jesus, Drew, do something about your Congressional delegation.

It's embarrassing.
 
2022-11-28 2:19:16 AM  
You don't save lives when you could win elections instead.
 
2022-11-28 2:22:29 AM  
Oh yay. A pay wall.

And don't bother me with that "oh just use incognito" horseshiat. Still a pay wall.
 
2022-11-28 2:24:23 AM  
We need to get rid of all laws. They don't solve anything. Since nothing will be illegal anymore, crime will drop dramatically. I am very smart.
 
2022-11-28 2:25:07 AM  
It's kind of wild how car travel has been made vastly safer through legislation and regulation. I dunno, just came to mind for some reason.
 
2022-11-28 2:29:54 AM  
Perhaps introducing legislation that enforces the first part of the second amendment? Wanna own guns? Okay sure. Be an actual militia member. And not just any wackjob, muzzle-stroking, gun club can declare themselves as such.. it'd have to be in line with (and possibly answering to) the national guard. Monthly training, certification, all that.
Frothing-at-the-mouth gun nuts really seem to like screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" but never seem to notice that well regulated militia part.
 
2022-11-28 2:33:20 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-11-28 2:34:14 AM  

HighOnCraic: king of vegas: How does addressing fentanyl and looting stop school shootings by disturbed incels?

Also, how does he plan to solve THOSE problems without passing any legislation?


The usual magat playbook, of course.

Fark user imageView Full Size

/and encouraging cops to harass non-white people
//while directing public money towards their friends and donors wherever possible
///i'm pretty sure "Die Quickly" is the third step.
 
2022-11-28 2:44:27 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: COMER: Well, in places like rural America where just about every other household exercises their Second Amendment right, there aren't a lot of crimes in these areas. And I think one reason is because potential criminals know that these people are poor as hell and have nothing worth stealing.

I may have lightly edited the quote for the slippery bastard.


But it's wrong, both his and your statements.

Per capita crime, especially violent crime, is higher in higher in rural areas.

Sure Bumfarkville, Flyover USA only has 1 or 2 murders per year, but when you have 100 people in your town... Well that per Capita is 1 in 100.

Even if it's 1,000 you're higher.

If it's 10,000 you're now tied or surpassed most cities.

Crime has skyrocketed in rural and non-metro areas over the past couple of years.
 
2022-11-28 2:46:36 AM  

FightDirector: This is not a fundamentally anti-gun post. It's not really pro-gun either.  If either one of those positions is all you'll agree with, feel free to "funny" and move on. I realize this is too long to read, but it's 1am and I'm drunk and we just put my cat down today and fark everything I want to throw this in the faces of the people who aren't going to accept the goddamn facts anyway.

So, functionally speaking, he's right. He's right for the wrong reasons, but his core argument is correct. There's no viable legislation or combination of legislation which will solve gun violence.  To whit:
1. Bans on sales won't affect the absolutely massive number of guns already out there (and it's impossible to prevent private transfers, only punish them after the fact and after the guns are already used).
2. Bans on ownership cannot be enforced (as evidenced by the fact that a mere mandatory registration couldn't even be enforced in the notably red state of Massachusetts).
3. There is zero chance of a mandatory turn-in or buy-back working, due to the sheer scale required in order to make a meaningful dent in the number of guns out there (Aussies confiscated 650K guns; about 20% of the total; to match that success rate we'd have to confiscate a minimum of 80 million guns...and there'd still be at least 300 million guns out there in private hands).  So many people are just going to say "no, fark off", that it's impossible to jail or even really punish them all, or even a tiny fraction of them, which is exactly what happened in the aforementioned Massachusetts gun registration; and that was barely 750,000 guns in question, not several hundred million.
4. Actual forced confiscation is a hilarious non-starter, and, frankly, if you're OK with the police or military going door-to-door to take guns at gunpoint, you're exactly the sort of people who make all of the "guns are for shooting tyrants" BS that the right spouts off suddenly seem pretty reasonable. Good job, much wow.

And...that's basically it.  That's about all legislation can do. ("But FD", you're about to type, "what about Universal background checks?".  If someone would bother pitching a UBC legislative package that won't result in a de facto ban on private sales, then hey, sure. But it won't solve the problem, again, of the ~400 million totally uncontrolled guns already out there and which any yahoo can physically hand to you in a parking lot, which are all our population needs to commit 5 mass shootings a day for the next 300 years.)  And even if by some miracle you overturn basically all other jurisprudence and do something like "overturn the 2nd Amendment" or "ban all civilian firearm ownership of any and all guns made post-1500", that still leaves you with the issue of actually getting rid of the damn things, which, also again, is impossible on a practical level.  The scope of the problem is simply too large for top-down solutions.

(If you're still on the "get out there and take them away" train, go figure out the practical physical logistics of banning Harry Potter books, criminalizing their possession, and removing at least 90% of them from civilian circulation [a small, concealable, popular item with hundreds of millions of items to take away]: once you've figured the logistics of that out, you have a road map for guns, and until then, you've got no solution.)

Guns are similar to cigarettes, you're just going to have to wait for the culture to change around shooting.  That will drive private gun ownership into the ground, not legislative action.  Which, to be honest, doesn't seem likely in the short term (measured either in my remaining lifetime nor the lifetime of my kids).  So what the hell can we do to reduce gun violence?  What can Congress do to reduce gun violence?

Basically, the thing that people can do is vote in more Democrats who are actually liberals and progressives, and who are not corporate apologists and beholden to lobbyists and the rich.  That's the single best thing you can work towards.  I'd also accept "reduce the far right wing voting population by virtue of using the damned guns on them, instead of continually being moving, screaming targets that they're shooting at" as a valid answer, but most of Fark doesn't want to hear that.

The legislative things Congress can do is start enacting all of the legislation that the rich and business get mad and lobby about.  Make people's lives suck less, in as many possible ways as they can.  Fair wages, housing, health care (physical AND mental health), education, deprogramming religious indoctrination, and so forth.  Give people a reason not to turn to drugs/crime/despair, and by and large, they won't turn to those things. There will, period, always be a certain number of people who are going to get mad and commit mass shootings no matter what else we do and as long as they have access to guns (which they will for generations to come regardless of legislation), and the larger the overall population, the more common those people are going to be. But we can get rid of a HUGE amount of both the day-to-day violence in this country and the punctuation events by giving the population more comfortable lives and reasons not to throw theirs away.

And once all of that has happened, crime has flatlined for a generation, and we no longer have to fear both the police and an authoritarian takeover of the government with the associated pogroms of undesirables...then, THEN, you might find a population more receptive to laying down their arms by their own choice.  But it'll be once that's happened, and not before.  You have to give people a reason to make the guns go away first, and given that right wingers and cops are waving guns in everyone else's faces and the only thing they respect in return is a show of force right back, they've really got a very good set of reasons to hang on even tighter.  The sooner we get a genuinely progressive Democrat-controlled Congress who stop making guns a damn major party plank and who enact a country that sucks a lot less, the sooner the gun stuff can happen.

So get off Fark and get to it.

/meanwhile, I'm going to go get another dram or four of Laphroaig
//I miss my kitty
///piece of shiat Fark won't let me upload a picture of Mewlius Caesar. fark you, Fark.


We could do a much better job of offering mental Healthcare, screening, and reporting for at-risk populations with legislation.

Raising the age of ownership may help, but it could backfire for young women and minorities.

Closing transfer loopholes for arms meets can help strengthen convictions that deny guns to violent offenders.

Domestic violence needs a big legislative update and bigger teeth.  I also propose high school or college electives for firearm safety and responsibility, similar to drivers education, to help demystify firearms and help city kids familiarize themselves.

All of these require legislation, and some would feed back into smarter, better targeted legislation.  Till then, we will endure arguments that if dumb legislation failed, informed legislation would do the same.

Case in point, NYC bans Kevlar in 2022 because TV shows convinced them anyone besides 50 Cent has worn it since the 90's.
 
2022-11-28 2:49:02 AM  

Hootsweet: FightDirector: This is not a fundamentally anti-gun post. It's not really pro-gun either.  If either one of those positions is all you'll agree with, feel free to "funny" and move on. I realize this is too long to read, but it's 1am and I'm drunk and we just put my cat down today and fark everything I want to throw this in the faces of the people who aren't going to accept the goddamn facts anyway.

So, functionally speaking, he's right. He's right for the wrong reasons, but his core argument is correct. There's no viable legislation or combination of legislation which will solve gun violence.  To whit:
1. Bans on sales won't affect the absolutely massive number of guns already out there (and it's impossible to prevent private transfers, only punish them after the fact and after the guns are already used).
2. Bans on ownership cannot be enforced (as evidenced by the fact that a mere mandatory registration couldn't even be enforced in the notably red state of Massachusetts).
3. There is zero chance of a mandatory turn-in or buy-back working, due to the sheer scale required in order to make a meaningful dent in the number of guns out there (Aussies confiscated 650K guns; about 20% of the total; to match that success rate we'd have to confiscate a minimum of 80 million guns...and there'd still be at least 300 million guns out there in private hands).  So many people are just going to say "no, fark off", that it's impossible to jail or even really punish them all, or even a tiny fraction of them, which is exactly what happened in the aforementioned Massachusetts gun registration; and that was barely 750,000 guns in question, not several hundred million.
4. Actual forced confiscation is a hilarious non-starter, and, frankly, if you're OK with the police or military going door-to-door to take guns at gunpoint, you're exactly the sort of people who make all of the "guns are for shooting tyrants" BS that the right spouts off suddenly seem pretty reasonable. Good job, much wow.

And...that's basically it.  That's about all legislation can do. ("But FD", you're about to type, "what about Universal background checks?".  If someone would bother pitching a UBC legislative package that won't result in a de facto ban on private sales, then hey, sure. But it won't solve the problem, again, of the ~400 million totally uncontrolled guns already out there and which any yahoo can physically hand to you in a parking lot, which are all our population needs to commit 5 mass shootings a day for the next 300 years.)  And even if by some miracle you overturn basically all other jurisprudence and do something like "overturn the 2nd Amendment" or "ban all civilian firearm ownership of any and all guns made post-1500", that still leaves you with the issue of actually getting rid of the damn things, which, also again, is impossible on a practical level.  The scope of the problem is simply too large for top-down solutions.

(If you're still on the "get out there and take them away" train, go figure out the practical physical logistics of banning Harry Potter books, criminalizing their possession, and removing at least 90% of them from civilian circulation [a small, concealable, popular item with hundreds of millions of items to take away]: once you've figured the logistics of that out, you have a road map for guns, and until then, you've got no solution.)

Guns are similar to cigarettes, you're just going to have to wait for the culture to change around shooting.  That will drive private gun ownership into the ground, not legislative action.  Which, to be honest, doesn't seem likely in the short term (measured either in my remaining lifetime nor the lifetime of my kids).  So what the hell can we do to reduce gun violence?  What can Congress do to reduce gun violence?

Basically, the thing that people can do is vote in more Democrats who are actually liberals and progressives, and who are not corporate apologists and beholden to lobbyists and the rich.  That's the single best thing you can work towards.  I'd also accept "reduce the far right wing voting population by virtue of using the damned guns on them, instead of continually being moving, screaming targets that they're shooting at" as a valid answer, but most of Fark doesn't want to hear that.

The legislative things Congress can do is start enacting all of the legislation that the rich and business get mad and lobby about.  Make people's lives suck less, in as many possible ways as they can.  Fair wages, housing, health care (physical AND mental health), education, deprogramming religious indoctrination, and so forth.  Give people a reason not to turn to drugs/crime/despair, and by and large, they won't turn to those things. There will, period, always be a certain number of people who are going to get mad and commit mass shootings no matter what else we do and as long as they have access to guns (which they will for generations to come regardless of legislation), and the larger the overall population, the more common those people are going to be. But we can get rid of a HUGE amount of both the day-to-day violence in this country and the punctuation events by giving the population more comfortable lives and reasons not to throw theirs away.

And once all of that has happened, crime has flatlined for a generation, and we no longer have to fear both the police and an authoritarian takeover of the government with the associated pogroms of undesirables...then, THEN, you might find a population more receptive to laying down their arms by their own choice.  But it'll be once that's happened, and not before.  You have to give people a reason to make the guns go away first, and given that right wingers and cops are waving guns in everyone else's faces and the only thing they respect in return is a show of force right back, they've really got a very good set of reasons to hang on even tighter.  The sooner we get a genuinely progressive Democrat-controlled Congress who stop making guns a damn major party plank and who enact a country that sucks a lot less, the sooner the gun stuff can happen.

So get off Fark and get to it.

/meanwhile, I'm going to go get another dram or four of Laphroaig
//I miss my kitty
///piece of shiat Fark won't let me upload a picture of Mewlius Caesar. fark you, Fark.

We could do a much better job of offering mental Healthcare, screening, and reporting for at-risk populations with legislation.

Raising the age of ownership may help, but it could backfire for young women and minorities.

Closing transfer loopholes for arms meets can help strengthen convictions that deny guns to violent offenders.

Domestic violence needs a big legislative update and bigger teeth.  I also propose high school or college electives for firearm safety and responsibility, similar to drivers education, to help demystify firearms and help city kids familiarize themselves.

All of these require legislation, and some would feed back into smarter, better targeted legislation.  Till then, we will endure arguments that if dumb legislation failed, informed legislation would do the same.

Case in point, NYC bans Kevlar in 2022 because TV shows convinced them anyone besides 50 Cent has worn it since the 90's.


Do we get points for post size?  I need to compensate and my guns got taken away.
 
2022-11-28 2:51:05 AM  
Same old rhetoric, buy more cops and make more laws and criminals. Let's not realize that looting and drug use is a symptomnot a cause, that takes way too much brain power. Thinking and using brain or listening to societal experts is radical left. More cops, and more cops after that, with SEAL Team 6 gear, that's the solution yup! It's been working great so far!
 
2022-11-28 2:57:05 AM  
He's gonna deepthroat that long gun and then tickle the trigger with his tongue, ain't he?
 
2022-11-28 2:58:06 AM  

FightDirector: This is not a fundamentally anti-gun post. It's not really pro-gun either.  If either one of those positions is all you'll agree with, feel free to "funny" and move on. I realize this is too long to read, but it's 1am and I'm drunk and we just put my cat down today and fark everything I want to throw this in the faces of the people who aren't going to accept the goddamn facts anyway.

So, functionally speaking, he's right. He's right for the wrong reasons, but his core argument is correct. There's no viable legislation or combination of legislation which will solve gun violence.  To whit:
1. Bans on sales won't affect the absolutely massive number of guns already out there (and it's impossible to prevent private transfers, only punish them after the fact and after the guns are already used).
2. Bans on ownership cannot be enforced (as evidenced by the fact that a mere mandatory registration couldn't even be enforced in the notably red state of Massachusetts).
3. There is zero chance of a mandatory turn-in or buy-back working, due to the sheer scale required in order to make a meaningful dent in the number of guns out there (Aussies confiscated 650K guns; about 20% of the total; to match that success rate we'd have to confiscate a minimum of 80 million guns...and there'd still be at least 300 million guns out there in private hands).  So many people are just going to say "no, fark off", that it's impossible to jail or even really punish them all, or even a tiny fraction of them, which is exactly what happened in the aforementioned Massachusetts gun registration; and that was barely 750,000 guns in question, not several hundred million.
4. Actual forced confiscation is a hilarious non-starter, and, frankly, if you're OK with the police or military going door-to-door to take guns at gunpoint, you're exactly the sort of people who make all of the "guns are for shooting tyrants" BS that the right spouts off suddenly seem pretty reasonable. Good job, much wow.

And...that ...


im3.ezgif.comView Full Size
 
2022-11-28 3:26:17 AM  
It sure as fark can't be solved by lack of regulation.
 
2022-11-28 3:38:03 AM  

Excelsior: It sure as fark can't be solved by lack of regulation.


Actually if everybody in the gun crowd raised our kids better it would do wonders, legislation free.
 
2022-11-28 3:39:23 AM  

FightDirector: /meanwhile, I'm going to go get another dram or four of Laphroaig


"Dad, are you licking turf again?"
 
2022-11-28 3:39:25 AM  

Hootsweet: Excelsior: It sure as fark can't be solved by lack of regulation.

Actually if everybody in the gun crowd raised our kids better it would do wonders, legislation free.


I wouldn't trust anyone's kids around them.
 
2022-11-28 3:46:20 AM  

Alphax: Hootsweet: Excelsior: It sure as fark can't be solved by lack of regulation.

Actually if everybody in the gun crowd raised our kids better it would do wonders, legislation free.

I wouldn't trust anyone's kids around them.


Mine's still doing great.
 
2022-11-28 3:56:18 AM  

king of vegas: How does addressing fentanyl and looting stop school shootings by disturbed incels?


You misunderstood. He meant that the GOP is going to focus on doing fentanyl and looting the country.
 
2022-11-28 4:08:45 AM  
Add semi-automatics to the list of devices regulated by the National Firearms Act.
 
2022-11-28 4:19:24 AM  

NoGods: Add semi-automatics to the list of devices regulated by the National Firearms Act.


What's the intended effect?
 
2022-11-28 4:39:26 AM  

FightDirector: This is not a fundamentally anti-gun post. It's not really pro-gun either.  If either one of those positions is all you'll agree with, feel free to "funny" and move on. I realize this is too long to read, but it's 1am and I'm drunk and we just put my cat down today and fark everything I want to throw this in the faces of the people who aren't going to accept the goddamn facts anyway.

So, functionally speaking, he's right. He's right for the wrong reasons, but his core argument is correct. There's no viable legislation or combination of legislation which will solve gun violence.  To whit:
1. Bans on sales won't affect the absolutely massive number of guns already out there (and it's impossible to prevent private transfers, only punish them after the fact and after the guns are already used).
2. Bans on ownership cannot be enforced (as evidenced by the fact that a mere mandatory registration couldn't even be enforced in the notably red state of Massachusetts).
3. There is zero chance of a mandatory turn-in or buy-back working, due to the sheer scale required in order to make a meaningful dent in the number of guns out there (Aussies confiscated 650K guns; about 20% of the total; to match that success rate we'd have to confiscate a minimum of 80 million guns...and there'd still be at least 300 million guns out there in private hands).  So many people are just going to say "no, fark off", that it's impossible to jail or even really punish them all, or even a tiny fraction of them, which is exactly what happened in the aforementioned Massachusetts gun registration; and that was barely 750,000 guns in question, not several hundred million.
4. Actual forced confiscation is a hilarious non-starter, and, frankly, if you're OK with the police or military going door-to-door to take guns at gunpoint, you're exactly the sort of people who make all of the "guns are for shooting tyrants" BS that the right spouts off suddenly seem pretty reasonable. Good job, much wow.

And...that's basically it.  That's about all legislation can do. ("But FD", you're about to type, "what about Universal background checks?".  If someone would bother pitching a UBC legislative package that won't result in a de facto ban on private sales, then hey, sure. But it won't solve the problem, again, of the ~400 million totally uncontrolled guns already out there and which any yahoo can physically hand to you in a parking lot, which are all our population needs to commit 5 mass shootings a day for the next 300 years.)  And even if by some miracle you overturn basically all other jurisprudence and do something like "overturn the 2nd Amendment" or "ban all civilian firearm ownership of any and all guns made post-1500", that still leaves you with the issue of actually getting rid of the damn things, which, also again, is impossible on a practical level.  The scope of the problem is simply too large for top-down solutions.

(If you're still on the "get out there and take them away" train, go figure out the practical physical logistics of banning Harry Potter books, criminalizing their possession, and removing at least 90% of them from civilian circulation [a small, concealable, popular item with hundreds of millions of items to take away]: once you've figured the logistics of that out, you have a road map for guns, and until then, you've got no solution.)

Guns are similar to cigarettes, you're just going to have to wait for the culture to change around shooting.  That will drive private gun ownership into the ground, not legislative action.  Which, to be honest, doesn't seem likely in the short term (measured either in my remaining lifetime nor the lifetime of my kids).  So what the hell can we do to reduce gun violence?  What can Congress do to reduce gun violence?

Basically, the thing that people can do is vote in more Democrats who are actually liberals and progressives, and who are not corporate apologists and beholden to lobbyists and the rich.  That's the single best thing you can work towards.  I'd also accept "reduce the far right wing voting population by virtue of using the damned guns on them, instead of continually being moving, screaming targets that they're shooting at" as a valid answer, but most of Fark doesn't want to hear that.

The legislative things Congress can do is start enacting all of the legislation that the rich and business get mad and lobby about.  Make people's lives suck less, in as many possible ways as they can.  Fair wages, housing, health care (physical AND mental health), education, deprogramming religious indoctrination, and so forth.  Give people a reason not to turn to drugs/crime/despair, and by and large, they won't turn to those things. There will, period, always be a certain number of people who are going to get mad and commit mass shootings no matter what else we do and as long as they have access to guns (which they will for generations to come regardless of legislation), and the larger the overall population, the more common those people are going to be. But we can get rid of a HUGE amount of both the day-to-day violence in this country and the punctuation events by giving the population more comfortable lives and reasons not to throw theirs away.

And once all of that has happened, crime has flatlined for a generation, and we no longer have to fear both the police and an authoritarian takeover of the government with the associated pogroms of undesirables...then, THEN, you might find a population more receptive to laying down their arms by their own choice.  But it'll be once that's happened, and not before.  You have to give people a reason to make the guns go away first, and given that right wingers and cops are waving guns in everyone else's faces and the only thing they respect in return is a show of force right back, they've really got a very good set of reasons to hang on even tighter.  The sooner we get a genuinely progressive Democrat-controlled Congress who stop making guns a damn major party plank and who enact a country that sucks a lot less, the sooner the gun stuff can happen.

So get off Fark and get to it.

/meanwhile, I'm going to go get another dram or four of Laphroaig
//I miss my kitty
///piece of shiat Fark won't let me upload a picture of Mewlius Caesar. fark you, Fark.


I would counter that Australia's example shows that you don't need to actually recover the guns in circulation to reduce gun violence. A few reasons this might be the case:

1. If guns are illegal to possess, people are disincentivized from carrying them around, where they may be easily available for impulsive use.

2. Contrary to popular right wing arguments, most people do not know how to get a gun illegally. I don't know who your friends are, but my friends don't have guns around that they want to sell me for fifty bucks when I wake up and decide to shoot my wife.

So, sure, it won't stop every act of gun violence, but I suspect it would make quite a dent. How about we try it out and see what happens?
 
2022-11-28 4:51:29 AM  

Hootsweet: NoGods: Add semi-automatics to the list of devices regulated by the National Firearms Act.

What's the intended effect?


Make it more difficult and expensive to transfer ownership of semi-automatics. I own a few semi-automatics and enjoy shooting them. This way, no one who owns one now have them taken away (a political deal breaker). We should also raise the NFA transfer fee. It's been $200 since 1936. A good political trade-off would be to remove suppressors from the list of NFA regulated devices. It took me 13 months to get what is basically a safety device, while I was able to legally buy a semi-auto rifle from a guy in a private sale with no paperwork at all. I put the suppressor on a bolt action rifle and it makes hunting much easier on my hearing.
 
2022-11-28 5:06:37 AM  

whither_apophis: Why does he think passing laws will solve the fentanyl problem?


He doesn't. It's an excuse.
 
2022-11-28 5:26:38 AM  

dkulprit: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: COMER: Well, in places like rural America where just about every other household exercises their Second Amendment right, there aren't a lot of crimes in these areas. And I think one reason is because potential criminals know that these people are poor as hell and have nothing worth stealing.

I may have lightly edited the quote for the slippery bastard.

But it's wrong, both his and your statements.

Per capita crime, especially violent crime, is higher in higher in rural areas.

Sure Bumfarkville, Flyover USA only has 1 or 2 murders per year, but when you have 100 people in your town... Well that per Capita is 1 in 100.

Even if it's 1,000 you're higher.

If it's 10,000 you're now tied or surpassed most cities.

Crime has skyrocketed in rural and non-metro areas over the past couple of years.


Want to see something funny? Someone made a graph.

(Unfortunately I took this from r/ColorBlind)

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-11-28 5:49:40 AM  
Oh for farks sake what he said should be criminal.

Here is what the US needs to do - and I give this for free, I am not even a paid congress critter:

1. You need a reason to own a gun; being a gang member, or home security is not a valid reason.
2. All guns need to be registered, that register is a national one, if your gun is not on it then you are a felon.
3. National gun database - sure I put this 3rd, just arrest the ones who failed the second, I do not care.
4. No big guns, nothing over 3 round mags - perfect for hunting unless you are really bad at hunting.
5. PISTOLS ARE JUST NOT ALLOWED.  If you need to go camping in dangerous places, then you go to the local police who will issue you temporary with really big pistol.
6. Self defense is no valid excuse, so just fark off.
7. A really big buy back, and it will be great for all those end of the world hoarders, because they will get top dollar.
8. If you are found with a gun that is not on the database, then you are in deep shiat.
9. You can legally own guns for 3 reasons: hunting, farming, or club shooting.  Home defense is not a reason to own a gun, just stab the invader in the neck with a pen.
10. Repeat - it is not legal to own any gun that has more than 3 rounds in the mag - I am willing to make that a thing even for club shooting, it is not like you are under a time restriction.
11. You are not allowed to sell or buy a second hand gun, they just get destroyed after the state pays you a reasonable price.
12. I am sure you Yanks can come up with the rest of the rules, it is not like you are dumb c*nts!!!
 
2022-11-28 6:07:43 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: COMER: Well, in places like rural America where just about every other household exercises their Second Amendment right, there aren't a lot of crimes in these areas. And I think one reason is because potential criminals know that these people are poor as hell and have nothing worth stealing.

I may have lightly edited the quote for the slippery bastard.


What??? There aren't a lot of crimes where there aren't a lot of people?  This is mind blowing!
 
2022-11-28 6:14:54 AM  
Maybe a controversial position, but I'm going to quibble on the term "solve". Congressass is probably at least somewhat right. The US gun problem is a cultural problem. Legislation probably isn't going to solve this by itself. But it's the tool you have right now, and as someone pointed out up thread, it's made a good dent in other countries. It'll have somewhat of an impact in yours, too.
 
2022-11-28 6:24:04 AM  

Langdon_777: Oh for farks sake what he said should be criminal.

Here is what the US needs to do - and I give this for free, I am not even a paid congress critter:

1. You need a reason to own a gun; being a gang member, or home security is not a valid reason.
2. All guns need to be registered, that register is a national one, if your gun is not on it then you are a felon.
3. National gun database - sure I put this 3rd, just arrest the ones who failed the second, I do not care.
4. No big guns, nothing over 3 round mags - perfect for hunting unless you are really bad at hunting.
5. PISTOLS ARE JUST NOT ALLOWED.  If you need to go camping in dangerous places, then you go to the local police who will issue you temporary with really big pistol.
6. Self defense is no valid excuse, so just fark off.
7. A really big buy back, and it will be great for all those end of the world hoarders, because they will get top dollar.
8. If you are found with a gun that is not on the database, then you are in deep shiat.
9. You can legally own guns for 3 reasons: hunting, farming, or club shooting.  Home defense is not a reason to own a gun, just stab the invader in the neck with a pen.
10. Repeat - it is not legal to own any gun that has more than 3 rounds in the mag - I am willing to make that a thing even for club shooting, it is not like you are under a time restriction.
11. You are not allowed to sell or buy a second hand gun, they just get destroyed after the state pays you a reasonable price.
12. I am sure you Yanks can come up with the rest of the rules, it is not like you are dumb c*nts!!!


Maybe club shooting guns should be stored at the club and not taken home?
Otherwise I'm 100% on board.
 
2022-11-28 6:34:52 AM  

danny_kay: Langdon_777: Oh for farks sake what he said should be criminal.

Here is what the US needs to do - and I give this for free, I am not even a paid congress critter:

1. You need a reason to own a gun; being a gang member, or home security is not a valid reason.
2. All guns need to be registered, that register is a national one, if your gun is not on it then you are a felon.
3. National gun database - sure I put this 3rd, just arrest the ones who failed the second, I do not care.
4. No big guns, nothing over 3 round mags - perfect for hunting unless you are really bad at hunting.
5. PISTOLS ARE JUST NOT ALLOWED.  If you need to go camping in dangerous places, then you go to the local police who will issue you temporary with really big pistol.
6. Self defense is no valid excuse, so just fark off.
7. A really big buy back, and it will be great for all those end of the world hoarders, because they will get top dollar.
8. If you are found with a gun that is not on the database, then you are in deep shiat.
9. You can legally own guns for 3 reasons: hunting, farming, or club shooting.  Home defense is not a reason to own a gun, just stab the invader in the neck with a pen.
10. Repeat - it is not legal to own any gun that has more than 3 rounds in the mag - I am willing to make that a thing even for club shooting, it is not like you are under a time restriction.
11. You are not allowed to sell or buy a second hand gun, they just get destroyed after the state pays you a reasonable price.
12. I am sure you Yanks can come up with the rest of the rules, it is not like you are dumb c*nts!!!

Maybe club shooting guns should be stored at the club and not taken home?
Otherwise I'm 100% on board.


Ah yes, that is a good decision, I argued that when Australia got rid of all it's guns - I should be allowed to own a 50 cal, but the gun has to be stored at my clubs range, and I need to get my bolt and ammo from the cops.  I then return the bolt to the cops at the end of the day.
 
2022-11-28 6:40:52 AM  

Langdon_777: Oh for farks sake what he said should be criminal.

Here is what the US needs to do - and I give this for free, I am not even a paid congress critter:

<goofy list>


I'm a flaming liberal, and I disagree with almost your entire list. Here's mine:

1. Any sane, law-abiding citizen can own any gun they want - even something large mag full auto, like an M249.
2. To obtain any type of gun, you must pass a strict psychological exam and not have a criminal record.
3. If you've been accused of a violent crime (e.g. assault), you can't have guns for 10 years. If you already own guns, you lose them for 10 years. Committing another violent crime during those 10 years restarts the clock.
4. If you're convicted of a violent crime, you lose your guns permanently.
5. If someone uses your gun to commit a crime, you automatically get charged as an accessory.

Much easier and, in my opinion, more effective.
 
2022-11-28 6:44:40 AM  

Dadoo: Langdon_777: Oh for farks sake what he said should be criminal.

Here is what the US needs to do - and I give this for free, I am not even a paid congress critter:

<goofy list>

I'm a flaming liberal, and I disagree with almost your entire list. Here's mine:

1. Any sane, law-abiding citizen can own any gun they want - even something large mag full auto, like an M249.
2. To obtain any type of gun, you must pass a strict psychological exam and not have a criminal record.
3. If you've been accused of a violent crime (e.g. assault), you can't have guns for 10 years. If you already own guns, you lose them for 10 years. Committing another violent crime during those 10 years restarts the clock.
4. If you're convicted of a violent crime, you lose your guns permanently.
5. If someone uses your gun to commit a crime, you automatically get charged as an accessory.

Much easier and, in my opinion, more effective.


Your list sucks dog's balls.
The trick is to stop mass murderers, not wait until they do it.
 
2022-11-28 6:46:19 AM  
I have a question, too: conservatives keep telling me that we don't need any more gun laws. We just need to enforce the ones we already have. Why aren't they being enforced?
 
2022-11-28 6:48:18 AM  

Langdon_777: The trick is to stop mass murderers, not wait until they do it.


Agreed. That's what the initial psych exam is for. If it doesn't stop mass murders, it needs to be improved.
 
2022-11-28 6:49:52 AM  
Also FYI - do any of you American gun nuts have any farking idea how hard it is to get a hold of a gun that can commit anything but single murder in Australia.  I have racked my brain, the best I can get is a bolt action .22, but then I need to find the ammo????
 
2022-11-28 6:51:57 AM  

Langdon_777: Dadoo: Langdon_777: Oh for farks sake what he said should be criminal.

Here is what the US needs to do - and I give this for free, I am not even a paid congress critter:

<goofy list>

I'm a flaming liberal, and I disagree with almost your entire list. Here's mine:

1. Any sane, law-abiding citizen can own any gun they want - even something large mag full auto, like an M249.
2. To obtain any type of gun, you must pass a strict psychological exam and not have a criminal record.
3. If you've been accused of a violent crime (e.g. assault), you can't have guns for 10 years. If you already own guns, you lose them for 10 years. Committing another violent crime during those 10 years restarts the clock.
4. If you're convicted of a violent crime, you lose your guns permanently.
5. If someone uses your gun to commit a crime, you automatically get charged as an accessory.

Much easier and, in my opinion, more effective.

Your list sucks dog's balls.
The trick is to stop mass murderers, not wait until they do it.


Jupp, a downvote from me too.

What y'all need is the change in mentality to unterstand that it is indeed not normal nor anyone's godgiven right to own an M249 (WTF?!), and that's what Langdon's list does, and yours does not.
Langdon's list says "by default, no one needs guns. Here are the exceptions".
Yours says "by default, everyone can have guns. Here are the exceptions".
That is not only a difference in expected number of guns on the streets, but also a difference in mindset.
 
2022-11-28 6:55:35 AM  

danny_kay: What y'all need is the change in mentality to unterstand that it is indeed not normal nor anyone's godgiven right to own an M249 (WTF?!), and that's what Langdon's list does, and yours does not.
Langdon's list says "by default, no one needs guns. Here are the exceptions".
Yours says "by default, everyone can have guns. Here are the exceptions".
That is not only a difference in expected number of guns on the streets, but also a difference in mindset.


Have fun passing legislation like that in the US. Mine at least has a chance, and I'd bet it would be just as effective.
 
2022-11-28 6:57:32 AM  

Langdon_777: Also FYI - do any of you American gun nuts have any farking idea how hard it is to get a hold of a gun that can commit anything but single murder in Australia.  I have racked my brain, the best I can get is a bolt action .22, but then I need to find the ammo????


Yup, of all the people I know in Germany, I know *one* person who has a hunting rifle, and quite frankly I don't even know where they live right now.

If I felt like committing a good spot of spree killing today, the most dangerous implements I could get my hands on are my kitchen knives.

And this is why all "let people own guns, only weed out the nutters" schemes fail: they leave so many guns in circulation that even if one of the nutters has his guns taken away, the rest of the country is still basically one big NRA advent calendar.
 
2022-11-28 6:58:02 AM  

Dadoo: danny_kay: What y'all need is the change in mentality to unterstand that it is indeed not normal nor anyone's godgiven right to own an M249 (WTF?!), and that's what Langdon's list does, and yours does not.
Langdon's list says "by default, no one needs guns. Here are the exceptions".
Yours says "by default, everyone can have guns. Here are the exceptions".
That is not only a difference in expected number of guns on the streets, but also a difference in mindset.

Have fun passing legislation like that in the US. Mine at least has a chance, and I'd bet it would be just as effective.


Alas yours changes nothing.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.