NY bill would require a criminal history background check for the purchase of a 3D printer::Requires a criminal history background check for the purchase of a three-dimensional printer capable of creating firearms; prohibits sale to a person who would be disqualified on the basis of criminal history from being granted a license to possess a firearm.

  • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -81 year ago

    That’s all fair, but it remains the most widely accepted term for the issue, complete with its own Wikipedia page.

    leaves the door open for gun nuts to say “lol, there is no gun show loophole, see you don’t even know what you’re talking about”

    It doesn’t matter what it’s called, they’ll continue to oppose addressing it because their strategy is to only take, never give.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Call it a “private sales loophole”. It’s more accurate, and covers what you would actually want covered.

      A big issue with gun control, outside of the NRA being a huge grift, is that gun control advocates have no idea how guns work and what current laws actually do. They often confuse things that are truly dangerous with purely cosmetic features.

      • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        Well even the most profoundly stupid person can see the most important thing American gun laws do; fail on a daily basis.

          • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            Hey if you want us to ban things that actually help, I’m all for it. Should we start with semi-automatic weapons or handguns?

            • @frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 year ago

              If that’s what you want, start arming African Americans and LGBTQ+ folk. The GOP will be falling over themselves to ban guns then.

              • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                No they won’t. They’re paid $16 million a year to make sure nothing interferes with the profitability of the gun lobby. It’s why the price doubled after Sandy Hook.

                Armed minorities aren’t a threat to anyone they care about and if it gives police more excuses to execute them in the street, that’s a few less democrat voters.

                If guns actually made the public safer, America would be the safest country in the world by a wide margin.

    • @Fondots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t matter what it’s called, they’ll continue to oppose addressing it

      That doesn’t mean we need to make it easy for them to oppose it. Don’t give them a stupid way to dismiss the conversation before it even gets off the ground, make them actually defend their position that private sales shouldnt need background checks.

      IMO, getting stuck calling it the gun show loophole when there are better things to call it because that’s what everyone has always called it has the same kind of energy as conservative assholes who refuse to learn a person’s pronouns or old people who never bothered to scrub things like “colored” or “oriental” from their vocabulary. Language can, does, and should change with the times, and we need to keep up with it.

        • @Fondots@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Them getting caught up on you calling it the gun show loophole is bikeshedding, and you can solve it by the simple action of calling it something else.

          • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -31 year ago

            Again, there is no possible combination of words that will make the pro-gun community support its closure and you’re doing them a massive favor by implying they have a role in the conversation at all.

            With Google searches for “private sale loophole” returning results for “gun show loophole” (as well as information about the origin of the term), it could just as easily be argued that you’re muddying the waters for semantics.

            So I’ll just keep using whatever phrase gets my point across and you can use whatever words you want in the gun-control comments you don’t seem to be making, to placate people who don’t seem to exist, so they don’t use a talking point that’s trivial to address.

            • @Fondots@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              It’s not about changing the gun nuts’ minds, like you said, it’s not going to happen, but there’s a whole lot of people out there without strong feelings one way or another, who don’t know about what laws are out there, and who are potentially open to being persuaded to your way of thinking, and if you want to convince them of your position, you don’t want to give your opposition an easy opportunity to derail the conversation and make it look like you don’t know what you’re talking about and they do.

              • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Fine. I’ll never call it a gun show loophole again. Anything to stop this tedious discussion of semantics for a situation I’ve never found myself in.