MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU82 on May 31, 2022, 07:11:24 AM
-
Canada has responded to the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde by making it illegal to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada.
They also will launch a mandatory buy-back of assault-style rifles, allow for repeal of gun licenses for people involved in acts of domestic violence, create a "red flag" law to keep or get guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people, and require rifle magazines to be permanently altered so they can never hold more than five rounds.
https://apnews.com/article/politics-justin-trudeau-canada-gun-violence-89cd6e183a067632056fb89f05ed70ba
TORONTO (AP) — Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government introduced legislation Monday that would put a freeze on importing, buying or selling handguns.
“We are capping the number of handguns in this country,” Trudeau said.
The regulations to halt the growth of personally owned handguns is expected to be enacted this fall.
“It will be illegal to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” the prime minister said. Families of shooting victims joined him at a press conference in Ottawa.
Canada already has plans to ban 1,500 types of military-style firearms and offer a mandatory buyback program that will begin at the end of the year. Trudeau said if someone really wants to keep their assault weapon it will be made completely inoperable.
Canada already expanded background checks.
Trudeau has long had plans to enact tougher gun laws but the introduction of the new measure comes after mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y., this month.
Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino called the legislation the most significant step Canada has taken in a generation.
“Countries that do a good job of controlling guns do a good job of controlling gun violence,” Mendicino said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“In Canada, gun ownership is a privilege not a right,” Blair said. “This is a principal that differentiates ourselves from many other countries in the world, notably our colleagues and friends to the south.”
Canada has had far fewer mass shootings than the U.S. in part because of a lack of easy access to guns, though the U.S. population also is far larger than Canada’s.
Blair noted guns are often smuggled in illegally from the U.S., which he noted has one of the largest small arms arsenals in the world.
The government plans to fight gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border measures. Trudeau said increased funding already helped border officials double the amount of smuggled guns confiscated at the U.S. border.
The government said the bill would also allow for the removal of gun licenses from people involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, such as stalking.
The bill would create a new “red flag” law allowing courts to require that people considered a danger to themselves or others surrender their firearms to police. The government said the measure would guard the safety of those applying through the process, often women in danger of domestic abuse, by protecting their identities.
The government said it will require rifle magazines to be permanently altered so they can never hold more than five rounds and will ban the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines under the Criminal Code.
“Canada can teach us a lot,” tweeted Bruce Heyman, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada under the Obama administration.
Trudeau said his government recognizes the vast majority of Canadians who own guns are responsible but the level of gun violence is unacceptable. Mendicino said they are aware the announcement could lead to a rush to buy guns before the law is enacted and urged Parliament to pass it as soon as possible.
The new measures are assured of passing in Canada’s Parliament as the ruling Liberals and leftist opposition New Democrats have enough votes.
Pierre Poilievre, who is running to be leader of the Conservative party, said law-abiding gun owners should be respected and dangerous criminals should be jailed.
“Other than using firearms for sport shooting and hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives,” Trudeau said. “We need less gun violence.
“We cannot let the gun debate became so polarized that nothing gets done. We cannot let that happen in our country. This is about freedom. People should be free to go to the supermarket, their school or their place of worship without fear.”
-
We've have had seven topics on gun violence locked in the last few weeks. I would think you'd get the hint that starting another one would be a bad idea.
-
We've have had seven topics on gun violence locked in the last few weeks. I would think you'd get the hint that starting another one would be a bad idea.
He can't help himself. Self control of a 5 year old.
IBTL
-
Weird that Canada doesn’t seem to have a mental health dilemma on their hands. Oh, well. Must be all the thoughts and prayers that are working. Lock it
-
Weird that Canada doesn’t seem to have a mental health dilemma on their hands. Oh, well. Must be all the thoughts and prayers that are working. Lock it
Never heard that one before Rico, any new material?
-
Never heard that one before Rico, any new material?
No
-
Canada has responded to the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde by making it illegal to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada.
They also will launch a mandatory buy-back of assault-style rifles, allow for repeal of gun licenses for people involved in acts of domestic violence, create a "red flag" law to keep or get guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people, and require rifle magazines to be permanently altered so they can never hold more than five rounds.
https://apnews.com/article/politics-justin-trudeau-canada-gun-violence-89cd6e183a067632056fb89f05ed70ba
TORONTO (AP) — Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government introduced legislation Monday that would put a freeze on importing, buying or selling handguns.
“We are capping the number of handguns in this country,” Trudeau said.
The regulations to halt the growth of personally owned handguns is expected to be enacted this fall.
“It will be illegal to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” the prime minister said. Families of shooting victims joined him at a press conference in Ottawa.
Canada already has plans to ban 1,500 types of military-style firearms and offer a mandatory buyback program that will begin at the end of the year. Trudeau said if someone really wants to keep their assault weapon it will be made completely inoperable.
Canada already expanded background checks.
Trudeau has long had plans to enact tougher gun laws but the introduction of the new measure comes after mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y., this month.
Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino called the legislation the most significant step Canada has taken in a generation.
“Countries that do a good job of controlling guns do a good job of controlling gun violence,” Mendicino said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“In Canada, gun ownership is a privilege not a right,” Blair said. “This is a principal that differentiates ourselves from many other countries in the world, notably our colleagues and friends to the south.”
Canada has had far fewer mass shootings than the U.S. in part because of a lack of easy access to guns, though the U.S. population also is far larger than Canada’s.
Blair noted guns are often smuggled in illegally from the U.S., which he noted has one of the largest small arms arsenals in the world.
The government plans to fight gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border measures. Trudeau said increased funding already helped border officials double the amount of smuggled guns confiscated at the U.S. border.
The government said the bill would also allow for the removal of gun licenses from people involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, such as stalking.
The bill would create a new “red flag” law allowing courts to require that people considered a danger to themselves or others surrender their firearms to police. The government said the measure would guard the safety of those applying through the process, often women in danger of domestic abuse, by protecting their identities.
The government said it will require rifle magazines to be permanently altered so they can never hold more than five rounds and will ban the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines under the Criminal Code.
“Canada can teach us a lot,” tweeted Bruce Heyman, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada under the Obama administration.
Trudeau said his government recognizes the vast majority of Canadians who own guns are responsible but the level of gun violence is unacceptable. Mendicino said they are aware the announcement could lead to a rush to buy guns before the law is enacted and urged Parliament to pass it as soon as possible.
The new measures are assured of passing in Canada’s Parliament as the ruling Liberals and leftist opposition New Democrats have enough votes.
Pierre Poilievre, who is running to be leader of the Conservative party, said law-abiding gun owners should be respected and dangerous criminals should be jailed.
“Other than using firearms for sport shooting and hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives,” Trudeau said. “We need less gun violence.
“We cannot let the gun debate became so polarized that nothing gets done. We cannot let that happen in our country. This is about freedom. People should be free to go to the supermarket, their school or their place of worship without fear.”
Similar to what Australia did, and the results were dramatic. It can't happen here, currently, but there is a lot that we actually could do that would lead to a huge improvement.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-woman-killed-man-who-fired-rifle-into-party-crowd/2022/05/26/946221c2-dd27-11ec-bc35-a91d0a94923b_story.html
An example of a good girl with a gun killing a bad guy with a gun. Since it was pointed out that this never happens in one of the previously locked threads. This woman saved a bunch of lives and she deserves equal amount of media coverage as the evil maniacs who commit mass murder.
-
Since it was pointed out that this never happens in one of the previously locked threads.
No one said that.
-
He can't help himself. Self control of a 5 year old.
IBTL
Speaking of self-control…, check the mirror.
-
No one said that.
Come on Fluff, we know the these threads are just for people to yell the same thing over and over at each other without any sort of deviation from the prior or change in mentality.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-woman-killed-man-who-fired-rifle-into-party-crowd/2022/05/26/946221c2-dd27-11ec-bc35-a91d0a94923b_story.html
An example of a good girl with a gun killing a bad guy with a gun. Since it was pointed out that this never happens in one of the previously locked threads. This woman saved a bunch of lives and she deserves equal amount of media coverage as the evil maniacs who commit mass murder.
The world needs less guns
-
The world needs less guns
I don’t disagree and am fine with an assault rifle ban but think a bigger impact on preventing future mass shootings is a magazine capacity restriction. Having never shot an AR style rifle from what I’ve read and been told it’s still one bullet for every pull of the trigger so imo we’re better off making it harder/more time consuming to fire off 100s of rounds like in Uvalde to limit the carnage.
-
Similar to what Australia did, and the results were dramatic. It can't happen here, currently, but there is a lot that we actually could do that would lead to a huge improvement.
We obviously can't do a comprehensive law like Canada's because ... well ... because.
But we absolutely could pass a law with some of the elements of Canada's if enough congresspeople decide they value human life as much as they value the money they receive from the gun lobby.
am fine with an assault rifle ban but think a bigger impact on preventing future mass shootings is a magazine capacity restriction. Having never shot an AR style rifle from what I’ve read and been told it’s still one bullet for every pull of the trigger so imo we’re better off making it harder/more time consuming to fire off 100s of rounds like in Uvalde to limit the carnage.
Sure. Either of those would be a nice step forward from America's current almost-any-gun-for-almost-anyone policy. Thanks for the contribution.
-
Apparently this psycho enjoyed carrying bloodied dead cats around in plastic bags. Just your average shts and grins hobby. There were a number of red flags and they were all over the place. Now, I think it's ridiculous he was easily able to purchase these weapons for his 18th birthday but his parents and those who knew him had ample evidence he needed immediate psychological intervention/help.
-
Apparently this psycho enjoyed carrying bloodied dead cats around in plastic bags. Just your average shts and grins hobby. There were a number of red flags and they were all over the place. Now, I think it's ridiculous he was easily able to purchase these weapons for his 18th birthday but his parents and those who knew him had ample evidence he needed immediate psychological intervention/help.
Do you know how much healthcare costs in this country. Maybe we could start there. Medicare for all, especially mental health care, so that people aren't afraid to get help when they need it, out of fear they will be bankrupt.
It is cheaper to arm yourself as a small militia in this country than to go to the ER.
-
Do you know how much healthcare costs in this country. Maybe we could start there. Medicare for all, especially mental health care, so that people aren't afraid to get help when they need it, out of fear they will be bankrupt.
It is cheaper to arm yourself as a small militia in this country than to go to the ER.
That's conflating issues. Is healthcare, specifically mental healthcare, an issue? Yes. Is justifying away the behavior of mentally ill individuals with "oh its too expensive", when its not been explicitly stated by the family, a valid response? No.
Nobody is going bankrupt for pursuing optional care. That's just an excuse. "I'm scared of going bankrupt from getting therapy for my mentally troubled child" is very different than "I'm scared of going bankrupt from cancer treatment/an accident/life saving surgery". Its shoe horning one aspect of a topic into another.
His mother came out in the days following and said some crap like "He had his reasons for doing what he did. Please don't judge him". There is grief and disbelief, and then there is a pattern ignored by poor parenting. It can be both.
But yes, he should have never been able to get anywhere near a gun, no matter what healthcare costs.
-
Do you know how much healthcare costs in this country. Maybe we could start there. Medicare for all, especially mental health care, so that people aren't afraid to get help when they need it, out of fear they will be bankrupt.
It is cheaper to arm yourself as a small militia in this country than to go to the ER.
You do realize that Medicare doesn't cover everything, right. That's why seniors need to purchase Medicare supplements. Which are costly, especially on fixed income.
-
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/453/628/a50.gif)
-
Speaking of self-control…, check the mirror.
🤡🤡
-
Nobody is going bankrupt for pursuing optional care. That's just an excuse. "I'm scared of going bankrupt from getting therapy for my mentally troubled child" is very different than "I'm scared of going bankrupt from cancer treatment/an accident/life saving surgery". Its shoe horning one aspect of a topic into another.
There are absolutely people who can't afford therapy for their mentally troubled child. I have no idea if that was the case in Uvalde, but it is not accurate to say that everyone who needs therapy can afford it.
-
Come on Fluff, we know the these threads are just for people to yell the same thing over and over at each other without any sort of deviation from the prior or change in mentality.
I doubt these threads are changing anyone's mind, but I have seen posters whose positions on gun control have shifted from the right towards the left over the years.
-
Apparently this psycho enjoyed carrying bloodied dead cats around in plastic bags. Just your average shts and grins hobby. There were a number of red flags and they were all over the place. Now, I think it's ridiculous he was easily able to purchase these weapons for his 18th birthday but his parents and those who knew him had ample evidence he needed immediate psychological intervention/help.
Red flag laws.
No long guns until 21.
Boom.
-
You do realize that Medicare doesn't cover everything, right. That's why seniors need to purchase Medicare supplements. Which are costly, especially on fixed income.
Many supplements have zero $ premiums while still providing Rx and out patient coverage.
-
Correct. Insurance may cover it, but access to covered providers is often scarce. And if you go outside that network, you're paying out of pocket. Huge issue, especially for children. And even worse with the pandemic.
There are absolutely people who can't afford therapy for their mentally troubled child. I have no idea if that was the case in Uvalde, but it is not accurate to say that everyone who needs therapy can afford it.
-
There are absolutely people who can't afford therapy for their mentally troubled child. I have no idea if that was the case in Uvalde, but it is not accurate to say that everyone who needs therapy can afford it.
I never said everyone can. I did say people aren't avoiding it over "fear of bankruptcy". I didn't go to a pair of awesome bachelor parties in my mid 20s cause I couldn't afford it. I didn't avoid them cause I feared bankruptcy. You don't start going to therapy and then all of a sudden you're on the brink of bankruptcy a month later.
But on the other hand, I don't think its justified to react to someone who was clearly mentally troubled and had myriad red flags with "well healthcare is too expensive in this country, what were they supposed to do" without further evidence like them being flagged for therapy and the family discontinuing due to lack of funds. Just like you can't always just blame parents and absolve the system, you can't always snap blame the system and absolve parents.
Thats all I was saying.
I doubt these threads are changing anyone's mind, but I have seen posters whose positions on gun control have shifted from the right towards the left over the years.
Sure, opinions and positions always change. Mine have on a number of things over the years. But I have GREAT doubt that those shifts were due to the crap flinging and redundant posting here.
-
Many supplements have zero $ premiums while still providing Rx and out patient coverage.
Ah, a fan of Medicare Advantage plans. That's pretty republican of you, William.
-
Red flag laws.
No long guns until 21.
Boom.
No weapons of war.
-
I never said everyone can. I did say people aren't avoiding it over "fear of bankruptcy". I didn't go to a pair of awesome bachelor parties in my mid 20s cause I couldn't afford it. I didn't avoid them cause I feared bankruptcy. You don't start going to therapy and then all of a sudden you're on the brink of bankruptcy a month later.
I don't want to get into any of the arguments besides the mental health issue. But you are wrong in saying people don't avoid therapy because of a "fear of bankruptcy". There are a lot of people that a single health visit will bankrupt them. They avoid all healthcare, including mental healthcare because it is unaffordable.
I know of students who have committed suicide because they couldn't afford mental health care or were ashamed at how much the cost was bankrupting their families, or avoided therapy because they had no money to pay for it...food or medicine...food or therapy.
-
I never said everyone can. I did say people aren't avoiding it over "fear of bankruptcy". I didn't go to a pair of awesome bachelor parties in my mid 20s cause I couldn't afford it. I didn't avoid them cause I feared bankruptcy. You don't start going to therapy and then all of a sudden you're on the brink of bankruptcy a month later.
But on the other hand, I don't think its justified to react to someone who was clearly mentally troubled and had myriad red flags with "well healthcare is too expensive in this country, what were they supposed to do" without further evidence like them being flagged for therapy and the family discontinuing due to lack of funds. Just like you can't always just blame parents and absolve the system, you can't always snap blame the system and absolve parents.
This is fair. I think obviously every situation is different (except one common denominator - pew pew - in all these cases) and we can't blame failings or the costs of the mental health system without knowing more information.
That said, you're willing to accept that people will fear bankruptcy over funding for some health care - cancer treatment, in your example - but not for mental health treatment. Why?
-
You do realize that Medicare doesn't cover everything, right. That's why seniors need to purchase Medicare supplements. Which are costly, especially on fixed income.
Ah, a fan of Medicare Advantage plans. That's pretty republican of you, William.
What dafuque is your problem? I only pointed out not all Medicare plans are as costly as you posted.
He can't help himself. Self control of a 5 year old.
IBTL
-
This is fair. I think obviously every situation is different (except one common denominator - pew pew - in all these cases) and we can't blame failings or the costs of the mental health system without knowing more information.
That said, you're willing to accept that people will fear bankruptcy over funding for some health care - cancer treatment, in your example - but not for mental health treatment. Why?
Because, imo, cancer treatment or severe accident care is a 5/6 figure bomb of a bill dropped on you. Mental health care, not saying it can't be pricey, but isn't debilitating immediately. I, and others in my family and friends, have had to pay for therapy out of pocket or out of network in the past, and it can be pricey, without a doubt. But not in a "thousands of dollars immediately with a billing cycle or two" pricey. Like if you had to Uber to work due to a lack of public transportation available versus you have to buy a new car to get to work otherwise you can't make it next week.
I'm obviously not operating in the extremes of someone who can't afford any medical care at all, period, like Forgetful was saying.
As I mentioned before, unless there was a theme of "the shooter was in therapy, but his family could no longer afford, his therapy lapsed, and this happened" it just seems a divergent path to counter any talk of red flags or "why wasn't this person in therapy" with "well its just too expensive" straight away.
(This isn't in any way meant to be a defense of the way this country approaches mental health or how its costed)
-
Apparently this psycho enjoyed carrying bloodied dead cats around in plastic bags. Just your average shts and grins hobby. There were a number of red flags and they were all over the place. Now, I think it's ridiculous he was easily able to purchase these weapons for his 18th birthday but his parents and those who knew him had ample evidence he needed immediate psychological intervention/help.
Yessir: Red-Flag Law, my friend. Should be easy peasy because it's one a huge majority of Americans favor.
And yessir: If you can't legally buy a beer until you're 21, you shouldn't be able to legally buy a gun until you're 21 either. Some might argue that younger people would find a way to get guns anyway, and I'm sure some would. But the two most recent high-profile mass murderers specifically waited until they were they were of legal age (18) to get their guns even though I'm sure either or both could have found a way to get 'em at 17. Maybe a mandate till 21 would have made both of them wait at least a while longer, and maybe they would have gotten mental help or been red-flagged (or both) in the interim (if a red-flag law existed).
Such common sense, Muggs. It's hard to believe any person would be against laws like these that would save the lives we all consider so precious.
I doubt these threads are changing anyone's mind, but I have seen posters whose positions on gun control have shifted from the right towards the left over the years.
Yep. I'm pretty sure that both Muggsy and pacesarrow02 are quite right of you and me on most issues, and yet between them they have shown support for a red-flag law, a no-buy-till-21 law, a magazine-capacity law and a ban on assault-rifle-type weapons. Maybe they've always been for such things, but maybe they've evolved on the issue. Either way, I applaud them for wanting to save lives by making it less easy to get guns.
We've have had seven topics on gun violence locked in the last few weeks. I would think you'd get the hint that starting another one would be a bad idea.
It's too important an issue -- literally life or death, and for the most vulnerable among us. So #8 it is (if your count was accurate).
If it gets locked, it gets locked. I trust the mods.
-
And yessir: If you can't legally buy a beer until you're 21, you shouldn't be able to legally buy a gun until you're 21 either. Some might argue that younger people would find a way to get guns anyway, and I'm sure some would. But the two most recent high-profile mass murderers specifically waited until they were they were of legal age (18) to get their guns even though I'm sure either or both could have found a way to get 'em at 17. Maybe a mandate till 21 would have made both of them wait at least a while longer, and maybe they would have gotten mental help or been red-flagged (or both) in the interim (if a red-flag law existed).
Such common sense, Muggs. It's hard to believe any person would be against laws like these that would save the lives we all consider so precious.
So it's common sense for an 18-19-20 year-old American to serve in the U.S. military, often being highly trained in the use of guns and other more dangerous weapons, but not able to buy a gun of any kind?
-
Sure, opinions and positions always change. Mine have on a number of things over the years. But I have GREAT doubt that those shifts were due to the crap flinging and redundant posting here.
Maybe. But I wouldn't discount them entirely. There's usually thoughtful discussions intermingled with the crap flinging and redundant posting. I have never had my position changed by a scoop thread, but I certainly have learned new things and considered alternative perspectives that I hadn't previously heard before.
-
So it's common sense for an 18-19-20 year-old American to serve in the U.S. military, often being highly trained in the use of guns and other more dangerous weapons, but not able to buy a gun of any kind?
Well, personally I question if we should be having 18-20 year olds serving in the military. But I think there are two key differences here. First, the 18-20 year olds in the military are being highly trained as you pointed out, whereas other 18-20 year olds can just waltz into their local Texas WalMart and buy themselves an assault weapon with no previous training. If we passed a law that required additional training for gun owners, I'd be comfortable waiving that training for military members given the training they already receive. Second, military weapons have a massive amount of oversight. Private weapons? Virtually no oversight.
-
Yep. I'm pretty sure that both Muggsy and pacesarrow02 are quite right of you and me on most issues, and yet between them they have shown support for a red-flag law, a no-buy-till-21 law, a magazine-capacity law and a ban on assault-rifle-type weapons. Maybe they've always been for such things, but maybe they've evolved on the issue. Either way, I applaud them for wanting to save lives by making it less easy to get guns.
People say they are for red flag laws and then vote for people who are against them.
That is why we don’t get the laws we need.
-
So it's common sense for an 18-19-20 year-old American to serve in the U.S. military, often being highly trained in the use of guns and other more dangerous weapons, but not able to buy a gun of any kind?
Please refer to TAMU's response, as I would have said what he did (though probably not as eloquently).
Mandatory training before legal gun ownership ... there's another one I hope we all can agree on!
-
So it's common sense for an 18-19-20 year-old American to serve in the U.S. military, often being highly trained in the use of guns and other more dangerous weapons, but not able to buy a gun of any kind?
Let's also allow 18-20 year olds to acquire anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers and armored vehicles since some of them are highly trained in their use in the military.
Or, maybe the real common sense here is to recognize that some things can serve a military purpose but not a civilian one.
-
What dafuque is your problem? I only pointed out not all Medicare plans are as costly as you posted.
Chill, dude. Sorry you spilled something on your lefty card. It will be ok.
-
So it's common sense for an 18-19-20 year-old American to serve in the U.S. military, often being highly trained in the use of guns and other more dangerous weapons, but not able to buy a gun of any kind?
Don't under-21 members of the military have the legal ability to drink on bases despite the universal 21-yr old drinking age?
-
Would a red flag law have worked here? Ihavent lloked at his past behavior closely, but if he wasnt in treatment, and he hadnt been arrested for any crime, how would have the red flag law been used? Me personally, I think everyone who wants a gun should get a psych eval along with a written test, and a pass a practical exam. Run 100 yard dash to get the heart rate up and have to score a certain amout on the shooting portion.
-
Let's also allow 18-20 year olds to acquire anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers and armored vehicles since some of them are highly trained in their use in the military.
Or, maybe the real common sense here is to recognize that some things can serve a military purpose but not a civilian one.
Id almost argue that military membership/experience would qualify someone to own under the theoretical new 21 year old age limit. (Same way farm kids in rural states can get drivers licenses under 16.) Cause they would have the experience and training necessary to know and understand guns. The kind of training people over the age of 21 without military experience should have to have upon purchase.
That wouldn't free them to have an AR-15 though. Just like an trained and experienced race car driver isn't free to drive their race car down the highway.
-
Would a red flag law have worked here? Ihavent lloked at his past behavior closely, but if he wasnt in treatment, and he hadnt been arrested for any crime, how would have the red flag law been used? Me personally, I think everyone who wants a gun should get a psych eval along with a written test, and a pass a practical exam. Run 100 yard dash to get the heart rate up and have to score a certain amout on the shooting portion.
Maybe?
In most states where red flag law exists, there's no requirement of an arrest or current mental health treatment. Just a credible (as determined by a court) complaint from a family member, police or someone else that the weapon-owner is showing warning signs of violence.
Obviously the key to any red flag law succeeding is someone reporting the "red flag" behavior.
In this case, there were many, many such red flags. Whether someone would have reported them, had there been a law in Texas, we'll never know. But had police or a family member gone to court with the information we now know, I would not be surprised if the kid's guns weren't taken away.
But again, it all comes down to someone making the report.
FWIW, experts in these things say the large majority of mass shooters give away multiple red flags to multiple people before carrying it out.
-
Yessir: Red-Flag Law, my friend. Should be easy peasy because it's one a huge majority of Americans favor.
And yessir: If you can't legally buy a beer until you're 21, you shouldn't be able to legally buy a gun until you're 21 either. Some might argue that younger people would find a way to get guns anyway, and I'm sure some would. But the two most recent high-profile mass murderers specifically waited until they were they were of legal age (18) to get their guns even though I'm sure either or both could have found a way to get 'em at 17. Maybe a mandate till 21 would have made both of them wait at least a while longer, and maybe they would have gotten mental help or been red-flagged (or both) in the interim (if a red-flag law existed).
No guns, no booze, no smokes until 21. Totally agree. Add no voting to to the list and it’s pretty well complete.
-
Lenny, with none of these rights (including no voting rights) would you still allow the government to draft 18-19-20 year olds into the military?
-
Why don't they just cooperate?
@AaronKatersky
The Uvalde Police Department and the Uvalde ISD police force are no longer cooperating with the @TxDPS investigation into the massacre at Robb Elementary and the state’s review of police response, multiple law enforcement sources told @ABC
w/ @JoshMargolin
-
Why don't they just cooperate?
@AaronKatersky
The Uvalde Police Department and the Uvalde ISD police force are no longer cooperating with the @TxDPS investigation into the massacre at Robb Elementary and the state’s review of police response, multiple law enforcement sources told @ABC
w/ @JoshMargolin
Do they have potential liability for their failure to act? Civil suits and otherwise? Its clearly desperate CYA
-
The Supreme Court today blocked a Texas law that would ban large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express. Writing for the dissent, Justice Alito said he was skeptical of the argument that the social media companies have editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment like that enjoyed by newspapers and other traditional publishers:
“It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.”
OK, now replace that last paragraph with this one regarding the subject of this thread:
"It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of hand-held killing machines that can fire off hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds, should apply to large gun companies."
-
Lenny, with none of these rights (including no voting rights) would you still allow the government to draft 18-19-20 year olds into the military?
Moot point, Brew, since we have an all volunteer military. But I never got the old enough to serve, old enough to <fill in the blank>. While I will concede that young men and women tend to grow up quicker in the military than they do in civilian life, carving out a special set of rights or privileges specifically for them probably wouldn’t be either constitutional nor advisable.
-
While I will concede that young men and women tend to grow up quicker in the military than they do in civilian life,
My veteran family members would LOL at that suggestion.
-
The Supreme Court today blocked a Texas law that would ban large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express. Writing for the dissent, Justice Alito said he was skeptical of the argument that the social media companies have editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment like that enjoyed by newspapers and other traditional publishers:
“It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.”
So much for strict constructionism.
-
Do they have potential liability for their failure to act? Civil suits and otherwise? Its clearly desperate CYA
They're cops, so they ought to be covered by qualified immunity.
-
My veteran family members would LOL at that suggestion.
Based on?
They think a 20 year old active duty military member is less grown up than a 20 year old college kid? Than a 20 year old that is not in college and still lives at home working whatever job?
I went to college with a couple guys who were in their early 20s as freshmen, after service, and they weren't even comparable maturity wise to the 22-23 year old seniors I knew.
There are exceptions of course, but I don't think thats a silly notion, unless you reflexively think everything Lenny says is dumb.
-
So much for strict constructionism.
Several of them are strict constructionists ... as long as being so happens to align with their beliefs.
-
My veteran family members would LOL at that suggestion.
As a vet myself, I strongly disagree with them (assuming you’re accurately stating their opinions).
-
Based on?
They think a 20 year old active duty military member is less grown up than a 20 year old college kid? Than a 20 year old that is not in college and still lives at home working whatever job?
I went to college with a couple guys who were in their early 20s as freshmen, after service, and they weren't even comparable maturity wise to the 22-23 year old seniors I knew.
There are exceptions of course, but I don't think thats a silly notion, unless you reflexively think everything Lenny says is dumb.
They would say that the idea that the military makes you more “grown up” is a little overrated. You probably can follow directions better but beyond that, they do a lot of the same dumb things that non military do.
That being said, I don’t think gun use should be restricted for 18-21 year olds just like I don’t think alcohol use should be restricted either.
-
As a vet myself, I strongly disagree with them (assuming you’re accurately stating their opinions).
I am. And it might just be an age thing.
-
Don't under-21 members of the military have the legal ability to drink on bases despite the universal 21-yr old drinking age?
no, not from my time at least 5 years ago. Bars and stores still carded and you had to be 21. On the idea of strict gun access, what about annual taxes on guns one owns or higher insurance rates for owners, similar to a smoker?
-
23 people shot and killed in Philly and Chicago over the weekend.
-
23 people shot and killed in Philly and Chicago over the weekend.
Thanks!
-
Thanks!
No problem. The preliminary count is 156 dead across the country.
-
23 people shot and killed in Philly and Chicago over the weekend.
Yay guns.
-
This may be off topic but has anyone ever noticed how many docs Netflix has on serial killers and murderers? We have a lot of probs.
-
This may be off topic but has anyone ever noticed how docs Netflix has on serial killers and murderers? We have a lot of probs.
Because people watch them or because they have so much source material?
-
Because people watch them or because they have so much source material?
I don't know but it's a bit jarring. I mean there are countless programs about these scumbags.
-
So Canada, not having America’s problems, is working on solutions to America’s problems, when America won’t even do anything about America’s problems? Always good to be reactive rather than proactive I guess. But in reality, I’d love for America to be reactive. We won’t even be that.
USA! USA! NRA!
-
Y'all got da House and da Senate. Go for it with no excuses, aina?
-
Y'all got da House and da Senate. Go for it with no excuses, aina?
Lol
-
Y'all got da House and da Senate. Go for it with no excuses, aina?
Y’all? Who here is a Senator or Representative?
-
You da people, hey?
-
I don't know but it's a bit jarring. I mean there are countless programs about these scumbags.
If you find that jarring, you should go read some of the pulp true crime novels and magazines from the 40s and 50s.
Which is to say, our fascination with killers and crime as entertainment is nothing new.
-
If you find that jarring, you should go read some of the pulp true crime novels and magazines from the 40s and 50s.
Which is to say, our fascination with killers and crime as entertainment is nothing new.
I think there's a distinction between fiction and true assheads/scumsuckers.
-
I think there's a distinction between fiction and true assheads/scumsuckers.
Who said anything about fiction?
-
I think there's a distinction between fiction and true assheads/scumsuckers.
People went NUTS for the Black Dahlia murder in LA in the late 40s. The media and public fervor for it was insatiable for awhile.
In Cold Blood helped make Truman Capote a superstar.
Its far from anything new. The public's interest in the macabre goes back to the days of public executions, aka thousands of years
-
People went NUTS for the Black Dahlia murder in LA in the late 40s. The media and public fervor for it was insatiable for awhile.
In Cold Blood helped make Truman Capote a superstar.
Okay. But with instant access these days you can see these stories 24/7.
Its far from anything new. The public's interest in the macabre goes back to the days of public executions, aka thousands of years
-
How to Prevent Gun Massacres? Look Around the World
Australia, Britain, Canada, and other countries have enacted reforms that turned mass shootings into rare, aberrational events rather than everyday occurrences.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-to-prevent-gun-massacres-look-around-the-world
"Just over a year ago, Australia marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the transformation brought about by the Port Arthur rampage. In a country of roughly twenty-seven million people, there are still a lot of guns in private hands—in 2020, there were an estimated 3.5 million. But the number of mass shootings, defined as attacks in which at least four people are killed, has declined precipitously. In the decade before Port Arthur, there had been eleven such incidents. In the quarter century since, there have been three, the worst of which involved a farmer in Western Australia killing six family members.
What happened in Australia provides a concrete example of how a healthy democracy can confront powerful interests to introduce rational policies that clearly benefit the country. The Australian success story also reminds us what a dismal outlier the United States remains in terms of gun violence and political will even in the face of the most gruesome and abhorrent of all mass shootings: the killings of schoolchildren.
The evidence couldn’t be more plain. Other countries haven’t entirely eliminated mass shootings, but they have enacted reforms that helped turn them into rare, aberrational events rather than the everyday occurrences they are in this country. Is it any wonder that much of the rest of the world considers us mad? From afar, the evidence suggests that we are. Up close, however, the real problem isn’t mass insanity. It’s political capture and a system that, aided by the filibuster, entrenches the status quo and prevents desperately needed reforms. Until we tackle these systemic problems, nothing will change."
-
On the idea of strict gun access, what about annual taxes on guns one owns or higher insurance rates for owners, similar to a smoker?
This is an interesting idea. Although as opposed to taxes, I'd go more the car route: Require liability insurance per gun owned.
But alas, neither idea will probably ever be supported.
-
This is an interesting idea. Although as opposed to taxes, I'd go more the car route: Require liability insurance per gun owned.
But alas, neither idea will probably ever be supported.
Not sure this does anything other then penalize legal law abiding gun owners. I think the goal of any legislation needs to be solely focused on preventing gun related crimes/deaths. Anyone willing to commit murder will have no problem not paying a higher insurance premium or even reporting they have a gun for that matter.
-
This is an interesting idea. Although as opposed to taxes, I'd go more the car route: Require liability insurance per gun owned.
But alas, neither idea will probably ever be supported.
The car analogy is apt in many ways.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3d/dc/Vhg0r1k4_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/Vhg0r1k4)
-
No problem. The preliminary count is 156 dead across the country.
Thoughts and prayers.
-
Not sure this does anything other then penalize legal law abiding gun owners.
Salvador Ramos was a legal, law abiding gun owner. And then he wasn't.
Same with Stephen Paddock. Omar Mateen. Seung-Hui Cho. Patrick Crusius. James Holmes. And so on and so forth.
-
Not sure this does anything other then penalize legal law abiding gun owners.
I mean, I'm a legal, law abiding vehicle owner, and never hit anyone with my vehicle to use liability insurance. Why am I being penalized?
-
I mean, I'm a legal, law abiding vehicle owner, and never hit anyone with my vehicle to use liability insurance. Why am I being penalized?
So will we be seeing stupid gun insurance commercials (Geico, Progressive, Liberty Mutual)? In all seriousness, make sure they have gun insurance BEFORE they are allowed to buy a gun, and automatic seizure for insurance lapses. Oh, and can someone other than the big insurance companies get the profits.
-
So will we be seeing stupid gun insurance commercials (Geico, Progressive, Liberty Mutual)? I
If someone takes out the Geico gecko, Flo from Progressive, and Limu Emu and Doug, I'm on completely board.
-
If someone takes out the Geico gecko, Flo from Progressive, and Limu Emu and Doug, I'm on completely board.
And yet you'd led the Aflac duck live on?
-
And yet you'd led the Aflac duck live on?
Didn't he just die?
-
The car analogy is apt in many ways.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3d/dc/Vhg0r1k4_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/Vhg0r1k4)
There are so many issues with this illustration.
1) Carmaker Legally Liable for its Product: Not if the driver crashes it and kills someone. Only liable if the car or its parts fail causing an accident. Would/should this be any different for a gun maker?
2) I'll summarize the rest here: How many drivers ignore some or all of the legal requirements? How are they caught? How are they penalized? Do the police have the resources to enforce all of these requirements? How would violators of the proposed gun laws/requirements be caught? How would they be enforced? How would they be penalized?
It seems obvious that anyone who is willing to break the law to the extent that they're going to kill people with a gun aren't going to give a sh!t whether the gun they can get their hands on is legal. Good luck enforcing most of the restrictions in advance of any shootings.
-
There are so many issues with this illustration.
1) Carmaker Legally Liable for its Product: Not if the driver crashes it and kills someone. Only liable if the car or its parts fail causing an accident. Would/should this be any different for a gun maker?
2) I'll summarize the rest here: How many drivers ignore some or all of the legal requirements? How are they caught? How are they penalized? Do the police have the resources to enforce all of these requirements? How would violators of the proposed gun laws/requirements be caught? How would they be enforced? How would they be penalized?
It seems obvious that anyone who is willing to break the law to the extent that they're going to kill people with a gun aren't going to give a sh!t whether the gun they can get their hands on is legal. Good luck enforcing most of the restrictions in advance of any shootings.
blah, blah, blah ... excuse, excuse, excuse
Yet many other countries have had success doing many of these same things. But you apparently think that since no law can be perfect, they can never been enacted.
-
The laws against murdering people are working just great, aren't they?
-
The laws against murdering people are working just great, aren't they?
Wait then. Is it your contention that nothing should change with gun control, and all is fine?
And perhaps we should even get rid of laws against murder? Because obviously they don't work either?
-
No, clearly all is not fine. I'm saying that all this talk about more restrictions likely won't do much to stop the mayhem with most of the gun-owning Americans who are killing people. They ignore the laws. They will ignore any new laws. Whatever new gun control measures are considered need to focus on those who are committing the crimes, and that is going to be really hard to do.
-
There are so many issues with this illustration.
1) Carmaker Legally Liable for its Product: Not if the driver crashes it and kills someone. Only liable if the car or its parts fail causing an accident. Would/should this be any different for a gun maker?
2) I'll summarize the rest here: How many drivers ignore some or all of the legal requirements? How are they caught? How are they penalized? Do the police have the resources to enforce all of these requirements? How would violators of the proposed gun laws/requirements be caught? How would they be enforced? How would they be penalized?
It seems obvious that anyone who is willing to break the law to the extent that they're going to kill people with a gun aren't going to give a sh!t whether the gun they can get their hands on is legal. Good luck enforcing most of the restrictions in advance of any shootings.
Agree with your #1.
Regarding your #2, is your suggestion that no laws matter because some people will ignore them? Seat belt laws are very difficult to enforce, yet since they went into effect we went from a vast minority of drivers wearing seat belts to a vast majority of them wearing seat belts. Yes, some drivers still don't wear seat belts and yes, they more often than not don't get caught. Yet the presence of the law completely changed the culture around seat belts and has had great success decreasing the number of unbuckled drivers.
-
Whatever new gun control measures are considered need to focus on those who are committing the crimes, and that is going to be really hard to do.
Regardless of anyone's opinions of what could, or should be done, it's only "really hard" because some of our lawmakers are too chicken-sh*t to do anything.
-
No, clearly all is not fine. I'm saying that all this talk about more restrictions likely won't do much to stop the mayhem with most of the gun-owning Americans who are killing people. They ignore the laws. They will ignore any new laws. Whatever new gun control measures are considered need to focus on those who are committing the crimes, and that is going to be really hard to do.
Because of American exceptionalism? Restrictions in other countries have done a lot to reduce these crimes. Why would it be different here?
I get that you are against any restrictions - but that doesn't mean they won't work.
-
No, clearly all is not fine. I'm saying that all this talk about more restrictions likely won't do much to stop the mayhem with most of the gun-owning Americans who are killing people. They ignore the laws. They will ignore any new laws. Whatever new gun control measures are considered need to focus on those who are committing the crimes, and that is going to be really hard to do.
This ignores several realities.
If you ban certain types of guns, it will create several barriers that a prospective shooter must be able to overcome in order to obtain the banned weapon. First, production of banned gun would massively decrease, lowering the total number of these weapons available. Second, it will mean that these weapons will no longer be able to be purchased legally. This means that a prospective shooter would have to find someone selling illegal weapons. Do you know how to get ahold of someone selling illegal weapons? Most people don't and while some would figure it out, I would argue that many shooters have significant mental health problems that would keep them from having the determination or know how to seek these individuals out. Next, say they locate an illegal weapons dealer, the cost of an illegal weapon is going to be significantly higher than a legal one you can but from your local gun shop. So you've created an economic barrier between prospective shooters and their assault weapons. You've also created a dangerous buying situation for the prospective shooter. They aren't dealing with a walmart employee, they are dealing with a criminal who may rip off or even harm the prospective shooter. Not only that, but there is also the risk of the dealer being an undercover police officer or target of a raid. This would give the police the ability to intervene during the purchase of an illegal weapon, long before any innocents die. Further, this process would also take more time than it currently does in many states, giving more people time to notice red flags and potentially intervene or for the prospective shooter to lose their will.
This is just some of the ways that gun regulation would create barriers between a prospective and realized mass shooter. Would some shooters still find a way to purchase these weapons and carry out a mass shooting? Absolutely. Would the number of and casualties per mass shooting also go down? I would say undoubtedly.
Secondary and tertiary prevention are important, but primary prevention is the only way to stop gun violence without anyone being harmed. You need to engage in all three levels.
-
No, clearly all is not fine. I'm saying that all this talk about more restrictions likely won't do much to stop the mayhem with most of the gun-owning Americans who are killing people. They ignore the laws. They will ignore any new laws. Whatever new gun control measures are considered need to focus on those who are committing the crimes, and that is going to be really hard to do.
Even though many of these things have reduced mass shootings in other places.
Which is a point brought up here repeatedly…and ignored.
-
Id argue that "gun loving" Americans by and large arent the ones doing the killing. The ridiculed (not necessarily without reason) people posing with their 50 guns arent the ones doing the mass shootings. However, the need to completely unfetter their hobbies, interests, and/or fetishes are what provides the access to the people who do. And thats the issue.
The irony for me is that the majority of gun legislation, aside from outlawing AR-15s or whatnot, would not prevent them from having their Lord of War arsenal, just make it SLIGHTLY more time consuming to compile.
-
Id argue that "gun loving" Americans by and large arent the ones doing the killing. The ridiculed (not necessarily without reason) people posing with their 50 guns arent the ones doing the mass shootings. However, the need to completely unfetter their hobbies, interests, and/or fetishes are what provides the access to the people who do. And thats the issue.
The irony for me is that the majority of gun legislation, aside from outlawing AR-15s or whatnot, would not prevent them from having their Lord of War arsenal, just make it SLIGHTLY more time consuming to compile.
Agree. This is about keeping them out of the hands of people who could be dangerous.
-
No, clearly all is not fine. I'm saying that all this talk about more restrictions likely won't do much to stop the mayhem with most of the gun-owning Americans who are killing people. They ignore the laws. They will ignore any new laws. Whatever new gun control measures are considered need to focus on those who are committing the crimes, and that is going to be really hard to do.
Oh good, another apostle of the Church of Ziggy Logic. We shouldn't have laws because criminals don't care about laws! So brilliant.
You're right: there is absolutely nothing we can do, as evidenced by every single other western country.
-
The irony for me is that the majority of gun legislation, aside from outlawing AR-15s or whatnot, would not prevent them from having their Lord of War arsenal, just make it SLIGHTLY more time consuming to compile.
Yes, though I would surmise that those willing to jump through all the hoops--training, licensing, insurance, registration, proof of safe storage, etc., are far more likely to actually be responsible gun owners.
-
Oh good, another apostle of the Church of Ziggy Logic. We shouldn't have laws because criminals don't care about laws! So brilliant.
You're right: there is absolutely nothing we can do, as evidenced by every single other western country.
🐷🐷
-
No, clearly all is not fine. I'm saying that all this talk about more restrictions likely won't do much to stop the mayhem with most of the gun-owning Americans who are killing people. They ignore the laws. They will ignore any new laws. Whatever new gun control measures are considered need to focus on those who are committing the crimes, and that is going to be really hard to do.
Honestly replace grenade for AR-15. Do you honestly believe that we should remove restrictions to obtaining those items because restrictions don’t work.
It’s an ease of access issue.
-
Yes, though I would surmise that those willing to jump through all the hoops--training, licensing, insurance, registration, proof of safe storage, etc., are far more likely to actually be responsible gun owners.
Yea, listen, I'm not pro-gun, don't own and probably never will. But I can't help but think that some of the stuff Ive of the misdirected anger/frustration Ive seen lately isn't the right tact.
Posting pictures of people posing with their arsenals like "look at these idiots" or showing gun owners, who may have a bunch of guns, but have no criminal charges, have never been cited for misuse of weapons, etc... like "THESE PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM" isn't the angle, IMO.
We can all agree that we're never getting rid of guns across the board. We can agree that any progress is difficult, so maybe the angle of "you guys have absolutely nothing to worry about with common sense gun legislation, you're responsible" instead of "your hobby kills children" is a better path to a changed collective mindset.
Slippery slope mindset may be a fallacy, but if there is any way to circumvent the preponderance of it, i cant help but hope it could be useful.
-
opioids caused 17 deaths per 100,000 in canada, but what the...just legalize em
guns caused ?(too many) deaths, but what the...make them illegal
-
NM. I meant to say I blame Arbys and mental health.
-
opioids caused 17 deaths per 100,000 in canada, but what the...just legalize em
guns caused ?(too many) deaths, but what the...make them illegal
They did not make guns illegal in Canada. Nor are most suggesting that here.
-
Mr. medical professional seems to think Opioids are illegal.
-
Mr. medical professional seems to think Opioids are illegal.
I mean fentynal and heroin are, and thats what is being floated for decriminalization up north
-
Fentanyl is a commonly used drug in medical procedures.
-
Mr. medical professional seems to think Opioids are illegal.
We sell ‘em like candy in this country.
-
Perhaps he’s implying that something with so much potential for misuse shouldn’t be so easy to get or distribute.
-
Mr. medical professional seems to think Opioids are illegal.
He also apparently doesn't know the difference between legalization and decriminalization
-
Another day. Another mass shooting.
Ho Hum in America.
-
Another day. Another mass shooting.
Ho Hum in America.
How about the mass shootings in Chicago over the weekend that killed way more people? Why don’t these get as much attention?
-
How about the mass shootings in Chicago over the weekend that killed way more people? Why don’t these get as much attention?
It’s all over the news. Sorry you missed it. Perhaps you should pay attention instead of spending so much time building strawmen.
And last I checked, Chicago was in America so I think it is inclusive of Jockey’s statement.
-
It’s all over the news. Sorry you missed it. Perhaps you should pay attention instead of spending so much time building strawmen.
And last I checked, Chicago was in America so I think it is inclusive of Jockey’s statement.
Ok, why do certain “mass” shootings get more attention?
-
Ok, why do certain “mass” shootings get more attention?
Why does it matter? Lots of Americans are dying because of easy access to guns and we aren’t doing anything about it.
-
Yea, listen, I'm not pro-gun, don't own and probably never will. But I can't help but think that some of the stuff Ive of the misdirected anger/frustration Ive seen lately isn't the right tact.
Posting pictures of people posing with their arsenals like "look at these idiots" or showing gun owners, who may have a bunch of guns, but have no criminal charges, have never been cited for misuse of weapons, etc... like "THESE PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM" isn't the angle, IMO.
We can all agree that we're never getting rid of guns across the board. We can agree that any progress is difficult, so maybe the angle of "you guys have absolutely nothing to worry about with common sense gun legislation, you're responsible" instead of "your hobby kills children" is a better path to a changed collective mindset.
Slippery slope mindset may be a fallacy, but if there is any way to circumvent the preponderance of it, i cant help but hope it could be useful.
I mostly agree. The NRA and others have positioned it as "grabbing guns", which isn't true but whips up the fear and anger. The discussion needs to change to gun (and human) safety.
My take on those pictures is slightly different, though. I saw it as portrayals of gun culture, rather than suggesting those people were specifically the problem.
-
Ok, why do certain “mass” shootings get more attention?
Why is mass in quotations? Are you disputing that killing 19 10 year olds with a firearm is a mass shooting?
-
Ok, why do certain “mass” shootings get more attention?
Ok, I'll guess: because mowing down 19 seven to ten year olds is beyond shocking? Because mass murdering people in a supermarket because you listened to Tuckems tell you that you are being replaced is twisted and evil (both the shooter and Tuckems)?
-
Why keep perpetuating the lie that nobody talks about shootings in Chicago? Never mind. We know the answer to that one.
-
Why keep perpetuating the lie that nobody talks about shootings in Chicago? Never mind. We know the answer to that one.
What nobody talks about is the black supremacist driver who mowed down people in Waukesha. Or the black on black gang mass shootings in Chicago every day. Why don’t both get as much attention? We know why, just don’t know why it’s not called both ways.
-
The NYT got their lead wrong on the latest mass murder:
A man carrying a rifle and a handgun opened fire in a medical office building in Tulsa, Okla., on Wednesday afternoon, killing four people and injuring several others before apparently taking his own life in the latest mass shooting to shock the country, the authorities said.
It didn't shock anybody. It's business as usual in Gunmerica.
-
How about the mass shootings in Chicago over the weekend that killed way more people? Why don’t these get as much attention?
You work so hard to remind us black people are bad. Very cute.
-
Everybody talks about it.
-
Everybody talks about it.
It's a classic "I'm chicos, the white victim" strawman.
-
So it's common sense for an 18-19-20 year-old American to serve in the U.S. military, often being highly trained in the use of guns and other more dangerous weapons, but not able to buy a gun of any kind?
Sure... if they want to shoot, join the military. If not, don't.
-
a) make a drug and psych and medical test required before one can get a license to buy a gun (medical test because lots of hunters die of heart attacks due to the exertion of walking while hunting being their only annual exercise)
b) gun license cost $10,000 per gun, per year
c) guns must be stored at a safe storage facility
d) you must apply 2 weeks in advance to get your gun from the storage facility
e) you must return your gun timely to the safe storage facility
f) $100 tax on bullets (each one) and shells UNLESS bought at and used at a licensed range or game expedition
g)Offer $10,000 per gun for return of guns for those who don't want to pay the new gun license fees
After a few years of the above, there will be very few guns, very few shootings, and then we can talk about disarming the police (like most other civil countries) so they stop shooting people.
-
a) make a drug and psych and medical test required before one can get a license to buy a gun (medical test because lots of hunters die of heart attacks due to the exertion of walking while hunting being their only annual exercise)
b) gun license cost $10,000 per gun, per year
c) guns must be stored at a safe storage facility
d) you must apply 2 weeks in advance to get your gun from the storage facility
e) you must return your gun timely to the safe storage facility
f) $100 tax on bullets (each one) and shells UNLESS bought at and used at a licensed range or game expedition
g)Offer $10,000 per gun for return of guns for those who don't want to pay the new gun license fees
After a few years of the above, there will be very few guns, very few shootings, and then we can talk about disarming the police (like most other civil countries) so they stop shooting people.
a) this should be in teal
b) this is not going to do anything to deter or prevent those who want to perpetuate evil with guns
c) your conclusion is a big fallacy-the black market will love you though
if you were really serious about getting positive results, you would be a little bit more serious about remedies most could abide by.
i'd START by increasing the punishments of those who abuse/break the laws we presently have.
1) felons with guns
2) felons with guns in restricted areas.
3) uzi machine guns and machine pistols and the like
4) anyone caught with a gun whose ID has been altered or scraped off
you start with just these 4 things and you will see the number of shootings drop...i said start. until many of the reasonably minded pro gun people see some serious attempts, you will not see anything
"disarming the police" ??? i'm sorry, but this is beyond idiotic. you do realize MUPD was initially disarmed? they became armed for a good reason-for their safety and the increased safety of the students, right?
-
It’s all over the news. Sorry you missed it. Perhaps you should pay attention instead of spending so much time building strawmen.
And last I checked, Chicago was in America so I think it is inclusive of Jockey’s statement.
what we missed was uncle joe and dr jill visiting these mass shootings as well. innocent children getting shot/killed too often in the inner cities due to evil people with guns
-
we need more guns, roQQet. more, more, more!!
-
what we missed was uncle joe and dr jill visiting these mass shootings as well.
I see we found your talking point AND your excuse for inaction. Congrats!!!
-
if you were really serious about getting positive results, you would be a little bit more serious about remedies most could abide by.
i'd START by increasing the punishments of those who abuse/break the laws we presently have.
1) felons with guns
2) felons with guns in restricted areas.
3) uzi machine guns and machine pistols and the like
4) anyone caught with a gun whose ID has been altered or scraped off
you start with just these 4 things and you will see the number of shootings drop...i said start. until many of the reasonably minded pro gun people see some serious attempts, you will not see anything
We already do this. We incarcerate more people than China and Russia combined. By itself, increased incarceration doesn't work. In fact, I'd argue it contributes to the gun problem in places like Chicago. We need to try something else. Plus, how many mass shooters would this have stopped? I can see the argument for why it helps in intercity gun violence (though I think long term it increases it), but I don't think any of the shooters in Buffalo, Uvalde, Las Vegas, Parkland, Orlando, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. had previous arrests for gun related crimes.
Tertiary prevention is important, but it is reactive. It requires that a crime already be committed meaning damage has already been done. We need to look to primary prevention as well.
-
1. Background checks to get a gun license.
2. Allow 18 year olds to buy single shot handguns, rifles and shotguns
3. If they go three years without incident, they can get apply for and get a license for AR-15's and the like
4. Come down hard on illegal gun transfers. Immediate reporting of all guns stolen, etc. Repeat offenders get their license revoked.
5. Give judges the ability to temporarily revoke licenses and have the guns removed from the home.
All of this can be done within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.
-
We already do this. We incarcerate more people than China and Russia combined. By itself, increased incarceration doesn't work. In fact, I'd argue it contributes to the gun problem in places like Chicago. We need to try something else. Plus, how many mass shooters would this have stopped? I can see the argument for why it helps in intercity gun violence (though I think long term it increases it), but I don't think any of the shooters in Buffalo, Uvalde, Las Vegas, Parkland, Orlando, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. had previous arrests for gun related crimes.
Tertiary prevention is important, but it is reactive. It requires that a crime already be committed meaning damage has already been done. We need to look to primary prevention as well.
I think what Rocket is getting at, is that prosecutors drop the gun charge quite often, like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
Edit doing some googling, it looks like at some articles from Philly and Indy, about 1/2 the gun charges are dropped. No, it wont prevent the mass shootings, but it might prevent quite a few other shootings.
-
I think what Rocket is getting at, is that prosecutors drop the gun charge quite often, like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
I don't think that's what Rocket was getting at
-
I don't think that's what Rocket was getting at
What? you don't think Rocket believes the gun charge on Rittenhouse should have stuck?
-
1. Background checks to get a gun license.
2. Allow 18 year olds to buy single shot handguns, rifles and shotguns
3. If they go three years without incident, they can get apply for and get a license for AR-15's and the like
4. Come down hard on illegal gun transfers. Immediate reporting of all guns stolen, etc. Repeat offenders get their license revoked.
5. Give judges the ability to temporarily revoke licenses and have the guns removed from the home.
All of this can be done within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.
This would be a very nice start, 251.
I also like red-flag laws (which I think is kind of where you're going with 5); waiting periods; no guns that can fire off X number of rounds in Y number of seconds (I'm not versed enough to know what's acceptable, but surely there must be a number); no bump stocks.
Also things that wouldn't infringe on 2nd Amendment "well-regulated" rights.
-
1. Background checks to get a gun license.
2. Allow 18 year olds to buy single shot handguns, rifles and shotguns
3. If they go three years without incident, they can get apply for and get a license for AR-15's and the like
4. Come down hard on illegal gun transfers. Immediate reporting of all guns stolen, etc. Repeat offenders get their license revoked.
5. Give judges the ability to temporarily revoke licenses and have the guns removed from the home.
All of this can be done within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.
It would be a start, but what the heck do you need an AR-15 for?
Much easier to just tax guns and ammo into oblivion. No 18 year old could buy a gun if it cost $10k and no-one would be shooting 40 rounds a minute if each one cost $100. At least they would go into the school and shoot just one person because that's all they could afford.. Yes, that is exactly how senseless this whole discussion is!!!
-
How about the mass shootings in Chicago over the weekend that killed way more people? Why don’t these get as much attention?
I'm glad you brought this up.
As you know, more guns in circulation result in higher amounts of gun-related death. This includes mass shootings like schools as well as gang activity.
As you know, gun control measures would hopefully decrease guns in circulation. If nothing else, at least by creating barriers to entry for either legal or illegal obtaining.
So I'm sure you'd agree that we need to implement some amount of gun control to reduce the incidence of gun-related deaths.
Otherwise, we're just going to have to accept the gun-related deaths in our country as a consequence to the freedom of easily obtained guns.
-
It would be a start, but what the heck do you need an AR-15 for?
Much easier to just tax guns and ammo into oblivion. No 18 year old could buy a gun if it cost $10k and no-one would be shooting 40 rounds a minute if each one cost $100. At least they would go into the school and shoot just one person because that's all they could afford.. Yes, that is exactly how senseless this whole discussion is!!!
Because you didn't say AR-15. You said all guns and ammo would be subhect. You just destroyed the hunting industry (something that countries with strict gun control like Canada or the UK still have in plenty).
I'm not pro-gun and agree with basically all of the common sense measures that Fluff suggested (and would be fine with no AR-15s period) but your suggestions are as ridiculous as people on the other side who think nothing should be done at all.
-
I'm glad you brought this up.
As you know, more guns in circulation result in higher amounts of gun-related death. This includes mass shootings like schools as well as gang activity.
As you know, gun control measures would hopefully decrease guns in circulation. If nothing else, at least by creating barriers to entry for either legal or illegal obtaining.
So I'm sure you'd agree that we need to implement some amount of gun control to reduce the incidence of gun-related deaths.
Otherwise, we're just going to have to accept the gun-related deaths in our country as a consequence to the freedom of easily obtained guns.
Right, but Chicago has some of the toughest gun control in the country and clearly that doesn’t matter. It’s a more of a cultural, local policy and politicians and mental health issue. No fathers in the home, no respect for life, etc.
-
Right, but Chicago has some of the toughest gun control in the country and clearly that doesn’t matter. It’s a more of a cultural, local policy and politicians and mental health issue. No fathers in the home, no respect for life, etc.
Do you think most of these guns are coming from Chicago? Or from Indiana which is literally a few stops down on L?
-
Right, but Chicago has some of the toughest gun control in the country and clearly that doesn’t matter.
This old canard.
Chicago's gun laws are remarkably effective at controlling what they can control, i.e. things that occur within the city limits. What they can't control are the gun shops in the suburbs, as well as Indiana, Wisconsin, Mississippi, etc. that are all too happy to participate in the iilegal trafficking of guns in to Chicago, Detroit and other urban areas, where they are used in crimes. More than 60 percent of the guns recovered in criminal investigations in Chicago come from out of state.
It;s not evidence that gun control/Chicago's laws don't work. It's evidence that it needs to be addressed on a federal level.
-
It would be a start, but what the heck do you need an AR-15 for?
Everyone owns a lot of things they don't "need" but they get joy from. If someone wants to responsibly own an AR-15...or ten of them...to show off in pictures or shoot off at ranges, that's fine by me. I would have no interest in that, but others do.
And on top of that, this is where gun control advocates get into trouble and start mentioning ideas that have no potential to be adopted. 98% of the people who own AR-15s aren't the problem. It's keeping them out of the hands of the 2% that's the issue here.
-
Because you didn't say AR-15. You said all guns and ammo would be subhect. You just destroyed the hunting industry (something that countries with strict gun control like Canada or the UK still have in plenty).
I'm not pro-gun and agree with basically all of the common sense measures that Fluff suggested (and would be fine with no AR-15s period) but your suggestions are as ridiculous as people on the other side who think nothing should be done at all.
Brother Wags, and Scoop friends, respectfully,
In my experience living in many countries including UK, Russia, China, Indonesia and Singapore, none of those countries - even the most oppressive ones - have armed police. Why? Because the populace doesn't have guns. Gun crime is almost unheard-of... from theft to murder. (OK, they all have armed units of the police that come out in special cases, but Joe Average Cop has only a nightstick and his/her sense of humor to defuse a situation). Gun control can be done.
Hunting is fine. If a family lives below the poverty level and truly hunts for food, then the taxes on firearms could be waived... like food stamps for guns. But with proof, psycho testing, drug testing and all the other requirements in place for all owners. My South African colleagues - who live in a country with a huge hunting industry but strict gun control - are all subject to inspections and a competency test to own firearms. The Aussie solution worked very well. The point is that it's really truly only in the US where any clown can buy a gun and 100 rounds and go kill people all in the same day. The 2nd amendment does not protect that persons rights because they are not part of a well regulated ANYTHING nor is any other average gun owner.
My point: The US government is not exercising it's right to regulate guns under the 2nd amendment and it needs to or these needless shootings will just continue. Use the drivers license comparison, use the abortion comparison, use whatever you want to get there, but get there and fix it. If WE all have not written to our senators this week with our views then WE are part of the problem. I have written to mine and several others.
-
Everyone owns a lot of things they don't "need" but they get joy from. If someone wants to responsibly own an AR-15...or ten of them...to show off in pictures or shoot off at ranges, that's fine by me. I would have no interest in that, but others do.
If someone wants to show off their rocket launcher in pictures or shoot it off on a range, why not let them?
And on top of that, this is where gun control advocates get into trouble and start mentioning ideas that have no potential to be adopted. 98% of the people who own AR-15s aren't the problem. It's keeping them out of the hands of the 2% that's the issue here.
I mean, we had an effective assault weapons ban in this country for a decade, but sure, no potential to be adopted.
-
What nobody talks about is the black supremacist driver who mowed down people in Waukesha. Or the black on black gang mass shootings in Chicago every day. Why don’t both get as much attention? We know why, just don’t know why it’s not called both ways.
Awwwww, you poor racist snowflake. Your tears are delicious.
-
Everyone owns a lot of things they don't "need" but they get joy from. If someone wants to responsibly own an AR-15...or ten of them...to show off in pictures or shoot off at ranges, that's fine by me. I would have no interest in that, but others do.
Well I want a tank to show off to my buddies. Or a javelin missile. Or a nuke! I'm responsible so I should be able to have them.
Some things are dangerous enough that they need to be kept out of civilian hands. I think everyone would agree with that sentence we just disagree on where that line is. I would put AR-15s on the other side of that line.
And on top of that, this is where gun control advocates get into trouble and start mentioning ideas that have no potential to be adopted. 98% of the people who own AR-15s aren't the problem. It's keeping them out of the hands of the 2% that's the issue here.
The 98% are part of the problem. Not the main one, but the culture of fetishizing guns is the underlying cause of all gun related issues in this country.
-
Well I want a tank to show off to my buddies. Or a javelin missile. Or a nuke! I'm responsible so I should be able to have them.
Some things are dangerous enough that they need to be kept out of civilian hands. I think everyone would agree with that sentence we just disagree on where that line is. I would put AR-15s on the other side of that line.
Sure. But the more stuff you include on the other side of that line, the harder it is for legislation to be passed. You will never get anything passed that includes banning those types of weapons now.
(And the jury is most definitely out on how "effective" the 1994 assault weapons ban actually was.)
The 98% are part of the problem. Not the main one, but the culture of fetishizing guns is the underlying cause of all gun related issues in this country.
Absolutely not. People have responsibly owned guns for generations. The "underlying cause" is that they are too easily obtained by people who are dangerous, and because of that, we need to make sure that they are not so easily obtainable.
-
BTW, I would add to my list that the only place that guns should be able to be purchased is through a licensed gun shop. No private sales. No pawn shops. And if people engage in a sale outside of a licensed shop, the seller is in line for strict penalties as well as the buyer.
-
Sounds like a complete gun ban to me.
The new Canadian legislation will also put a “red flag” law in place that will enable the courts to require individuals who are considered a danger to themselves or others to surrender their firearms to law enforcement. Canadian citizens who were involved in domestic violence or criminal harassment acts like stalking will lose their firearm licenses.
Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence?
Is this what we want here?
https://marketrealist.com/p/did-canada-ban-all-guns/#:~:text=Did%20Canada%20ban%20all%20guns%3F%20Article%20continues%20below,who%20can%20own%20a%20gun%20and%20gun%20sales.
-
(And the jury is most definitely out on how "effective" the 1994 assault weapons ban actually was.)
Copying from an earlier post of mine:
From the link you provided:
A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.
A study by Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, studied the law's impact on public mass shootings.[44] Gius defined this subset of mass shootings as those occurring in a relatively public place, targeted random victims, were not otherwise related to a crime (a robbery or act of terrorism), and that involved four or more victim fatalities. Gius found that while assault weapons were not the primary weapon used in this subset of mass shootings, fatalities and injuries were statistically lower during the period the federal ban was active. The 2018 Rand analysis noted that the federal law portion of this analysis lacked a comparison group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effects
University of Massachusetts researcher Louis Klarevas, author of the book “Rampage Nation,” found that the number of gun massacres dropped by 37 percent and the number of gun massacre deaths feel by 43 percent while the ban was in effect compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed in 2004, those numbers dramatically rose – a 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?noredirect=on
A 2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery found that, based on data from 1981 to 2017, there were fewer mass-shooting deaths while the ban was in place.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/
A 2017 study in the Journal of Urban Health observed that law enforcement recovery of assault weapons fell nationwide while the ban was in base, indicating that they were used in fewer crimes, but increased after the ban expired.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7
The FAWB resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths, and number of gun injuries. We estimate that the FAWB prevented 11 public mass shootings during the decade the ban was in place. A continuation of the FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1139 people.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33783360/
-
Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence?
Is this what we want here?
No. No (unless criticizing includes repeated threats of violence or trespassing). No. Yes (though I'm not sure what your example was, are you saying that one spouse threw a beer can at the TV, it bounced off the TV and hit the other spouse and that lone incident somehow led to them pressing charges? Cause that has never happened). 1000% Yes.
-
Gang, there are four types of gun owners in this country, all with very different goals and objectives in owning guns. Legislation that fixes one problem generates serious problems for another.
1) Hunters -- These are the people the NRA used to represent. This is most of Wisconsin, which hunts deer, birds, wolves, squirrels and any other non-human life form. It's a combination of a sport and social event that is deeply woven into the fabric of many parts of non-coastal America. For the most part, hunters are well-trained in how to use firearms, are very careful about protecting and securing their firearms and all of their firearms are licensed. These are the responsible gun owners and while their firearms are occasionally pilfered, they're so securely locked up that most are not.
2) Collectors -- These are gun owners who collect firearms. Their hobby may have started with a revolutionary war musket or a civil war artifact or maybe even war booty grampa collected in World War II. More recently, these folks have everything from Glocks to Uzis. They claim they just want to look at them, but most are functional and many pieces in their collections are illegal if they're operational. This is the group that, candidly, scares me the most because they're in a gray area between having large stashes of both legal and illegal weaponry for collectables and being able to put those collections to use. I'd love to see some kind of gun control aimed at this group of people and limiting the size of firearms collections. It will never happen because both collectors and the people who serve collectors are at the core of the NRA.
3) Protectors -- Living in Florida, these folks scare the bejabbers out of me. Their weapons all are permitted and legal. Purse packing women are everywhere, spurred on by 10 minutes a night of violent crime reports on local news. This is the strongest emotional explanation for a gun -- "I'm protecting my family and my home." I have a friend of mine who lives outside Fairbanks and who carries a pistol when walking from his home to his workshop to scare off wayward moose and bear. He doesn't shoot them, but fires into the air. Many in the rural west are miles from the nearest police officer and need some type of gun for protection. But, in urban areas where the police are minutes or seconds away, the protection line loses merit. The problem with gun control is that the rural residents have a legitimate need for some firearms. Urban residents generally don't, given the ubiquity of their police departments. It's extraordinarily difficult to separate this group for purposes of legislation as taking the gun out of a hand of someone in Miami may mean doing the same in rural Fairbanks. I do have a problem with the enormous number of conceal carry permits passed out in Florida and the ability to get one basically if you can write your name and suffer through a gun training class. Heck, we even have gun shops in Florida "just for women" (sell lighter and easier to handle weapons, some of which are in pink).
4) Peoples We All Agree Shouldn't Have Guns -- Criminals, mentally disturbed individuals and those who have a previously violent past. The problem with any gun control is this is the last group of people likely to be without firearms. It just is. As the supply of firearms goes down because of legislation, the value of firearms goes up and the desire of the underworld to sell them increases exponentially. That's reality, socialism notwithstanding.
Look, these are the obstacles to "sensible" gun control. We all want Group 4 targeted and many of us would like Groups 2 and 3 targeted for de-weaponization. I'm all for it but I don't ant hunters to lose out because of a problem they didn't create and while I am very concerned about Protectors overdoing it, I also recognize the need in many parts of this country to have firearms available as a deterrent.
-
Sure. But the more stuff you include on the other side of that line, the harder it is for legislation to be passed. You will never get anything passed that includes banning those types of weapons now.
Yes it makes more difficult and that doesn't mean I wouldn't take smaller steps in the interim. However, I think we will see a ban on AR-15s pass in my lifetime. Unfortunately dozens, possibly hundreds more children will likely need to die before it happens.
(And the jury is most definitely out on how "effective" the 1994 assault weapons ban actually was.)
See Pakuni's post. All measurables point to the ban being effective at reducing casualties in mass shootings and those numbers getting worse when the ban expired.
Absolutely not. People have responsibly owned guns for generations. The "underlying cause" is that they are too easily obtained by people who are dangerous, and because of that, we need to make sure that they are not so easily obtainable.
And we have always had a problem with gun violence. The difference is the proliferation and effectiveness of these weapons has increased. Your underlying cause is the more pressing concern and needs to be addressed but that doesn't mean there isn't a deeper level of causation. The 98% are also overrepresented in our government which is keeping any level of gun control from moving forward.
-
Copying from an earlier post of mine:
From the link you provided:
A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.
A study by Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, studied the law's impact on public mass shootings.[44] Gius defined this subset of mass shootings as those occurring in a relatively public place, targeted random victims, were not otherwise related to a crime (a robbery or act of terrorism), and that involved four or more victim fatalities. Gius found that while assault weapons were not the primary weapon used in this subset of mass shootings, fatalities and injuries were statistically lower during the period the federal ban was active. The 2018 Rand analysis noted that the federal law portion of this analysis lacked a comparison group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effects
University of Massachusetts researcher Louis Klarevas, author of the book “Rampage Nation,” found that the number of gun massacres dropped by 37 percent and the number of gun massacre deaths feel by 43 percent while the ban was in effect compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed in 2004, those numbers dramatically rose – a 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?noredirect=on
A 2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery found that, based on data from 1981 to 2017, there were fewer mass-shooting deaths while the ban was in place.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/
A 2017 study in the Journal of Urban Health observed that law enforcement recovery of assault weapons fell nationwide while the ban was in base, indicating that they were used in fewer crimes, but increased after the ban expired.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7
The FAWB resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths, and number of gun injuries. We estimate that the FAWB prevented 11 public mass shootings during the decade the ban was in place. A continuation of the FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1139 people.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33783360/
Cool. I could find studies that doubted its effectiveness too. For instance...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292345050_The_Tenuous_Connections_Involving_Mass_Shootings_Mental_Illness_and_Gun_Laws
"Despite the good intentions behind the ban, its impact on mass killings was negligible.... As shown, the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect. Not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at theirdisposal....Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters."
-
Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence? .
It's routine for police in this country to confiscate firearms from people arrested for domestic violence.
And federal law prohibits firearm possession for people convicted of domestic violence.
-
4) Peoples We All Agree Shouldn't Have Guns -- Criminals, mentally disturbed individuals and those who have a previously violent past. The problem with any gun control is this is the last group of people likely to be without firearms. It just is. As the supply of firearms goes down because of legislation, the value of firearms goes up and the desire of the underworld to sell them increases exponentially. That's reality, socialism notwithstanding.
This is incorrect. As supply of firearms goes down, the price of illegal firearms increases exponentially creating an economic barrier. Who is more likely to be able afford illegal weapons? Collectors/hunters/protectors? Or the mentally ill/criminals? It also makes it exponentially more difficult for people, especially the mentally ill, to be able to find or obtain certain guns. It takes a level or know how and determination that many potential shooters just don't have. Plus it creates multiple opportunities for the police to intervene during the illegal sale of these weapons, meaning we may be able to arrest a future mass shooter as he is buying the weapon rather than after he has killed dozens of children. It also elongates the process, allowing for more people to notice red flags and possibly intervene.
Also, hunters, collectors, and protectors can turn into criminals in the blink of an eye.
-
Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence?
LOL
-
Cool. I could find studies that doubted its effectiveness too. For instance...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292345050_The_Tenuous_Connections_Involving_Mass_Shootings_Mental_Illness_and_Gun_Laws
"Despite the good intentions behind the ban, its impact on mass killings was negligible.... As shown, the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect. Not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at theirdisposal....Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters."
So what you're telling me is that a ban on assault weapons didn't prevent people from using other weapons?
Also, what you (and this study) ignore is that while the frequency didn't change much, the severity/casualties/deaths did.
I would argue that's a good thing.
-
Cool. I could find studies that doubted its effectiveness too. For instance...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292345050_The_Tenuous_Connections_Involving_Mass_Shootings_Mental_Illness_and_Gun_Laws
"Despite the good intentions behind the ban, its impact on mass killings was negligible.... As shown, the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect. Not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at theirdisposal....Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters."
This study only focused on frequency of mass shootings, not casualties per. Yes, if assault weapons are not available, mass shooters will turn to other less effective weapons. While preventing a mass shooting altogether is a better outcome, lowering the amount of casualties is still a worthy goal.
-
Gang, there are four types of gun owners in this country, all with very different goals and objectives in owning guns. Legislation that fixes one problem generates serious problems for another.
By "serious problems" do you mean having to fill out a little extra paperwork, completing a background check, or having to go through a waiting period in order to purchase a gun?
I'm very curious to hear what serious problems would arise that outweigh the benefits of curbing gun violence. Most proposals being made would be an inconvenience at worst to responsible gun owners.
-
This is incorrect. As supply of firearms goes down, the price of illegal firearms increases exponentially creating an economic barrier. Who is more likely to be able afford illegal weapons? Collectors/hunters/protectors? Or the mentally ill/criminals? It also makes it exponentially more difficult for people, especially the mentally ill, to be able to find or obtain certain guns. It takes a level or know how and determination that many potential shooters just don't have. Plus it creates multiple opportunities for the police to intervene during the illegal sale of these weapons, meaning we may be able to arrest a future mass shooter as he is buying the weapon rather than after he has killed dozens of children. It also elongates the process, allowing for more people to notice red flags and possibly intervene.
Also, hunters, collectors, and protectors can turn into criminals in the blink of an eye.
Brother TAMU
Have we revoked the law of supply and demand. The market clearing function is price and the suppliers will find news way to build supply and price at the maximum a hoodlum is willing to pay.
Do I understand you correctly that you are prepared to ban all firearms because hunters or protectors might sell to hoodlums?
Brother YaBlueIt:
Are you related to Vida Blue?
I'm certainly not arguing against background checks, registration and waiting periods, which we have now. I am arguing that if you are advocating getting guns out of the hands of civilians, eliminating certain types of weapons (i.e., handguns) or taxing the daylights out of ammunition (which has been proposed here), then we have serious cause and effect problem with certain law-abiding gun owners that outlined above.
-
Brother Wags, and Scoop friends, respectfully,
In my experience living in many countries including UK, Russia, China, Indonesia and Singapore, none of those countries - even the most oppressive ones - have armed police. Why? Because the populace doesn't have guns. Gun crime is almost unheard-of... from theft to murder. (OK, they all have armed units of the police that come out in special cases, but Joe Average Cop has only a nightstick and his/her sense of humor to defuse a situation). Gun control can be done.
I don't want to divert the conversation too much, but I have no interest in the US becoming like Russia/China/Indonesia/Singapore where it comes to ruling its citizens and the oppressive nature of law.
Hunting is fine. If a family lives below the poverty level and truly hunts for food, then the taxes on firearms could be waived... like food stamps for guns. But with proof, psycho testing, drug testing and all the other requirements in place for all owners. My South African colleagues - who live in a country with a huge hunting industry but strict gun control - are all subject to inspections and a competency test to own firearms. The Aussie solution worked very well. The point is that it's really truly only in the US where any clown can buy a gun and 100 rounds and go kill people all in the same day. The 2nd amendment does not protect that persons rights because they are not part of a well regulated ANYTHING nor is any other average gun owner.
Now youre jumping around. So Hunting is only allowed by the poor for basic survival? If a normal, responsible middle class citizen wants to hunt, they need to pay $10K a year and schedule their hunts 2 weeks in advance?
I have no problem with competency tests and inspections like SA, great. But thats very different than your exorbitant taxing and fee structure meant to price guns out of any normal person's hands.
My point: The US government is not exercising it's right to regulate guns under the 2nd amendment and it needs to or these needless shootings will just continue. Use the drivers license comparison, use the abortion comparison, use whatever you want to get there, but get there and fix it. If WE all have not written to our senators this week with our views then WE are part of the problem. I have written to mine and several others.
Absolutely. Regulate, inspect, train, restrict certain guns. All good things.
$10K annual fees. Guns stored at off sight locations. $100 bullets. Thats the kind of way out of bounds nonsense, from people that see no need or use for guns at all personally which precludes them from processing the safe and responsible use of them by millions of people, that derail conversations completely.
-
Brother TAMU
Have we revoked the law of supply and demand. The market clearing function is price and the suppliers will find news way to build supply and price at the maximum a hoodlum is willing to pay.
Do I understand you correctly that you are prepared to ban all firearms because hunters or protectors might sell to hoodlums?
Didn't say anything of the sort. Strictly speaking AR-15s and their like. The much more likely outcome of banning these weapons is that mass shooters will turn to less efficient weapons to carry out their atrocities. It won't stop mass shootings, but if 9 10 year olds die instead of 19, that's a worthwhile win.
-
Sounds like a complete gun ban to me.
The new Canadian legislation will also put a “red flag” law in place that will enable the courts to require individuals who are considered a danger to themselves or others to surrender their firearms to law enforcement. Canadian citizens who were involved in domestic violence or criminal harassment acts like stalking will lose their firearm licenses.
Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence?
Is this what we want here?
https://marketrealist.com/p/did-canada-ban-all-guns/#:~:text=Did%20Canada%20ban%20all%20guns%3F%20Article%20continues%20below,who%20can%20own%20a%20gun%20and%20gun%20sales.
Get your talking points from QAnon?
Guns more important to you than dead kids?
Weapons of war should be banned and ALL guns should be licensed and tax just like cars.
-
Seems like the hospital shooting is now being escorted out the narrative door…wonder why.
-
Is this what we want here?
Yes. Immediately, if not sooner.
Also, I love how you ignore the answer immediately given in the article to the question you pose. "Did Canada ban all guns? No, the new gun control measures in Canada won’t ban all guns in the country"
-
Yes. Immediately, if not sooner.
Also, I love how you ignore the answer immediately given in the article to the question you pose. "Did Canada ban all guns? No, the new gun control measures in Canada won’t ban all guns in the country"
Gun stores in the Canadia frontier sold out of hand guns the day after Castro's love child (this is a troll) made this announcement. All criminals, I'm sure. There's a need and a demand for individuals to be able to defend themselves... from other ill intended individuals and governments.
-
Seems like the hospital shooting is now being escorted out the narrative door…wonder why.
It's literally at the top of the page at CNN.com, Washington Post, the Daily Beast, Yahoo and NPR at this very moment. I'm sure others.
https://www.cnn.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
https://www.npr.org/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/
https://www.yahoo.com/
Your white grievance is pathetic.
-
Seems like the hospital shooting is now being escorted out the narrative door…wonder why.
Here's CNN's live update page since you can't seem to find it on your own: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/tulsa-oklahoma-hospital-shooting-06-02-22/index.html
If you are just talking about what people are paying attention to, sorry 19 dead 10 year olds is more shocking and more abhorent than 4 dead adults. Both are tragedies but you could understand why the average joe might pay more attention to one than the other.
But I see that this is yet another case a man being able to legally buy an AR-15 and shortly afterwards (same day in this instance) go on a rampage. We can never know if increased gun control could have prevented this, but I see a reasonable argument that a mandatory waiting period may have allowed this individual time to cool down, have second thoughts, or display enough red flags that someone else would be able to intervene.
-
It's literally at the top of the page at CNN.com, Washington Post, the Daily Beast, Yahoo and NPR at this very moment. I'm sure others.
https://www.cnn.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
https://www.npr.org/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/
https://www.yahoo.com/
Your white grievance is pathetic.
You ever notice how I never personally attack anyone here? And except for the Daily Beast, not much information on the shooter, picture, description, etc. You could see why people question media and narrative bias. Just an observation.
-
You ever notice how I never personally attack anyone here? And except for the Daily Beast, not much information on the shooter, picture, description, etc. You could see why people question media and narrative bias. Just an observation.
A dumb one...but sure.
-
You ever notice how I never personally attack anyone here? And except for the Daily Beast, not much information on the shooter, picture, description, etc. You could see why people question media and narrative bias. Just an observation.
Keep moving those goalposts.
"No one is talking about this!"
Pakuni proves that everyone is talking about this.
"They aren't talking about it right!"
-
Keep moving those goalposts.
"No one is talking about this!"
Pakuni proves that everyone is talking about this.
"They aren't talking about it right!"
And by "right," I think we all know what he means.
-
You ever notice how I never personally attack anyone here? And except for the Daily Beast, not much information on the shooter, picture, description, etc. You could see why people question media and narrative bias. Just an observation.
From your first few posts.
You guys are losers. Squirting your pants over who is and isn’t vaccinated. It’s not anyone’s business. Get a life already and move on, or don’t. Life is moving on without you guys.
-
Shooting going on in Racine area now.
Trying to contact my daughter right now. She had an outing with her class in adjacent park.
-
Looks like shots at a funeral. Hope all is well with your daughter and her classmates.
-
Seems like the hospital shooting is now being escorted out the narrative door…wonder why.
Oh sweetheart ... you had me at "black supremacists."
-
Looks like five shot at a funeral. Hope all is well with your daughter and her classmates.
Thanks for the good wishes
Worst part is that we are out of town. Finally got through to her and they are all OK. They walked past the cemetery heading back to school about 20 minutes before the shooting started.
She took the Texas shooting really, really hard. This isn’t going to help.
-
I think what Rocket is getting at, is that prosecutors drop the gun charge quite often, like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
Edit doing some googling, it looks like at some articles from Philly and Indy, about 1/2 the gun charges are dropped. No, it wont prevent the mass shootings, but it might prevent quite a few other shootings.
thank you lawdog! i was going to cite some of these statistics, but i just get ripped for the source
also, take a look at where most(not all) mass shootings occur...in places where guns are disallowed or prohibited.
-
also, take a look at where most(not all) mass shootings occur...in places where guns are disallowed or prohibited.
This (lame) talking point was already addressed above.
-
By "serious problems" do you mean having to fill out a little extra paperwork, completing a background check, or having to go through a waiting period in order to purchase a gun?
I'm very curious to hear what serious problems would arise that outweigh the benefits of curbing gun violence. Most proposals being made would be an inconvenience at worst to responsible gun owners.
i seriously hope you are smarter than this-please please think this one thru. try to think of all the angles. sorry, although i'm not a criminal, it requires you to think like one. think wack a mole
-
Seems like the hospital shooting is now being escorted out the narrative door…wonder why.
Odd. I just watched a story on my local news featuring a 10 second look at the mugshot.
You could only be more wrong if you were making an effort.
The common denominator in black on black shootings, white on white shootings, white on black shootings, black on white shootings.... is the guns.
-
This (lame) talking point was already addressed above.
is everything a "talking point" to you guys?? regardless, it's a point that needs to be taken seriously. every time we put forth a point, you guys just minimize it by saying-
1) fox news
2) qnon?
3) talking point
and this is from the crowd that follows sources that wet themselves over an avenotti presidency
-
i seriously hope you are smarter than this-please please think this one thru. try to think of all the angles. sorry, although i'm not a criminal, it requires you to think like one. think wack a mole
Better be careful, Rocket. They might report you for thought crimes.
-
Odd. I just watched a story on my local news featuring a 10 second look at the mugshot.
You could only be more wrong if you were making an effort.
The common denominator in black on black shootings, white on white shootings, white on black shootings, black on white shootings.... is the guns.
no it isn't-it's evil people and criminals with guns-i know, another "talking point" well, prove me wrong
-
is everything a "talking point" to you guys?? regardless, it's a point that needs to be taken seriously. every time we put forth a point, you guys just minimize it by saying-
1) fox news
2) qnon?
3) talking point
and this is from the crowd that follows sources that wet themselves over an avenotti presidency
Because your posts show lack of originality and merely mimic whatever talking points are going around.
Anyways, it was addressed above.
-
no it isn't-it's evil people and criminals with guns-i know, another "talking point" well, prove me wrong
Right. So maybe we should try to keep guns out of evil people's hands. We can at least try in a way that wouldn't be a terrible inconvenience for the law abiding citizen.
But apparently you don't want to try.
-
no it isn't-it's evil people and criminals with guns-i know, another "talking point" well, prove me wrong
Binge some ivermectin and get a grip.
What do evil people other countries use to commit mass murders?
-
Guys, Merit Matters is a racist. Engaging him emboldens that racism.
-
IBTL
-
Binge some ivermectin and get a grip.
What do evil people other countries use to commit mass murders?
They use bombs, rockets and missiles. We need common sense bomb control NOW.
-
They use bombs, rockets and missiles. We need common sense bomb control NOW.
Uhhh, guys .... who wants to tell him?
-
Odd. I just watched a story on my local news featuring a 10 second look at the mugshot.
You could only be more wrong if you were making an effort.
The common denominator in black on black shootings, white on white shootings, white on black shootings, black on white shootings.... is the guns.
...and the people who use them to kill. So let us agree get the guns off the street as well as these people; our cities with strict gun laws are doing a great job of doing both. As I have said if we don't enforce the laws that already are in place, passing any new laws won't mean squat if the DAs don't prosecute. That is not deflecting the issue it is also part of the problem, not just the gun.
-
Here's CNN's live update page since you can't seem to find it on your own: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/tulsa-oklahoma-hospital-shooting-06-02-22/index.html
If you are just talking about what people are paying attention to, sorry 19 dead 10 year olds is more shocking and more abhorent than 4 dead adults. Both are tragedies but you could understand why the average joe might pay more attention to one than the other.
But I see that this is yet another case a man being able to legally buy an AR-15 and shortly afterwards (same day in this instance) go on a rampage. We can never know if increased gun control could have prevented this, but I see a reasonable argument that a mandatory waiting period may have allowed this individual time to cool down, have second thoughts, or display enough red flags that someone else would be able to intervene.
A 2 dollar lock on the school door would have prevented all of this. How about mandatory locks on all school doors that can be monitored not only at the school but local sheriff's department. That is legislation I can support.
-
A 2 dollar lock on the school door would have prevented all of this. How about mandatory locks on all school doors that can be monitored not only at the school but local sheriff's department. That is legislation I can support.
There was a lock on the door. It malfunctioned.
And $2 isn't getting you much of a lock, and certainly not one that can be monitored from multiple locations.
It's amazing that some people would rather turn our schools into fortresses than make it just a wee bit harder to acquire a killing machine.
-
A 2 dollar lock on the school door would have prevented all of this. How about mandatory locks on all school doors that can be monitored not only at the school but local sheriff's department. That is legislation I can support.
How about less guns, too?
-
Better be careful, Rocket. They might report you for thought crimes.
They'd be the crimes of others since he has had a thought for himself in ages.
-
There was a lock on the door. It malfunctioned.
And $2 isn't getting you much of a lock, and certainly not one that can be monitored from multiple locations.
It's amazing that some people would rather turn our schools into fortresses than make it just a wee bit harder to acquire a killing machine.
It amazes me that actually making it a lot harder for a school shooter to enter a school would not be the first priority in keeping our school children safe.
-
It amazes me that actually making it a lot harder for a school shooter to enter a school would not be the first priority in keeping our school children safe.
Less guns help, too. Amazes me people actually think keeping things the same with regards to guns isn’t the first priority to keeping fellow Americans safe
-
It amazes me that actually making it a lot harder for a school shooter to enter a school would not be the first priority in keeping our school children safe.
Ah, you're from the Ted Cruz "Only one door, and if there's a fire let the kids burn" school of thought.
Again, there was a lock. Unless you're aware of some means to ensure that no lock ever fails, there's not much more that could have been done there.
Once again, in America, my convenience > your life. (see also: masks during a pandemic).
-
It amazes me that actually making it a lot harder for a school shooter to enter a school would not be the first priority in keeping our school children safe.
It wasn’t a problem before you made sure every nut job has access to weapons of war.
You get to choose in November - kids or guns. Which is more important to you?
-
is everything a "talking point" to you guys?? regardless, it's a point that needs to be taken seriously. every time we put forth a point, you guys just minimize it by saying-
1) fox news
2) qnon?
3) talking point
and this is from the crowd that follows sources that wet themselves over an avenotti presidency
Says the guy who offered this brilliant take:
what we missed was uncle joe and dr jill visiting these mass shootings as well.
-
Here's why N.C. Lt. Governor Mark Robinson owns ARs:
“I’m not ashamed to say it, I’m probably not supposed to say it, but I’m gonna say it anyway — I got them AR-15s in case the government gets too big for its britches. Cause I’m gonna fill the backside of them britches with some lead.”
Says a guy who wants government to climb into women's wombs.
Perfect. Why hang Mike Pence when you can shoot him?
-
Here's why N.C. Lt. Governor Mark Robinson owns ARs:
“I’m not ashamed to say it, I’m probably not supposed to say it, but I’m gonna say it anyway — I got them AR-15s in case the government gets too big for its britches. Cause I’m gonna fill the backside of them britches with some lead.”
Says a guy who wants government to climb into women's wombs.
Perfect. Why hang Mike Pence when you can shoot him?
That’s just code for ‘get your guns ready, boys. The next coup we will be successful”.
These Rs are literally crazy.
-
Here's why N.C. Lt. Governor Mark Robinson owns ARs:
“I’m not ashamed to say it, I’m probably not supposed to say it, but I’m gonna say it anyway — I got them AR-15s in case the government gets too big for its britches. Cause I’m gonna fill the backside of them britches with some lead.”
Says a guy who wants government to climb into women's wombs.
Perfect. Why hang Mike Pence when you can shoot him?
Oh yes, the nutters are going to win a war against the government.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/57/5b/KEYulNl6_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/KEYulNl6)
-
Ah, you're from the Ted Cruz "Only one door, and if there's a fire let the kids burn" school of thought.
Again, there was a lock. Unless you're aware of some means to ensure that no lock ever fails, there's not much more that could have been done there.
Once again, in America, my convenience > your life. (see also: masks during a pandemic).
ok, here comes another talking point-how about doors that lock people out from the outside, but can get out from the inside. i think those have been around for a while.
here is a great example of an evil person who has a horrific record, is a felon, caught in possession of a handgun and spent all of 6 mos in the house of correction. gee, i'm sure that taught him something, oops, now he's threatening a high school. are we waiting for him to do a mass shooting before he gets put away for good? if you ccap his record, it is horrific
"Branden Raymond is now charged with terrorist threats - public panic or fear. According to the criminal complaint, Milwaukee Police Dispatch received a call on May 24 from a person who stated "she saw a Facebook post warning not to send children to Riverside High School because it was going to be a kid's last day."7 hours ago
https://www.fox6now.com/news/milwaukee-man-threats-riverside-university-high-school
-
ok, here comes another talking point-how about doors that lock people out from the outside, but can get out from the inside. i think those have been around for a while.
here is a great example of an evil person who has a horrific record, is a felon, caught in possession of a handgun and spent all of 6 mos in the house of correction. gee, i'm sure that taught him something, oops, now he's threatening a high school. are we waiting for him to do a mass shooting before he gets put away for good? if you ccap his record, it is horrific
"Branden Raymond is now charged with terrorist threats - public panic or fear. According to the criminal complaint, Milwaukee Police Dispatch received a call on May 24 from a person who stated "she saw a Facebook post warning not to send children to Riverside High School because it was going to be a kid's last day."7 hours ago
https://www.fox6now.com/news/milwaukee-man-threats-riverside-university-high-school
As long as Riverside locked their doors, what’s the problem?
-
I remember the good ol days when you could leave your front door unlocked.
But I also look forward to the days when elementary schools are armed fortresses.
-
ok, here comes another talking point-how about doors that lock people out from the outside, but can get out from the inside. i think those have been around for a while.
Uhhhh ... what happens if the fire is blocking the single school exit?
Burn, baby, burn.
-
Uhhhh ... what happens if the fire is blocking the single school exit?
Burn, baby, burn.
Multiple emergency exits … One entrance. urdense.
-
Multiple emergency exits … One entrance. urdense.
So one door, but multiple emergency exits? Will these emergency exits be magic portals?
-
A 2 dollar lock on the school door would have prevented all of this. How about mandatory locks on all school doors that can be monitored not only at the school but local sheriff's department. That is legislation I can support.
First off, $2 doesn't even cover a third of the cost of a cheap padlock (https://www.acehardware.com/departments/hardware/safety-and-security/padlocks/50140?store=14366&gclid=CjwKCAjwv-GUBhAzEiwASUMm4iecqMnh2Wf-u4ESG6GrpcIeBlfM2LiFIYxBhAsu1U2rQLx1A9rzQxoC3PwQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) so get that $2 crap out of here. Installing locks capable of keeping an armed intruder out, while safely letting school children out in the event of an emergency, that can be monitored from multiple locations on every exterior door of every school in the country is a several billion dollar project.
Despite that, I'd probably say spend the money if I thought it was going to keep our kids safe, but it won't. Locks fail. A shooter can tailgate in. A shooter could shoot himself in (unless we're barring all windows too). A shooter can hit the school at recess. A shooter could target a park, a high school football game, a hospital, a mall, a residential neighborhood, a public beach, an office building, hell we had one in a f*cking graveyard earlier today. We can't make our world into an armed fortress, it is impossible. What other countries have proven is that with a little regulation, you can greatly reduce the amount of mass shootings and the casualties per mass shooting.
My daughter is 2 years old. She's not even 2 and a half. We just potty trained her over memorial day weekend. She's just starting to grasp counting. She still needs us to sing her a lullaby bed every night. Last week, she had to participate in an active shooter drill. At f*cking 2 years old. Does that seem normal to you? Is that acceptable that we have reached a point in our society where we would rather teach 2 year olds what to do in the event that a gunman comes in and tries to kill them rather than enact any level of gun control? This past week I have had to come to terms with the fact that every day my daughter goes to school for the next 16 years, there is a not negligible chance that she may be shot at school. Longer if we have another kid. That's not acceptable.
Criminalize AR-15s and their like. Require training, testing, and a license to own a firearm. Ban private sales, require all firearm purchases to go through registered sellers. Require annual mental health screenings for gun owners and that their license be renewed every decade or so. Put in a mandatory month delay between the purchase of and receiving a firearm. Give judges the power to revoke a firearms license with good cause. All of these would be a great start.
-
First off, $2 doesn't even cover a third of the cost of a cheap padlock (https://www.acehardware.com/departments/hardware/safety-and-security/padlocks/50140?store=14366&gclid=CjwKCAjwv-GUBhAzEiwASUMm4iecqMnh2Wf-u4ESG6GrpcIeBlfM2LiFIYxBhAsu1U2rQLx1A9rzQxoC3PwQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) so get that $2 crap out of here. Installing locks capable of keeping an armed intruder out, while safely letting school children out in the event of an emergency, that can be monitored from multiple locations on every exterior door of every school in the country is a several billion dollar project.
Despite that, I'd probably say spend the money if I thought it was going to keep our kids safe, but it won't. Locks fail. A shooter can tailgate in. A shooter could shoot himself in (unless we're barring all windows too). A shooter can hit the school at recess. A shooter could target a park, a high school football game, a hospital, a mall, a residential neighborhood, a public beach, an office building, hell we had one in a f*cking graveyard earlier today. We can't make our world into an armed fortress, it is impossible. What other countries have proven is that with a little regulation, you can greatly reduce the amount of mass shootings and the casualties per mass shooting.
My daughter is 2 years old. She's not even 2 and a half. We just potty trained her over memorial day weekend. She's just starting to grasp counting. She still needs us to sing her a lullaby bed every night. Last week, she had to participate in an active shooter drill. At f*cking 2 years old. Does that seem normal to you? Is that acceptable that we have reached a point in our society where we would rather teach 2 year olds what to do in the event that a gunman comes in and tries to kill them rather than enact any level of gun control? This past week I have had to come to terms with the fact that every day my daughter goes to school for the next 16 years, there is a not negligible chance that she may be shot at school. Longer if we have another kid. That's not acceptable.
Criminalize AR-15s and their like. Require training, testing, and a license to own a firearm. Ban private sales, require all firearm purchases to go through registered sellers. Require annual mental health screenings for gun owners and that their license be renewed every decade or so. Put in a mandatory month delay between the purchase of and receiving a firearm. Give judges the power to revoke a firearms license with good cause. All of these would be a great start.
I honestly don't know what sources to believe these days, but what's the true data on school shootings public vs private?
-
I honestly don't know what sources to believe these days, but what's the true data on school shootings public vs private?
Trying to figure out why that matters.
-
Trying to figure out why that matters.
Maybe they have different security measures?
-
So one door, but multiple emergency exits? Will these emergency exits be magic portals?
FWIW, my HS had 2, maybe 3, emergency exits I recall that had no door handles on outside. You simply could not open from the outside.
-
Maybe they have different security measures?
Maybe.
I guess you need to do some googling, Muggs.
-
Maybe.
I guess you need to do some googling, Muggs.
I think we could do more to secure our schools with electronic systems or what have you. I can't see us adopting an Israeli model but I think we can learn a few things about how they operate their doors and locks.
-
FWIW, my HS had 2, maybe 3, emergency exits I recall that had no door handles on outside. You simply could not open from the outside.
Otherwise known as MAGIC PORTALS, Pakuni is being intentionally difficult.
-
Victim in Brooklyn subway shooting sues gun maker Glock
https://apnews.com/article/shootings-new-york-lawsuits-city-56488e48bed6c5e04a24690d98e8a2bb
NEW YORK (AP) — A woman wounded in last month’s mass shooting on a New York City subway filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the maker of the handgun allegedly used in the attack and its parent company, accusing the firearm manufacturer of “reckless disregard for human life.”
-
Uhhhh ... what happens if the fire is blocking the single school exit?
Burn, baby, burn.
We need common sense fire control NOW!!
-
FWIW, my HS had 2, maybe 3, emergency exits I recall that had no door handles on outside. You simply could not open from the outside.
You should let Sen. Cruz know.
-
Add hospitals to the list of buildings that should have one entrance.
-
Add hospitals to the list of buildings that should have one entrance.
Guns don’t kill people, multi-door entrances kill people.
It’s pretty remarkable how people simply won’t acknowledge guns are a problem in this country and do everything they can to protect them.
Put more locks on doors. Give out harsher sentences. Ban divorce. Reinstate pot as an illegal drug across the country. Ban video games. Whatever you do, don’t limit access to guns. We’re such an unserious country
-
We need common sense fire control NOW!!
Nope. Per the right wing, everyone should have unlimited access to flamethrowers.
-
Guns don’t kill people, multi-door entrances kill people.
It’s pretty remarkable how people simply won’t acknowledge guns are a problem in this country and do everything they can to protect them.
Put more locks on doors. Give out harsher sentences. Ban divorce. Reinstate pot as an illegal drug across the country. Ban video games. Whatever you do, don’t limit access to guns. We’re such an unserious country
Think of how many lives would be saved if Scoop were banned!
-
Guns don’t kill people, multi-door entrances kill people.
It’s pretty remarkable how people simply won’t acknowledge guns are a problem in this country and do everything they can to protect them.
Put more locks on doors. Give out harsher sentences. Ban divorce. Reinstate pot as an illegal drug across the country. Ban video games. Whatever you do, don’t limit access to guns. We’re such an unserious country
Don't forget to identify "mental illness" as a problem, but then do nothing really to improve access to doctors who can help you with that.
-
Uhhhh ... what happens if the fire is blocking the single school exit?
Burn, baby, burn.
are you guys really this dense or just purposely not being serious? ONE school exit? i'm sure you know this, but there would be proposed ONE school entrance with all the other doors locked from the outside, but able to be opened from the inside. we had those back in our day before evil people brought their guns to the no gun zone schools, churches, admin buildings, hospitals etc
i get all you guys trying to have fun with this, but just as ya'll would be berating us for the same-if you really want bipartisan support, you're going to have to get past the fact that there is a 2nd amendment and packing the courts and getting rid of filibuster are not bipartisan methods.
our kids deserve the same protection as our politicians, actors and legal carry
-
are you guys really this dense or just purposely not being serious? ONE school exit? i'm sure you know this, but there would be proposed ONE school entrance with all the other doors locked from the outside, but able to be opened from the inside. we had those back in our day before evil people brought their guns to the no gun zone schools, churches, admin buildings, hospitals etc
Cops say yours and Sen. Cruz's idea is stupid.
But limiting schools to one access point is not a proposal grounded in reality, according to several school and safety experts.
Many schools have thousands of children, teachers and staff who could take hours to funnel in and out of a single entrance every day. Even more use portable buildings or have multiple buildings, with children and staff often moving among them. Not to mention that renovations to older schools, which officials say typically have more exterior entrances, put a heavy burden on local taxpayers.
“It is not feasible to think we’re going to ever get to the point where we have one door in and one door out,” said Bill Avera, chief of police and emergency manager for the Jacksonville Independent School District in East Texas and a board member of the Texas School Safety Center.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/28/uvalde-shooting-school-doors/
-
are you guys really this dense or just purposely not being serious? ONE school exit? i'm sure you know this, but there would be proposed ONE school entrance with all the other doors locked from the outside, but able to be opened from the inside. we had those back in our day before evil people brought their guns to the no gun zone schools, churches, admin buildings, hospitals etc
i get all you guys trying to have fun with this, but just as ya'll would be berating us for the same-if you really want bipartisan support, you're going to have to get past the fact that there is a 2nd amendment and packing the courts and getting rid of filibuster are not bipartisan methods.
our kids deserve the same protection as our politicians, actors and legal carry
I'm trying to figure out what your excuse is going to be the next time there is a school shooting. This time it's making sure all the doors are locked.
I'm guessing aliens. Because God knows the reason can't be easy access to firearms by those who could be dangerous.
-
Watching the cops deal with a domestic disagreement across the street. Boyfriend in handcuffs. Twice in the last week, similar situations in the area have ended as triple murder/suicides. Angry husband/boyfriend/ex kills the woman and kids and then offs himself.
Bad person + guns = ....
Counting down the days until it happens across the street.
-
Cops say yours and Sen. Cruz's idea is stupid.
But limiting schools to one access point is not a proposal grounded in reality, according to several school and safety experts.
Many schools have thousands of children, teachers and staff who could take hours to funnel in and out of a single entrance every day. Even more use portable buildings or have multiple buildings, with children and staff often moving among them. Not to mention that renovations to older schools, which officials say typically have more exterior entrances, put a heavy burden on local taxpayers.
“It is not feasible to think we’re going to ever get to the point where we have one door in and one door out,” said Bill Avera, chief of police and emergency manager for the Jacksonville Independent School District in East Texas and a board member of the Texas School Safety Center.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/28/uvalde-shooting-school-doors/
Yessir. Dozens upon dozens of schools in the Charlotte area, including two where I coached, have numerous external buildings to house classes because enrollment has outgrown the original buildings. This is not unique to Charlotte, obviously. It's everywhere.
I'll be looking forward to the bill Cruz and his cronies draft that will allocate billions of taxpayer dollars -- actually, it might cost a trillion or more -- to update every single school to make it possible to have the kind of entrances these yahoos claim they want (but that law enforcement officials call impractical).
The "guns are fine, and in fact we want more of them" crowd have offered few if any reasonable suggestions while batting down ideas for regulations that the vast majority of Americans want.
That's what happens when politicians are beholden to a rich, powerful lobby that helps them keep their jobs.
Bang, bang, shoot, shoot.
-
That's what happens when politicians are beholden to a rich, powerful lobby that helps them keep their jobs.
The NRA is a big part of the problem, but I place more blame on our current system of government. Primary elections, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and no term limits for senators, all combine to create a country where the 10% of our population on the far right are represented by 50% of our senators. There are more moderate conservatives who would appeal to a greater population of conservative voters and even some moderate liberal voters, but they never make it to the ballot because primary elections weed out the moderates and put the more fringe candidates on the ballot. The moderates that do make it through have to play to the far right base because if they don't, they won't survive the primaries during their next election cycle.
I'd say we should put term limits on senators, but senators would never vote to limit their own power. Maybe we can get some traction on removing or restructuring primary elections. I think it would lead to a government that was more representative of the people they are supposed to be serving.
-
are you guys really this dense or just purposely not being serious? ONE school exit? i'm sure you know this, but there would be proposed ONE school entrance with all the other doors locked from the outside, but able to be opened from the inside. we had those back in our day before evil people brought their guns to the no gun zone schools, churches, admin buildings, hospitals etc
i get all you guys trying to have fun with this, but just as ya'll would be berating us for the same-if you really want bipartisan support, you're going to have to get past the fact that there is a 2nd amendment and packing the courts and getting rid of filibuster are not bipartisan methods.
our kids deserve the same protection as our politicians, actors and legal carry
So you think it is acceptable that my 2 year old now has to do active shooter drills at her daycare? That's normal and just something we should be okay with?
-
Cops say yours and Sen. Cruz's idea is stupid.
But limiting schools to one access point is not a proposal grounded in reality, according to several school and safety experts.
Many schools have thousands of children, teachers and staff who could take hours to funnel in and out of a single entrance every day. Even more use portable buildings or have multiple buildings, with children and staff often moving among them. Not to mention that renovations to older schools, which officials say typically have more exterior entrances, put a heavy burden on local taxpayers.
“It is not feasible to think we’re going to ever get to the point where we have one door in and one door out,” said Bill Avera, chief of police and emergency manager for the Jacksonville Independent School District in East Texas and a board member of the Texas School Safety Center.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/28/uvalde-shooting-school-doors/
It’s equally unrealistic that there’s ever going to be major gun ownership reform. So both sides are just screaming into the wind I guess.
-
The NRA is a big part of the problem, but I place more blame on our current system of government. Primary elections, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and no term limits for senators, all combine to create a country where the 10% of our population on the far right are represented by 50% of our senators. There are more moderate conservatives who would appeal to a greater population of conservative voters and even some moderate liberal voters, but they never make it to the ballot because primary elections weed out the moderates and put the more fringe candidates on the ballot. The moderates that do make it through have to play to the far right base because if they don't, they won't survive the primaries during their next election cycle.
I'd say we should put term limits on senators, but senators would never vote to limit their own power. Maybe we can get some traction on removing or restructuring primary elections. I think it would lead to a government that was more representative of the people they are supposed to be serving.
💯 agree with all of this TAMU aside from the suggestion that gerrymandering, Fri her candidates, etc are a problem only because of the far right. 8 year term limit for all federally elected positions from the top to the bottom.
-
Bad person + guns = ....
Thing is, it doesn’t even really have to be a “bad person”, at least not if you define that as someone who has previously shown particular aggression or had brushes with the law. The proliferation of weapons allows a spur of the moment decision to result in multiple murders.
I'd say we should put term limits on senators, but senators would never vote to limit their own power. Maybe we can get some traction on removing or restructuring primary elections. I think it would lead to a government that was more representative of the people they are supposed to be serving.
What we really need is term limits on Supreme Court Justices. We’re at the point where we have the most radical court in memory now rendering blatantly political decisions without really bothering to come up with legal justifications as we saw in Heller, and one that certainly doesn’t represent the winners of 6 of the last 7 popular votes for President.
I love the idea that each President gets to appoint 2 supreme court justices, with the 2 who have served the longest rolling off each time. Until the Court is fixed, they are likely to simply strike down anything that doesn't fit their political view.
-
So you think it is acceptable that my 2 year old now has to do active shooter drills at her daycare? That's normal and just something we should be okay with?
No that is not normal at all for a daycare to be doing this. I’d suggest looking for a new daycare or bringing up your concerns to the leadership at that daycare.
-
Thing is, it doesn’t even really have to be a “bad person”, at least not if you define that as someone who has previously shown particular aggression or had brushes with the law. The proliferation of weapons allows a spur of the moment decision to result in multiple murders.
What we really need is term limits on Supreme Court Justices. We’re at the point where we have the most radical court in memory now rendering blatantly political decisions without really bothering to come up with legal justifications as we saw in Heller, and one that certainly doesn’t represent the winners of 6 of the last 7 popular votes for President.
I love the idea that each President gets to appoint 2 supreme court justices, with the 2 who have served the longest rolling off each time. Until the Court is fixed, they are likely to simply strike down anything that doesn't fit their political view.
Not the worst idea you’ve ever come up with. I think something a little longer then 8 years for SC justices (12-16) is something I could get behind.
-
No that is not normal at all for a daycare to be doing this. I’d suggest looking for a new daycare or bringing up your concerns to the leadership at that daycare.
LOL...yeah. This is the fault of the daycare. ::)
-
LOL...yeah. This is the fault of the daycare. ::)
Not saying it’s their fault, they can do whatever they want but I would argue it’s unnecessary and if it makes TAMU uncomfortable he should take that up with the daycare.
-
It’s equally unrealistic that there’s ever going to be major gun ownership reform. So both sides are just screaming into the wind I guess.
I actually think the door is open to something small as a first step. Universal background checks, waiting periods, age limits for certain weapons.
-
Not saying it’s their fault, they can do whatever they want but I would argue it’s unnecessary and if it makes TAMU uncomfortable he should take that up with the daycare.
I don't think he is uncomfortable that they are actually doing them. He is uncomfortable that they feel the need to do them due to the possibility that it may occur.
-
The NRA is a big part of the problem, but I place more blame on our current system of government. Primary elections, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and no term limits for senators, all combine to create a country where the 10% of our population on the far right are represented by 50% of our senators. There are more moderate conservatives who would appeal to a greater population of conservative voters and even some moderate liberal voters, but they never make it to the ballot because primary elections weed out the moderates and put the more fringe candidates on the ballot. The moderates that do make it through have to play to the far right base because if they don't, they won't survive the primaries during their next election cycle.
I'd say we should put term limits on senators, but senators would never vote to limit their own power. Maybe we can get some traction on removing or restructuring primary elections. I think it would lead to a government that was more representative of the people they are supposed to be serving.
Excellent points.
No that is not normal at all for a daycare to be doing this. I’d suggest looking for a new daycare or bringing up your concerns to the leadership at that daycare.
Absolutely ... it's the fault of daycares and schools that they need to have active-shooter drills.
Thing is, it doesn’t even really have to be a “bad person”, at least not if you define that as someone who has previously shown particular aggression or had brushes with the law. The proliferation of weapons allows a spur of the moment decision to result in multiple murders.
Not to mention all the accidental shootings -- one family member inadvertently pulling the trigger to kill another, a gun going off when dropped, a bullet ricocheting -- as well as suicides.
But you know ...
More guns please!
-
I actually think the door is open to something small as a first step. Universal background checks, waiting periods, age limits for certain weapons.
Ya I can get behind all that but it won’t make a lick of difference on gun deaths in America. Just your standard “we must do something” type legislation. Limit magazine size I still believe will save the most lives but even that will not stop someone from buying illegally somehow someway.
-
I don't think he is uncomfortable that they are actually doing them. He is uncomfortable that they feel the need to do them due to the possibility that it may occur.
The possibility has always been there, why the sudden need to drill 2 year olds on mass situation situations? It is still an incredibly rare occurrence for these types of things to happen in schools. Me thinks they’re looking for attention.
-
Ya I can get behind all that but it won’t make a lick of difference on gun deaths in America. Just your standard “we must do something” type legislation. Limit magazine size I still believe will save the most lives but even that will not stop someone from buying illegally somehow someway.
Data shows states with stricter gun control laws see fewer gun deaths.
How does that jibe with your insistence that "it won't make a lick of difference on gun deaths"?
-
The possibility has always been there, why the sudden need to drill 2 year olds on mass situation situations? It is still an incredibly rare occurrence for these types of things to happen in schools. Me thinks they’re looking for attention.
"Looking for attention?" Don't be dumb. Fires and tornadoes are rare, but not non-zero probabilities. They drill for those too.
-
2022, so far (list compiled by the NYT):
Jan. 19, Baltimore: A man who worked for a gun violence reduction program was killed in an East Baltimore neighborhood, along with two others. A fourth person was injured.
Jan. 23, Milwaukee: Five men and a woman were found shot to death at a Park West neighborhood home. The police believe the attack targeted specific people.
Jan. 23, Inglewood, Calif.: The same day, a shooting at a birthday party killed four people, including two sisters, and wounded a fifth. The shooting was gang-related, the mayor said.
Jan. 29, St. Louis: A shooting near an intersection killed three young men and wounded a fourth. Police said they had no suspects.
Feb. 5, Corsicana and Frost, Texas: A 41-year-old man murdered his mother, his stepfather, his sons and the son of his ex-girlfriend in an overnight shooting. The man later fatally shot himself.
Feb. 28, Sacramento: A man shot dead his three daughters and their chaperone at a church during a court-approved visit. The children’s mother had a restraining order against the shooter, who killed himself.
March 12, Baltimore: A shooting in Northwest Baltimore killed three men in a car and wounded a fourth.
March 19, Fayetteville, N.C.: A Saturday night shootout in a hotel parking lot killed three people and wounded another three. The shooting may have been linked to a fight between motorcycle gangs.
March 19, Norfolk, Va.: Hours later, an argument outside a bar escalated into a shooting that killed three young bystanders. One of the victims was a 25-year-old newspaper reporter whose editor called her to cover the shooting, not realizing she had been killed.
April 3, Sacramento: At least five shooters fired more than 100 rounds a block from the State Capitol, killing six people — three men and three women — and wounding 12. The police described the shooting as gang-related.
April 20, Duluth, Minn.: A 29-year-old man who said he suffered from mental illness killed his aunt, uncle, two young cousins and their dog in their sleep. He later killed himself.
April 21, Mountain View, Ark.: A man killed his parents, another woman and her son at two homes half a mile apart in a rural community, the police say.
April 27, Biloxi, Miss.: A 32-year-old man killed the owner of the Broadway Inn Express motel and two employees in an argument over money. He fled to a neighboring town and fatally shot a fourth person. Police later found the gunman dead, barricaded inside a convenience store.
May 8, Clarkston, Ga.: Three people were shot to death and three others were wounded at a suburban Atlanta condo complex on a Sunday night.
May 14, Buffalo: An 18-year-old avowed white supremacist killed 10 people and wounded three more with an assault-style weapon in a live-streamed attack at a supermarket.
May 24, Uvalde, Texas: An 18-year-old gunman killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School.
May 27, Stanwood, Mich.: A 51-year-old man allegedly killed his wife and her three young children at a home in Mecosta County before shooting himself, police said. The man remains in critical condition.
June 1, Tulsa, Okla.: A gunman killed his back surgeon, another doctor, a receptionist and a visitor at a medical building. He then killed himself.
As long as this list is, it’s also a very incomplete accounting of American gun violence. It doesn’t include the at least 60 shootings that left three people dead but don’t technically count as mass shootings (because fewer than four people were shot). It doesn’t count shootings that wounded people without killing anybody, like one in Milwaukee that injured 17 people. And it leaves out the individual gun homicides and suicides that make up a majority of the gun violence that kills more than 100 Americans on an average day.
Among the patterns we noticed: Family disputes are a common motivation, and gang disputes are another. Every identified suspect has been a man, many under 25.
-
Ya I can get behind all that but it won’t make a lick of difference on gun deaths in America. Just your standard “we must do something” type legislation. Limit magazine size I still believe will save the most lives but even that will not stop someone from buying illegally somehow someway.
At this point, I’m all for trying something that may or may not work rather than just sitting on our hands until we need them for prayers when this happens over and over again.
-
"Looking for attention?" Don't be dumb. Fires and tornadoes are rare, but not non-zero probabilities. They drill for those too.
And have drilled for them for decades. Why now the addition of active shooter drills?
I can’t teach my sons U8 team to throw to 2nd base when there’s a runner on 1st how in the hell do these daycare teachers think there going to get 2 year olds to follow there training if a maniac shows up at their door.
Just my opinion. It’s something that makes the adults in the room feel better while instilling fear into a bunch of 2 year olds and if I was TAMU I would have serious concerns about it, especially if it was something they did without consulting parents first. Completely unnecessary.
-
Until voters prioritize the negative effects of easy access to guns, those effects will continue.
It is what it is. Voters are permitted to vote their priorities
-
And have drilled for them for decades. Why now the addition of active shooter drills?
I can’t teach my sons U8 team to throw to 2nd base when there’s a runner on 1st how in the hell do these daycare teachers think there going to get 2 year olds to follow there training if a maniac shows up at their door.
Just my opinion. It’s something that makes the adults in the room feel better while instilling fear into a bunch of 2 year olds and if I was TAMU I would have serious concerns about it. Completely unnecessary.
Because the number of school shootings has grown exponentially.
https://www.statista.com/chart/19982/number-of-us-k-12-school-shootings-per-decade/
-
At work we now have added active shooter trainings. Also there’s cyber security training too that wasn’t very common all that long ago. Is that just for show too?
Places are adding it because it’s becoming a real threat, albeit still a remote threat. Just the same as tornado and fire drills.
-
Ya I can get behind all that but it won’t make a lick of difference on gun deaths in America. Just your standard “we must do something” type legislation. Limit magazine size I still believe will save the most lives but even that will not stop someone from buying illegally somehow someway.
Perfect. The old "it might not work so why bother" response.
"Why bother" is what we've been doing for centuries. How has that been working for Gunmerica?
Keep voting for politicians who prioritize gun rights over human lives. That's your prerogative. But, like the politicians themselves, please don't claim you prioritize human lives.
-
Because the number of school shootings has grown exponentially.
https://www.statista.com/chart/19982/number-of-us-k-12-school-shootings-per-decade/
1) Yes shootings are up, it’s a problem that deserves attention which I fully support. There has been numerous small measures taken over the last 30 years to shore up background checks, red flag laws, limit magazines, etc and those measures don’t seem to be working. My argument is we can pass all the laws we want but maniacs don’t follow laws so I think it’ll have little to no impact unfortunately.
2) I’m a helluva coach
-
At work we now have added active shooter trainings. Also there’s cyber security training too that wasn’t very common all that long ago. Is that just for show too?
Places are adding it because it’s becoming a real threat, albeit still a remote threat. Just the same as tornado and fire drills.
It’s been a real threat for a long time. And no training adults for rare but possible situations makes complete sense. If the daycare wants to have instructor education on what to do in these situations that’s great, where I get a little uneasy is subjecting kids at that age to it.
-
Perfect. The old "it might not work so why bother" response.
"Why bother" is what we've been doing for centuries. How has that been working for Gunmerica?
Keep voting for politicians who prioritize gun rights over human lives. That's your prerogative. But, like the politicians themselves, please don't claim you prioritize human lives.
Goodness, your just one big liberal bumper sticker.
No one is prioritizing gun rights over lives. There can be an honest conversation from both sides without throwing garbage like that out there.
-
Not saying it’s their fault, they can do whatever they want but I would argue it’s unnecessary and if it makes TAMU uncomfortable he should take that up with the daycare.
I am not uncomfortable that they are doing it, I am uncomfortable that we've gotten to a point where I can't argue that they aren't necessary.
And have drilled for them for decades. Why now the addition of active shooter drills?
This is what some people in this thread and Washington are advocating for. Guns aren't the problem, it's that the schools aren't secure enough. Pretty soon they'll be saying that parents should have sent their kids to school in body armor.
I can’t teach my sons U8 team to throw to 2nd base when there’s a runner on 1st how in the hell do these daycare teachers think there going to get 2 year olds to follow there training if a maniac shows up at their door.
To be clear, the daycare isn't telling 2 year olds that "this is what you do when a gunman is in the building." The drill is for the teachers to practice what to do if an active shooter comes into the building while still having to wrangle 12 2 year olds. Talking to her teacher, it doesn't sound like it went well.
-
I am not uncomfortable that they are doing it, I am uncomfortable that we've gotten to a point where I can't argue that they aren't necessary.
This is what some people in this thread and Washington are advocating for. Guns aren't the problem, it's that the schools aren't secure enough. Pretty soon they'll be saying that parents should have sent their kids to school in body armor.
To be clear, the daycare isn't telling 2 year olds that "this is what you do when a gunman is in the building." The drill is for the teachers to practice what to do if an active shooter comes into the building while still having to wrangle 12 2 year olds. Talking to her teacher, it doesn't sound like it went well.
Ok that all makes a little more sense. Glad they’re sheltering the kids from the unfortunate possibilities that while incredibly rare could still happen and if you’re cool with it then it’s all good I suppose.
I just think it’s a little “trendy” to be adding active shooter drills now when there’s been school shootings going on for as long as there have been schools.
If the drill didn’t go well Pakuni would argue they’re just a bad teacher I guess.
-
Goodness, your just one big liberal bumper sticker.
No one is prioritizing gun rights over lives. There can be an honest conversation from both sides without throwing garbage like that out there.
Actually, they are
-
No one is prioritizing gun rights over lives. There can be an honest conversation from both sides without throwing garbage like that out there.
They might not be prioritizing guns over lives, but if you vote for a politician that opposes gun control, you are prioritizing whatever your reason is for voting for that candidate over meaningful gun control which does cost lives. In the last national elections, I voted mostly democrat even though I disagree with most of their economic policies. I accept responsibility for my part in supporting those economic policies even though I don't agree with them.
-
Actually, they are
No they’re not.
-
I’m sure Canada has daycares, that’s always an option. Use your free will.
-
They might not be prioritizing guns over lives, but if you vote for a politician that opposes gun control, you are prioritizing whatever your reason is for voting for that candidate over meaningful gun control which does cost lives. In the last national elections, I voted mostly democrat even though I disagree with most of their economic policies. I accept responsibility for my part in supporting those economic policies even though I don't agree with them.
If you don’t mind me asking what were the policies of those candidates that you voted for and valued above their economic views? Or was it more of a vote against the policies of the other candidate?
-
1) Yes shootings are up, it’s a problem that deserves attention which I fully support. There has been numerous small measures taken over the last 30 years to shore up background checks, red flag laws, limit magazines, etc and those measures don’t seem to be working. My argument is we can pass all the laws we want but maniacs don’t follow laws so I think it’ll have little to no impact unfortunately.
2) I’m a helluva coach
1. You keep saying this, but it's provably false. Again, states with stricter gun control see fewer gun deaths.
That said, are you saying we shouldn't have any laws? People drive drunk, despite DUI laws. People beat their spouses despite domestic violence laws. People steal despite theft laws. People molest kids despite sex abuse laws.
Why bother?
2. Unproven.
-
If you don’t mind me asking what were the policies of those candidates that you voted for and valued above their economic views? Or was it more of a vote against the policies of the other candidate?
It doesn't matter.
If I vote for Kodos because I like his tentacles, I also voted for the slave labor projects even if I really really really super ultra mega don't agree with them.
If I vote for a politician who has economic policies I super like because I love those economic polices, and gun control policies I super don't support, I voted for the gun control policies anyway *as a practical matter*. Frankly, what is in my heart doesn't matter in any way shape or form on the effect my voting choice has on the world.
It matters if I want to make myself feel better about my choice. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
-
No they’re not.
Yes, they are
-
I know I’ve said this here before, but I am stunned that otherwise smart, incisive, witty posters continue to enable a troll who is here solely to argue.
-
Goodness, your just one big liberal bumper sticker.
No one is prioritizing gun rights over lives. There can be an honest conversation from both sides without throwing garbage like that out there.
Honest conversation ... says the guy whose response was immediately to (incorrectly) label another Scooper.
You don't see me saying that "your" just one big gun-loving right-winger bumper sticker, do you?
Look, man, if you're not willing to prioritize human lives, that's your choice. Own it.
-
Honest conversation ... says the guy whose response was immediately to (incorrectly) label another Scooper.
You don't see me saying that "your" just one big gun-loving right-winger bumper sticker, do you?
Look, man, if you're not willing to prioritize human lives, that's your choice. Own it.
Are you serious right now? In your second line you say you aren't calling me some gun-loving right winger.... and then in your very next line you call me exactly that just phrased a little different.
-
If you don’t mind me asking what were the policies of those candidates that you voted for and valued above their economic views? Or was it more of a vote against the policies of the other candidate?
I mean, in the current 2 party system, isn't always both? I voted for increased gun control which means I also voted against the other candidate's opposition to gun control. I feel strongly about LGBTQ+ rights, increased spending on public education, Title IX reform, student loan reform, addressing climate change, decreasing barriers to immigration, etc. I hurt myself financially by voting democrat but these issues are more important to me so I prioritized them.
-
I know I’ve said this here before, but I am stunned that otherwise smart, incisive, witty posters continue to enable a troll who is here solely to argue.
I am not stunned that you actually find posters on here smart, witty, incisive.
And by argue you mean not agree wholeheartedly with everything you and a vocal few spew on here incessantly.
-
I’m sure Canada has daycares, that’s always an option. Use your free will.
To be honest, my wife and I have discussed if that's an option. For now, we've decided that it's not. But I do always love the "if you don't like it than move" arguments. This country is supposed to be a representative democracy the follows the will of the people. I'd rather stay and work towards making my country better. Feel free to move if we are successful.
-
1. You keep saying this, but it's provably false. Again, states with stricter gun control see fewer gun deaths.
That said, are you saying we shouldn't have any laws? People drive drunk, despite DUI laws. People beat their spouses despite domestic violence laws. People steal despite theft laws. People molest kids despite sex abuse laws.
Why bother?
2. Unproven.
Just today I said I'm in favor of some new laws that won't hurt to try. I am also in favor of "fortifying" our schools and believe there are more local/practical/effective solutions to help prevent gun related crimes. Like most things the solutions won't be found in Washington that's for sure.
-
Are you serious right now? In your second line you say you aren't calling me some gun-loving right winger.... and then in your very next line you call me exactly that just phrased a little different.
Every bit as serious as you were when you made the "one big liberal bumper sticker" lie and then claimed to want "honest conversation."
Hey, how do you think Marquette's team is shaping up for next season?
Maybe get one post out of you that isn't spreading misinformation about Covid or parroting the right's talking points.
-
Every bit as serious as you were when you made the "one big liberal bumper sticker" lie and then claimed to want "honest conversation."
Hey, how do you think Marquette's team is shaping up for next season?
Maybe get one post out of you that isn't spreading misinformation about Covid or parroting the right's talking points.
Thanks for asking!
Joplin=BE most improved
Chase Ross= BE all Freshman
EE=will be the X factor on how the season goes. Need some reliable shooting and I think he can provide that.
I’m a 22 regular season wins and a sweet 16. Book it
-
Don't say the Texas Governor isn't doing anything--weekly door inspections! FFS.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e2/9c/5YpU8tVn_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/5YpU8tVn)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a2/46/OgsW8urk_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/OgsW8urk)
-
I mean, in the current 2 party system, isn't always both? I voted for increased gun control which means I also voted against the other candidate's opposition to gun control. I feel strongly about LGBTQ+ rights, increased spending on public education, Title IX reform, student loan reform, addressing climate change, decreasing barriers to immigration, etc. I hurt myself financially by voting democrat but these issues are more important to me so I prioritized them.
I was thinking, even before this post, this is one of the BIGGEST failings of the two party system. I get torn so regularly for similar, and some different, reasons to which you pose.
My sister in law is very vocal about almost anything in her life. And her IG stories often reflect that. Between that and conversations with her, I had this interesting cross section over the last month. Shes very fiscally conservative, is pretty tough on immigration as the wife of an immigrant from a large immigrant family who had challenges and successes immigrating legally, and very pro-Israel...but she also lost her mind over the abortion ruling, is loudly anti-gun and was despondent last week, and pushes the recycling/environment issues at her kid's school which isn't otherwise.
I thought how odd it must look to see her stories or hear her talk on a given day to day...but she's very representative of millions of people. And how frankly pathetic and strange the political system in our country is that it can be odd when varying political priorities don't align with one group or another. Far more "conservatives"/"liberals" are like her than Ted Cruz or The Squad.
Every bit as serious as you were when you made the "one big liberal bumper sticker" lie and then claimed to want "honest conversation."
Mike I respect you and our banter regardless of your political beliefs, but please stop pretending you're not liberal and instead some middle of the road independent. Thats like a hardcore vegetarian who espouses the virtues of a meatless diet most of the year claiming they're not really vegetarian cause they eat bacon on their birthday ;D
-
Thanks for asking!
Joplin=BE most improved
Chase Ross= BE all Freshman
EE=will be the X factor on how the season goes. Need some reliable shooting and I think he can provide that.
I’m a 22 regular season wins and a sweet 16. Book it
Thanks for the response. We Are Marquette!
Mike I respect you and our banter regardless of your political beliefs, but please stop pretending you're not liberal and instead some middle of the road independent.
I never once said I was a "middle of the road independent." I am registered in NC as "unaffiliated"; I am left-leaning on most social issues and centrist on most financial issues. I won't bore you with the list of Republicans I've voted for, but Reagan -- who now would be labeled a RINO -- was one of them.
Numerous Scoopers are way left of me, just as you are right of me even if you, too, profess to be moderate. I respect you, too, Wags.
-
Don't say the Texas Governor isn't doing anything--weekly door inspections! FFS.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e2/9c/5YpU8tVn_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/5YpU8tVn)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a2/46/OgsW8urk_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/OgsW8urk)
Seems like more regulations and spending. Sad!
-
Herschel Walker, when asked by Fox News for his solution:
"Cain killed Abel, you know, and that's a problem that we have. And I said, what we need to do is look into how we can stop those things. You know, you talk about doing a disinformation; what about getting a department that can look at young men that's looking at women, that's looking at their social media? What about doing that, looking into things like that, and we can stop that that way? But yet they wanna just continue to talk about taking away your constitutional rights."
Georgia's GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate also said:
"We gotta get back into prayer. People thinking now praying is bad. No, it's not bad. We need to pray for things like that."
BTW, Walker's ex-wife said he repeatedly held a gun to her head and threatened to "blow my brains out.” A Dallas County judge was so worried about the possibility of violence that in 2005 he temporarily took away Walker’s guns. Walker later said he had mental-health issues ... but he has not shown support for red-flag laws that would do just what that judge did to keep him from blowing his wife's brains out.
So now, if you're a Georgia resident and you vote for this guy, do you really prioritize keeping people alive?
-
Herschel Walker, when asked by Fox News for his solution:
"Cain killed Abel, you know, and that's a problem that we have. And I said, what we need to do is look into how we can stop those things. You know, you talk about doing a disinformation; what about getting a department that can look at young men that's looking at women, that's looking at their social media? What about doing that, looking into things like that, and we can stop that that way? But yet they wanna just continue to talk about taking away your constitutional rights."
Georgia's GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate also said:
"We gotta get back into prayer. People thinking now praying is bad. No, it's not bad. We need to pray for things like that."
BTW, Walker's ex-wife said he repeatedly held a gun to her head and threatened to "blow my brains out.” A Dallas County judge was so worried about the possibility of violence that in 2005 he temporarily took away Walker’s guns. Walker later said he had mental-health issues ... but he has not shown support for red-flag laws that would do just what that judge did to keep him from blowing his wife's brains out.
So now, if you're a Georgia resident and you vote for this guy, do you really prioritize keeping people alive?
When are we going to quit nominating quasi-celebrities for public office?
-
My sister in law is very vocal about almost anything in her life. And her IG stories often reflect that. Between that and conversations with her, I had this interesting cross section over the last month. Shes very fiscally conservative, is pretty tough on immigration as the wife of an immigrant from a large immigrant family who had challenges and successes immigrating legally, and very pro-Israel...but she also lost her mind over the abortion ruling, is loudly anti-gun and was despondent last week, and pushes the recycling/environment issues at her kid's school which isn't otherwise.
I pretty much agree with your sister-in-law on everything other than "very" pro-Israel. Probably to the left of her on immigration, but not by all that much.
-
Every Fall 600,000 people ( mostly white males for those of you obsessed with race) head to Northern Wisconsin for a week of hunting. And they take with them 600,000+ guns and enough liquor to float a battleship. Yet no one gets shot intentionally and there certainly aren't any mass murders. The worst that generally happens is a handful of guys get winged accidently and a couple of guys fall out of trees.
With regard to mass killings, the problem isn't an abundance of guns. The problem is an abundance of criminals, no'er do Wells and other general F-ups.
How can 600,000 guys get all boozed up and start shooting guns and no one gets killed, yet 50 people can't attend a funeral in Racine without the lead flying.
-
Every Fall 600,000 people ( mostly white males for those of you obsessed with race) head to Northern Wisconsin for a week of hunting. And they take with them 600,000+ guns and enough liquor to float a battleship. Yet no one gets shot intentionally and there certainly aren't any mass murders. The worst that generally happens is a handful of guys get winged accidently and a couple of guys fall out of trees.
With regard to mass killings, the problem isn't an abundance of guns. The problem is an abundance of criminals, no'er do Wells and other general F-ups.
How can 600,000 guys get all boozed up and start shooting guns and no one gets killed, yet 50 people can't attend a funeral in Racine without the lead flying.
All of this sh*ts been addressed earlier in the topic. Perhaps you should read up instead of vomiting the same tired talking points.
-
Don't say the Texas Governor isn't doing anything--weekly door inspections! FFS.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e2/9c/5YpU8tVn_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/5YpU8tVn)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a2/46/OgsW8urk_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/OgsW8urk)
There’s an Onion article in there somewhere.
-
Every Fall 600,000 people ( mostly white males for those of you obsessed with race) head to Northern Wisconsin for a week of hunting. And they take with them 600,000+ guns and enough liquor to float a battleship. Yet no one gets shot intentionally and there certainly aren't any mass murders. The worst that generally happens is a handful of guys get winged accidently and a couple of guys fall out of trees.
With regard to mass killings, the problem isn't an abundance of guns. The problem is an abundance of criminals, no'er do Wells and other general F-ups.
How can 600,000 guys get all boozed up and start shooting guns and no one gets killed, yet 50 people can't attend a funeral in Racine without the lead flying.
Agree. We need more guns.
Maybe we can get those 600,000 hunters to be roving vigilantes who will protect schools, places of worship, movie theaters, cemeteries, hospitals, Vegas shows, etc. Give each of them a dozen or so guns, maybe also a couple lightsabers, and they can protect our loved ones from the criminals, no'er do Wells and other general F-ups.
-
With regard to mass killings, the problem isn't an abundance of guns. The problem is an abundance of criminals, no'er do Wells and other general F-ups.
What a shame that only America has an abundance of criminals, no'er do Wells (people who never visited Wales on Wells I'm guessing?), and general F-ups.
Must be the video games.
-
Every Fall 600,000 people ( mostly white males for those of you obsessed with race) head to Northern Wisconsin for a week of hunting. And they take with them 600,000+ guns and enough liquor to float a battleship. Yet no one gets shot intentionally and there certainly aren't any mass murders. The worst that generally happens is a handful of guys get winged accidently and a couple of guys fall out of trees.
With regard to mass killings, the problem isn't an abundance of guns. The problem is an abundance of criminals, no'er do Wells and other general F-ups.
How can 600,000 guys get all boozed up and start shooting guns and no one gets killed, yet 50 people can't attend a funeral in Racine without the lead flying.
Background checks, yearly licensing, elimination of assault rifles, limit the number available. That's a start (that's what many states do if you want to hunt)
-
When are we going to quit nominating quasi-celebrities for public office?
When we stop making celebrities out of the ones that are already there. People need to stop YASS KWEEENing random pols and drooling over "God Fearing" public servants. There has always been some celebrity to heads of state, but people get hung up on people they "like" and ignore their actual merit as a politician. Hence why unqualified clowns like Herschel Walker or Tommy Tuberville get elected cause they were successful in football or someone gets elected cause they made a movie people liked.
-
I knew you guys wouldn't agree with me.
But I'm quite sure my Congressman, one of my U.S. Senators, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va) agree with me.
-
I knew you guys wouldn't agree with me.
But I'm quite sure my Congressman, one of my U.S. Senators, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va) agree with me.
Yep. You aren't the only problem.
-
Floyd R. Turbo, 2024!
(https://s3-media0.fl.yelpcdn.com/photo/4Jx-515hlSuHQCCK48vS0A/l.jpg)
-
Background checks, yearly licensing, elimination of assault rifles, limit the number available. That's a start (that's what many states do if you want to hunt)
Elimination of assault rifles (which I’m fine with) is required for someone to hunt by states right now 🤔
Everything else you mentioned I’d support. But glad we agree it’s not the gun but rather the responsible or sometimes irresponsible individual using the gun we need to better identify and control.
-
Elimination of assault rifles (which I’m fine with) is required for someone to hunt by states right now 🤔
Everything else you mentioned I’d support. But glad we agree it’s not the gun but rather the responsible or sometimes irresponsible individual using the gun we need to better identify and control.
Meaning you cant take an assault rifle to hunt derer, elk, etc.
-
Floyd R. Turbo, 2024!
(https://s3-media0.fl.yelpcdn.com/photo/4Jx-515hlSuHQCCK48vS0A/l.jpg)
Floyd R. Turbo!!!!!! One of Carson's all-time greatest sketches. Always a knee-slapper with Floyd at the podium. Thanks for introducing some levity into an otherwise deadly serious topic. And who says liberals are all dour, humorless party poopers. Not me by golly.
-
Elimination of assault rifles (which I’m fine with) is required for someone to hunt by states right now 🤔
Everything else you mentioned I’d support. But glad we agree it’s not the gun but rather the responsible or sometimes irresponsible individual using the gun we need to better identify and control.
Sometimes it is the gun (assault rifle), the magazine capacity, as well as the ease of obtaining these weapons.
-
All of this sh*ts been addressed earlier in the topic. Perhaps you should read up instead of vomiting the same tired talking points.
you have a real hang up with "talking points" but you never seem to deny their plausibility or righteousness. if it's "talking points" you seem to abhor, then surely you must be fed up with all the tired crap coming from your team as well
-
https://twitter.com/amierrivers/status/1532806169139486723?s=21&t=H6u92hpc-FjQWUqCsHnhxA
-
https://twitter.com/amierrivers/status/1532806169139486723?s=21&t=H6u92hpc-FjQWUqCsHnhxA
if the dude was CONVICTED of said crimes-no he isn't allowed to legally own and carry guns. if ACCUSED, unfortunately that doesn't count. we have felons running around with guns every day. not accused, but CONVICTED felons
-
if the dude was CONVICTED of said crimes-no he isn't allowed to legally own and carry guns. if ACCUSED, unfortunately that doesn't count. we have felons running around with guns every day. not accused, but CONVICTED felons
Because we have too many guns
-
Every Fall 600,000 people ( mostly white males for those of you obsessed with race) head to Northern Wisconsin for a week of hunting. And they take with them 600,000+ guns and enough liquor to float a battleship. Yet no one gets shot intentionally and there certainly aren't any mass murders.
Uhhh ...
Time moves on, but the memories last forever.
Gun deer hunting season in northern Wisconsin routinely resurrects the sadness of Nov. 21, 2004, when six people with Rice Lake ties were killed and two others wounded in the Sawyer County woods.
Chai Soua Vang, a hunter and reported military sharpshooter from St. Paul, will die in prison for the murders.
https://www.twincities.com/2014/11/20/10-years-ago-6-deer-hunters-slain-in-woods-of-western-wisconsin/
-
if the dude was CONVICTED of said crimes-no he isn't allowed to legally own and carry guns. if ACCUSED, unfortunately that doesn't count. we have felons running around with guns every day. not accused, but CONVICTED felons
So to clarify your position, it is absolutely okay to throw people ACCUSED of crimes into prison but it is not fine to take their guns away temporarily. Should we give them their guns while they are in prison?
-
if the dude was CONVICTED of said crimes-no he isn't allowed to legally own and carry guns. if ACCUSED, unfortunately that doesn't count. we have felons running around with guns every day. not accused, but CONVICTED felons
Why do you even want laws against felons carrying guns? If a felon really wants to use a gun to commit a crime, they're just going to ignore the law anyhow.
-
Uhhh ...
Time moves on, but the memories last forever.
Gun deer hunting season in northern Wisconsin routinely resurrects the sadness of Nov. 21, 2004, when six people with Rice Lake ties were killed and two others wounded in the Sawyer County woods.
Chai Soua Vang, a hunter and reported military sharpshooter from St. Paul, will die in prison for the murders.
https://www.twincities.com/2014/11/20/10-years-ago-6-deer-hunters-slain-in-woods-of-western-wisconsin/
I remembered that incident very well so I should have said "one mass murder in the entire history of Wisconsin deer hunting". What most intellectually honest people would call a true outlier.
I stand by the point I made in that post.
-
I remembered that incident very well so I should have said "one mass murder in the entire history of Wisconsin deer hunting". What most intellectually honest people would call a true outlier.
I stand by the point I made in that post.
What was your point?
-
What was your point?
That because deer hunters only rarely commit mass murder, the problem clearly isn't guns, it is bad people...that no other country other than America has.
-
Why do you even want laws against felons carrying guns? If a felon really wants to use a gun to commit a crime, they're just going to ignore the law anyhow.
Liberals always demand "MORE gun laws. We need MORE gun laws."
But then they all get predictably squishy when it comes to meeting out punishment. Yes, let's protect the children and everyone else.
Congress should pass a Federal law that says if you possess a firearm in the furtherance of committing a felony ( state or federal) then the Federal Death Penalty SHALL be applied.
Congress should also pass a Federal Law that says if a previously convicted felon is caught in possession of a firearm, the penalty SHALL be life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
There, that should solve some problems. Who's with me on this??? As I said, liberals are really adept at demanding more gun laws, but if you notice, they never, ever want to discuss punishment for violators.
-
I like your proposal.
Gotta use taxpayer dollars to build more prisons. I think we should use our military in lieu of prison guards. Fiscally prudent.
-
Liberals always demand "MORE gun laws. We need MORE gun laws."
But then they all get predictably squishy when it comes to meeting out punishment. Yes, let's protect the children and everyone else.
Congress should pass a Federal law that says if you possess a firearm in the furtherance of committing a felony ( state or federal) then the Federal Death Penalty SHALL be applied.
Congress should also pass a Federal Law that says if a previously convicted felon is caught in possession of a firearm, the penalty SHALL be life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
There, that should solve some problems. Who's with me on this??? As I said, liberals are really adept at demanding more gun laws, but if you notice, they never, ever want to discuss punishment for violators.
There is certainly no possible way to argue against that strawman. You win!
But actually, even before you made so compelling of a make-believe argument, my mind had already been changed. I now understand why it is so critical that we don't change a thing: The Dastardly Raccoons.
https://twitter.com/KyleClark/status/1532529948359008274
Without AR-15s, there would be absolutely no way to defend ourselves against the Afoxalypse.
-
Harry Whittington, the guy on the right, was shot in the face, neck and chest by then VP Dick Cheney while the two were quail hunting in Texas in 2006
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5bb901073c000018010e0537.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale&format=webp)
The shooting caused injuries that took years to heal ... and Whittington said that Cheney never apologized to him.
Fun in Gunmerica!
-
if the dude was CONVICTED of said crimes-no he isn't allowed to legally own and carry guns. if ACCUSED, unfortunately that doesn't count.
"I like taking guns away early. Take the guns first, go through due process second."
-- President Donald Trump, Feb. 28, 2018
-
I like your proposal.
Gotta use taxpayer dollars to build more prisons. I think we should use our military in lieu of prison guards. Fiscally prudent.
I'm gratified that you like my proposal. But somehow, I don't think you really do.
Prisons do cost money. But millions of taxpayer dollars all across this country are being spent to retro-fit grammar school bathrooms so that 7 year old boys who think that they're 7 year old girls or profess to wanting to be girls, have a new and more soothing place to pee.
If there's any taxpayer money left after those endeavors, I say damn the cost, let's put these school shooters away so they never hurt anyone else.
C'mon, are you onboard with me????
-
Dude, you already busted us, do you have to rub it in?
Somehow, with your exceptional brain power, you discovered that we liberals simultaneously want more gun laws and also absolutely want no punishments for breaking those laws. And also, if we don't advocate for executing those that do break the law, we're just squishy.
We're beaten. Thanks to your great braining.
-
I'm gratified that you like my proposal. But somehow, I don't think you really do.
Prisons do cost money. But millions of taxpayer dollars all across this country are being spent to retro-fit grammar school bathrooms so that 7 year old boys who think that they're 7 year old girls or profess to wanting to be girls, have a new and more soothing place to pee.
If there's any taxpayer money left after those endeavors, I say damn the cost, let's put these school shooters away so they never hurt anyone else.
C'mon, are you onboard with me????
Yes, the outrageous spending on bathrooms is a real issue. Farts three times
-
Why do you even want laws against felons carrying guns? If a felon really wants to use a gun to commit a crime, they're just going to ignore the law anyhow.
nuff said here-
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-man-shooting-police-officer-arrest-record-gun-charge
-
There is certainly no possible way to argue against that strawman. You win!
But actually, even before you made so compelling of a make-believe argument, my mind had already been changed. I now understand why it is so critical that we don't change a thing: The Dastardly Raccoons.
https://twitter.com/KyleClark/status/1532529948359008274
Without AR-15s, there would be absolutely no way to defend ourselves against the Afoxalypse.
I can assure you, there was nothing "make believe" about the points in my post. What I'm confused about is why a serious fellow such as yourself wouldn't agree with me.
In case you didn't know it, there is already a Federal Death Penalty on the books ( although one of the first things Biden did in office was to instruct DOJ to suspend it's implementation). If you can't apply it to someone who murders school children, when would you use it?? Oh wait, I do remember a piece on MSNBC about 3 weeks ago where African American leaders in Buffalo were demanding that the death penalty be reinstated by the White House to be used on the Buffalo shooter. Guess we'll find out where the bear chit in the buckwheat there, won't we???
-
nuff said here-
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-man-shooting-police-officer-arrest-record-gun-charge
Yup, too many guns
-
nuff said here-
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-man-shooting-police-officer-arrest-record-gun-charge
Standby for Kim Foxx press conference, apologizing to Chicago cops.
-
you have a real hang up with "talking points" but you never seem to deny their plausibility or righteousness. if it's "talking points" you seem to abhor, then surely you must be fed up with all the tired crap coming from your team as well
I don't have a "team." And it's pathetic that you apparently think you do.
-
I'm gratified that you like my proposal. But somehow, I don't think you really do.
Prisons do cost money. But millions of taxpayer dollars all across this country are being spent to retro-fit grammar school bathrooms so that 7 year old boys who think that they're 7 year old girls or profess to wanting to be girls, have a new and more soothing place to pee.
If there's any taxpayer money left after those endeavors, I say damn the cost, let's put these school shooters away so they never hurt anyone else.
C'mon, are you onboard with me????
States that enact laws requiring a transgender person to use the bathroom that correspond with with his or her gender at birth are literally forcing transgender men -- who were born female but have grown to identify as male -- to use ladies rooms. In other words, a person who looks like a man and acts like a man MUST BY LAW use the toilet next to the little girls that the people who enact these laws purport to protect.
Yep, this guy would have to make peepee in the ladies room. If not he could be arrested for breaking the law!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Chaz_Bono_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/330px-Chaz_Bono_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg)
Which is actually pretty funny when you think about it.
As for the rest of your post, it's as dopey as those bathroom laws.
Happiness is a warm gun ... bang bang ... shoot shoot!
-
I can assure you, there was nothing "make believe" about the points in my post. What I'm confused about is why a serious fellow such as yourself wouldn't agree with me.
Verily, it is unpossible to disagree with you that we liberals want more guns laws and simultaneously want absolutely no penalties for breaking those laws. How could any serious person disagree with you?
And that only occasional mass murders from deer hunters prove that guns aren't the problem? It's unassailable logic.
-
Liberals always demand "MORE gun laws. We need MORE gun laws."
N.Y. Republican Drops Re-Election Bid After Bucking His Party on Guns
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/nyregion/chris-jacobs-congress-guns.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20220603&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline®i_id=108420427&segment_id=94191&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
In the wake of deadly mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, Representative Chris Jacobs of New York, a congressman serving his first full term in the House, stunned fellow Republicans by embracing a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity magazines.
Speaking from his suburban Buffalo district a week ago, about 10 miles from the grocery store where 10 Black residents were slaughtered, Mr. Jacobs framed his risky break from bedrock Republican orthodoxy as bigger than politics: “I can’t in good conscience sit back and say I didn’t try to do something,” he said.
It took only seven days for political forces to catch up with him.
On Friday, facing intense backlash from party leaders, a potential primary from the state party chairman and a forceful dressing down from Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Jacobs announced that he would abandon his re-election campaign.
“We have a problem in our country in terms of both our major parties. If you stray from a party position, you are annihilated,” Mr. Jacobs said. “For the Republicans, it became pretty apparent to me over the last week that that issue is gun control. Any gun control.”
Many Republicans want more and better gun laws, too. But they also want to keep their jobs. Even if you're a very conservative Republican on most issues, saying you want fewer guns on the street is a good way to see your political career end.
-
I'm gratified that you like my proposal. But somehow, I don't think you really do.
Prisons do cost money. But millions of taxpayer dollars all across this country are being spent to retro-fit grammar school bathrooms so that 7 year old boys who think that they're 7 year old girls or profess to wanting to be girls, have a new and more soothing place to pee.
If there's any taxpayer money left after those endeavors, I say damn the cost, let's put these school shooters away so they never hurt anyone else.
C'mon, are you onboard with me????
I am on board with locking up gun-using felons. I recognize the cost associated with locking them all up. So we need to do something about non-violent felons. And we need to be clear and up front about the cost.
-
if the dude was CONVICTED of said crimes-no he isn't allowed to legally own and carry guns. if ACCUSED, unfortunately that doesn't count. we have felons running around with guns every day. not accused, but CONVICTED felons
And felons can't legally have guns, which means the guns they have were once legal, which means the problem is legal gun owners who fail to prevent legal guns from becoming illegal ones.
-
I am on board with locking up gun-using felons. I recognize the cost associated with locking them all up. So we need to do something about non-violent felons. And we need to be clear and up front about the cost.
Isn't "non-violent felony" a non-sequitur. Or let me ask it another way. Identify which "non-violent felony you would be OK with being perpetrated upon your spouse or children??? I imagine the list would be quite short.
-
Depends on the day.
Possession. Distribution of small amounts. Shoplifting. DUI's not involving death or injury.
-
Depends on the day.
Possession. Distribution of small amounts. Shoplifting. DUI's not involving death or injury.
Okay, I'll buy that ( although much of what you describe would be misdemeanors I think, but I understand your point and I don't disagree).
-
Isn't "non-violent felony" a non-sequitur.
(https://c.tenor.com/q9crr_x6HLYAAAAC/princess-bride-you-keep-using-that-word.gif)
The irony here is that your Wisconsin hunting tale was an epic non-sequitur.
-
(https://c.tenor.com/q9crr_x6HLYAAAAC/princess-bride-you-keep-using-that-word.gif)
The irony here is that your Wisconsin hunting tale was an epic non-sequitur.
I'd say it was both an epic factual fail and logical fail more than a non-sequitur.
Now the bathroom rant nonsense? That was both a classic non-sequitur and factual fail.
-
N.Y. Republican Drops Re-Election Bid After Bucking His Party on Guns
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/nyregion/chris-jacobs-congress-guns.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20220603&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline®i_id=108420427&segment_id=94191&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
In the wake of deadly mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, Representative Chris Jacobs of New York, a congressman serving his first full term in the House, stunned fellow Republicans by embracing a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity magazines.
Speaking from his suburban Buffalo district a week ago, about 10 miles from the grocery store where 10 Black residents were slaughtered, Mr. Jacobs framed his risky break from bedrock Republican orthodoxy as bigger than politics: “I can’t in good conscience sit back and say I didn’t try to do something,” he said.
It took only seven days for political forces to catch up with him.
On Friday, facing intense backlash from party leaders, a potential primary from the state party chairman and a forceful dressing down from Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Jacobs announced that he would abandon his re-election campaign.
“We have a problem in our country in terms of both our major parties. If you stray from a party position, you are annihilated,” Mr. Jacobs said. “For the Republicans, it became pretty apparent to me over the last week that that issue is gun control. Any gun control.”
Many Republicans want more and better gun laws, too. But they also want to keep their jobs. Even if you're a very conservative Republican on most issues, saying you want fewer guns on the street is a good way to see your political career end.
Unfortunately this could lead to the R's losing another seat because one of their "weak as piss" members found it easier to resign than to take a position supported by the vast majority of Americans. We do need the R's to balance out the D's or they will spend ALL of the money on silly stuff like bathrooms and when they run out - as OAC says - just print more!!!! Don't get me wrong, both parties at the moment have lost the plot completely so the only thing that preserves our imperfect democracy is not letting either one of them get a super-majority and really destroy the place.
-
Desafortunadamente the cows have left the pasture. Bush Jr. opened the door to insane government spending and it hasn't been closed yet. The debt is currently over $30.5 trillion with $7.9 held by foreign countries. It is not a matter of whether the US Government declares bankruptcy it is only a matter when. Once someone finally has the testicles to say to shut off the printing presses, it is over with. Gross deficits and over spending occurs whether it is D or R, it is only a matter of what they piss it away on.
-
So what are you going to do? Jack up taxes or make massive spending cuts? Either one is going to be politically unpopular and likely to slide the economy into a depression.
Deficit financing is absolutely fine on a macroeconomic scale when you have a country as large as the United States. The problem lately is that the interest payments on the debt are starting to make up too much of a percentage of the federal budget. I expect that will decrease with the COVID relief easing. BTW, if there was ever a time to deficit spend, THAT was it. Smart move by both Trump and Biden.
-
Correct, no testicles. No one wants to face the music.
Current US total interest paid on debt: $3.4 trillion.
-
Unfortunately this could lead to the R's losing another seat because one of their "weak as piss" members found it easier to resign than to take a position supported by the vast majority of Americans. We do need the R's to balance out the D's or they will spend ALL of the money on silly stuff like bathrooms and when they run out - as OAC says - just print more!!!! Don't get me wrong, both parties at the moment have lost the plot completely so the only thing that preserves our imperfect democracy is not letting either one of them get a super-majority and really destroy the place.
Again with the bathrooms? That's quite a take you have. Something there for everybody, including a shot at "OAC" (but not her twin sister AOC).
Look, we need more guns. Everybody who attends a funeral, who goes to church, who visits a park, who goes to school, who goes to the movies, who goes to a bar, who gets on an airplane, who goes to court, who goes to a political rally -- everybody, everywhere -- needs to be packing.
That's the only new gun law Gunmerica needs: Every man, woman and child must own and carry at least one gun. Just as it says in the bible.
-
Again with the bathrooms? That's quite a take you have. Something there for everybody, including a shot at "OAC" (but not her twin sister AOC).
Look, we need more guns. Everybody who attends a funeral, who goes to church, who visits a park, who goes to school, who goes to the movies, who goes to a bar, who gets on an airplane, who goes to court, who goes to a political rally -- everybody, everywhere -- needs to be packing.
That's the only new gun law Gunmerica needs: Every man, woman and child must own and carry at least one gun. Just as it says in the bible.
If Jesus had a gun, I bet the Romans would have been on the crosses instead
-
Online pro-gun extremism: ‘Cool for active shooter stuff’
https://apnews.com/article/technology-gun-politics-shootings-race-and-ethnicity-2d37c8ede6135eca9f0b2150e7927a92?user_email=6647dfa7189f748384d7389910f7b584c6fcfc35ae990102964c7e826d4175c7&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=June04_MorningWire&utm_term=Morning%20Wire%20Subscribers
The young man in the jeans and sunglasses proudly shows off his gun in the YouTube video, then instructs his 1 million subscribers how to fit an extra clip in his gun belt, and offers a chilling observation.
“Pretty cool for active shooter stuff, if you need extra mags.”
It’s a typical video, one of thousands teaching military-style training and tactics to civilian gun owners, offering instructions on silencers and grenade launchers, on shooting from vehicles or into buildings. Other websites sell ghost gun kits, gas masks and body armor.
“You shouldn’t be scared of the NRA. You should be scared of us,” one online ghost gun dealer Tweeted last week.
As Americans reel from repeated mass shootings, law enforcement officials and experts on extremism are taking increasing notice of the sprawling online space devoted to guns and gun rights: gun forums, tactical training videos, websites that sell unregistered gun kits and social media platforms where far-right gun owners swap practical tips with talk of dark plots to take their weapons.
Good guys with guns.
-
PSA: some of you are making this purely political. stop it.
-
Correct, no testicles. No one wants to face the music.
Current US total interest paid on debt: $3.4 trillion.
Good news for the deficit hawks, then.
Surging federal tax revenue in April led to the largest monthly budget surplus on record and a dramatically lower deficit through the first seven months of the fiscal year, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates released Monday.
https://rollcall.com/2022/05/09/tax-revenue-boom-fuels-steep-budget-deficit-decline/
-
All of those new jobs and low unemployment rate.
-
Good news for the deficit hawks, then.
Surging federal tax revenue in April led to the largest monthly budget surplus on record and a dramatically lower deficit through the first seven months of the fiscal year, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates released Monday.
https://rollcall.com/2022/05/09/tax-revenue-boom-fuels-steep-budget-deficit-decline/
I think I heard that on Fox News.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
PSA: some of you are making this purely political. stop it.
Canada enacting tough gun laws in response to the Ulvade school shooting is not political? Congress voting on gun control legislation this coming week is not political? Discussing the limits of the 2nd amendment is not political? Please define political so we can stop it.
-
https://twitter.com/franceswangtv/status/1533374520966389761?s=21&t=Rt25bgVrJkll4cAHZldbWQ
Sadly, locked doors didn’t help the situation
-
Gun-control measures that are popular with a vast majority of Americans could have prevented about one-third of mass shootings since 1999, NYT study finds.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/04/upshot/mass-shooting-gun-laws.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220605&instance_id=63260&nl=the-morning®i_id=108420427&segment_id=94287&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
If the key gun control proposals now being considered in Congress had been law since 1999, four gunmen younger than 21 would have been blocked from legally buying the rifles they used in mass shootings.
At least four other assailants would have been subject to a required background check, instead of slipping through a loophole. Ten might have been unable to steal their weapons because of efforts to require or encourage safer gun storage. And 20 might not have been allowed to legally purchase the large-capacity magazines that they used to upgrade their guns, helping them kill, on average, 16 people each.
Taken together, those four measures might have changed the course of at least 35 mass shootings — a third of such episodes in the United States since the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, a New York Times analysis has found. Those 35 shootings killed a combined 446 people.
-
Gun-control measures that are popular with a vast majority of Americans could have prevented about one-third of mass shootings since 1999, NYT study finds
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/04/upshot/mass-shooting-gun-laws.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220605&instance_id=63260&nl=the-morning®i_id=108420427&segment_id=94287&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
If the key gun control proposals now being considered in Congress had been law since 1999, four gunmen younger than 21 would have been blocked from legally buying the rifles they used in mass shootings.
At least four other assailants would have been subject to a required background check, instead of slipping through a loophole. Ten might have been unable to steal their weapons because of efforts to require or encourage safer gun storage. And 20 might not have been allowed to legally purchase the large-capacity magazines that they used to upgrade their guns, helping them kill, on average, 16 people each.
Taken together, those four measures might have changed the course of at least 35 mass shootings — a third of such episodes in the United States since the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, a New York Times analysis has found. Those 35 shootings killed a combined 446 people.
oh, so the EXPERTS are back at it again?? this rag has less cred than mad magazine. this paper leaked like a backwoods tin shed from 2016-2021. now it's tighter than a frogs ass stretched over a drum on a hot summer day. who's in epsteins lil black book? once they leak that, i will consider reading their sports pages
-
oh, so the EXPERTS are back at it again?? this rag has less cred than mad magazine. this paper leaked like a backwoods tin shed from 2016-2021. now it's tighter than a frogs ass stretched over a drum on a hot summer day. who's in epsteins lil black book? once they leak that, i will consider reading their sports pages
Lol.
-
oh, so the EXPERTS are back at it again?? this rag has less cred than mad magazine. this paper leaked like a backwoods tin shed from 2016-2021. now it's tighter than a frogs ass stretched over a drum on a hot summer day. who's in epsteins lil black book? once they leak that, i will consider reading their sports pages
7 of 10
-
oh, so the EXPERTS are back at it again?? this rag has less cred than mad magazine. this paper leaked like a backwoods tin shed from 2016-2021. now it's tighter than a frogs ass stretched over a drum on a hot summer day. who's in epsteins lil black book? once they leak that, i will consider reading their sports pages
Seek help before you start shooting up schools.
-
oh, so the EXPERTS are back at it again?? this rag has less cred than mad magazine. this paper leaked like a backwoods tin shed from 2016-2021. now it's tighter than a frogs ass stretched over a drum on a hot summer day. who's in epsteins lil black book? once they leak that, i will consider reading their sports pages
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hBoCneHP9fs/S6uvKh7CYwI/AAAAAAAAA5g/QLvw6dhY9w8/s1600/monkey+ear.JPG)
-
Full disclosure I've only read about 2/3 of the pages on this thread so not sure if this has been mentioned or not...
the only way we can get some common sense laws passed is if what happened in Australia happens here. In Australia, the laws were actually shockingly spearheaded by a conservative president/prime minister and conservative government in 1995/1996. The evidence is ample that the laws worked. Just look at the data of mass shootings before and after the laws were enacted. We need some conservatives to have the balls to do the right thing despite all of the gun lobbying money. It worked in Australia and can work here if enough break party lines to do the right thing.
-
Full disclosure I've only read about 2/3 of the pages on this thread so not sure if this has been mentioned or not...
the only way we can get some common sense laws passed is if what happened in Australia happens here. In Australia, the laws were actually shockingly spearheaded by a conservative president/prime minister and conservative government in 1995/1996. The evidence is ample that the laws worked. Just look at the data of mass shootings before and after the laws were enacted. We need some conservatives to have the balls to do the right thing despite all of the gun lobbying money. It worked in Australia and can work here if enough break party lines to do the right thing.
Yes. And unicorns are real.
-
We need some conservatives to have the balls to do the right thing despite all of the gun lobbying money.
Then we are screwed.
Hell, one congressman spoke up just last week and his party canceled him so quickly that he had to quit his re-election bid.
-
Then we are screwed.
Hell, one congressman spoke up just last week and his party canceled him so quickly that he had to quit his re-election bid.
Yep. I'm aware. We are indeed screwed but this is the only hope or it aint happening
-
Some may look at these numbers and say they're troubling. I say it's evidence our schools are doing a fantastic job preparing kids for the workplace. Or going to the movies. Or grocery shopping. Or the mall. Or a concert.
More than half of parents say their school-aged children sometimes worry about gun violence while attending school, including more than a quarter who say they worry about it a lot.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-violence-schools-parents-children-opinion-poll-2022-06-05/
-
Some may look at these numbers and say they're troubling. I say it's evidence our schools are doing a fantastic job preparing kids for the workplace. Or going to the movies. Or grocery shopping. Or the mall. Or a concert.
More than half of parents say their school-aged children sometimes worry about gun violence while attending school, including more than a quarter who say they worry about it a lot.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-violence-schools-parents-children-opinion-poll-2022-06-05/
The kids don't have those fears because there are hundreds of thousands of guns out there, Pak. Blame the media. Or CRT.
-
Some may look at these numbers and say they're troubling. I say it's evidence our schools are doing a fantastic job preparing kids for the workplace. Or going to the movies. Or grocery shopping. Or the mall. Or a concert.
More than half of parents say their school-aged children sometimes worry about gun violence while attending school, including more than a quarter who say they worry about it a lot.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-violence-schools-parents-children-opinion-poll-2022-06-05/
Duh. The obvious solution is to allow them to conceal carry.
-
Duh. The obvious solution is to allow them to conceal carry.
Maybe they could carry a locked door around. But only a single door.
-
Bulletproof backpacks. Do they come in Phineas and Ferb patterns?
-
Duh. The obvious solution is to allow them to conceal carry.
Ohio just passed a bill to allow teachers to do just that.
So the narrative is that teachers are liberal groomers who teach CRT and aren't to be trusted.....but you want them to carry firearms around your kids.
-
Ohio just passed a bill to allow teachers to do just that.
So the narrative is that teachers are liberal groomers who teach CRT and aren't to be trusted.....but you want them to carry firearms around your kids.
Only in America
-
Ohio just passed a bill to allow teachers to do just that.
So the narrative is that teachers are liberal groomers who teach CRT and aren't to be trusted.....but you want them to carry firearms around your kids.
ANY teacher carrying a gun in school becomes both a supplier and a target.
A kid no longer would even need to acquire a gun or risk getting one into the school. The supply will already be in schools waiting for any troubled kid who wants to kill other teachers or students.
-
18 more shot to death this past weekend.
In Philly, an argument breaks out at street festival ... but because the arguers have easy-to-get guns, you have a hail of bullets instead of a shoving match or fistfight. So people are dead, and they weren't even involved in the argument.
What was needed were more guns! If only everybody in the crowd of thousands had more guns, think of all the lives that would have been saved when hundreds of them opened fire.
Only in Gunmerica, where "life is sacred" takes a backseat to "from my cold, dead hands."
-
ANY teacher carrying a gun in school becomes both a supplier and a target.
A kid no longer would even need to acquire a gun or risk getting one into the school. The supply will already be in schools waiting for any troubled kid who wants to kill other teachers or students.
I’d prefer arming teachers with tools to help teach our children but that isn’t happening anytime soon.
-
Books are dangerous.
-
Books are dangerous.
It’s part of America’s proud history of being as ignorant as possible despite all the worldly advantages of any civilization in the history of the world. Our fight against knowledge by some is astounding.
-
I’d prefer arming teachers with tools to help teach our children but that isn’t happening anytime soon.
I’m sure they will make the teachers buy their own guns too, just like they have to buy teaching supplies for class.
-
18 more shot to death this past weekend.
In Philly, an argument breaks out at street festival ... but because the arguers have easy-to-get guns, you have a hail of bullets instead of a shoving match or fistfight. So people are dead, and they weren't even involved in the argument.
What was needed were more guns! If only everybody in the crowd of thousands had more guns, think of all the lives that would have been saved when hundreds of them opened fire.
Only in Gunmerica, where "life is sacred" takes a backseat to "from my cold, dead hands."
Meanwhile those people with easy access to guns despite tough gun control laws in Philadelphia are not being held accountable.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-gun-arrests-2021-convictions-vufa-20210330.html
-
Quite a scene in Season 3, Episode 2 of The Boys.
Butcher shows up at the 33rd Annual Firearms Convention, run by the superhero-management corporation, Vought. He's looking for a "supe" called Gunpowder.
There are scanners at the entrance, and attendees place their cellphones and keys in containers to be examined. As he's ready to step through, Butcher realizes he hasn't checked his gun. He takes it out of his belt, but before he can put it through the scanner, the security guard just says, "Nice piece -- welcome!" and sends him through.
Inside the convention hall, kids are using crayons on gun-themed coloring books. Some are sitting on their mommies' laps while they point rifles around the room.
Butcher goes into one of the conference rooms and sits down to hear Gunpowder, who is the featured speaker. Waving a huge pistol around as he addresses an audience filled with parents holding their little kids, Gunpowder shouts:
And I tell you something, if Dakota Bob Singer gets elected president, well, you say hello to left-wing socialism! Cuz I’ll tell you this right now, he’s gonna follow the George Soros globalist playbook to a tee:
Step 1, oppress the citizens and confiscate their firearms.
Step 2, have it all gleefully reported by the so-called "news media."
And step 3, in every classroom around the country they’re gonna teach your kids to hate America, the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment!
Good for us, the Silent Majority, and the Vought Rifle Association, let me tell you something: We are armed and we’re ready to fight back!!!
Thanks for coming, ladies and gentlemen. Don’t forget, 2-for-1 on hollow points on the way out. Use the promo code "Gunpowder"!
-
Meanwhile those people with easy access to guns despite tough gun control laws in Philadelphia are not being held accountable.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-gun-arrests-2021-convictions-vufa-20210330.html
Why do you think that is?
-
Udalve native Matthew McConaughey published an op-ed today advocating for things like universal background checks, age limits for semiautomatic rifles, red flag laws and waiting periods ... basically the kind of stuff nearly everyone here is on board with. Except he reframes the discussion as "gun responsibility" instead of gun control.
Potayto-potahto, far as I'm concerned, but if changing a word will get more people on board and something accomplished, then I'm all for it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/06/06/matthew-mcconaughey-editorial-time-responsible-choices-guns/7523836001/
-
Maybe a little movement, as Republican pols and leaders are starting to get a little more involved ...
From the Washington Post:
Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), who is leading the talks for Republicans, said in an interview Thursday that he shared a sense of urgency. “I think we need to act, and we need to act relatively quickly,” he told The Washington Post. “We could lose this opportunity to do what we could to save lives, which to me is what this is all about.”
While Republicans have long emerged as unflinching defenders of gun rights, encouraged by a voting base that includes millions of gun owners, there are signs that GOP lawmakers may have more negotiating space than in the past.
An open letter published Sunday in the Dallas Morning News signed by more than 250 prominent Texas conservatives offered support to Cornyn as “the right man to lead this bipartisan effort.” The signers also endorsed a federal red-flag law and expanded background checks.
In an interview Friday, the key Democrat negotiating a federal red-flag provision, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), said he was encouraged by the progress that had been made on that aspect of the negotiations.
Blumenthal said he and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) had come to an agreement between the two of them on a basic framework for legislation that would create a system of incentives, grants and federal standards for states that create their own red-flag laws. But he said details were still being hashed out as the discussion moved to a wider group of bipartisan negotiators.
Cornyn said Thursday that he is willing to consider expanding the scope of criminal records that can block a gun sale under the federal instant background check system to include juvenile records. That could theoretically block a sale to a young gun buyer who has been judged responsible for a criminal act in sealed juvenile proceedings but has no adult record.
Baby steps. Not getting my hopes up yet.
Also ...
Former U.S. Rep. Will Hurd of Texas wrote an op-ed in the NYT with the headline: I’m a Republican Who Represented Uvalde in Congress. I Want More Than Thoughts and Prayers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/opinion/politics/will-hurd-uvalde-congress-guns.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220606&instance_id=63307&nl=the-morning®i_id=108420427&segment_id=94340&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
He mostly talked about things having to do with mental health but also supports universal background checks and other legislation that the vast majority of Americans want.
-
Meanwhile those people with easy access to guns despite tough gun control laws in Philadelphia are not being held accountable.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-gun-arrests-2021-convictions-vufa-20210330.html
Good to see you in support of tough gun laws and expressing a desire that those who break those laws face the consequences.
-
Udalve native Matthew McConaughey published an op-ed today advocating for things like universal background checks, age limits for semiautomatic rifles, red flag laws and waiting periods ... basically the kind of stuff nearly everyone here is on board with. Except he reframes the discussion as "gun responsibility" instead of gun control.
Potayto-potahto, far as I'm concerned, but if changing a word will get more people on board and something accomplished, then I'm all for it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/06/06/matthew-mcconaughey-editorial-time-responsible-choices-guns/7523836001/
Honestly, thats kind of brilliant. Reframing something with a slight twist can often be foolishly effective.
-
Honestly, thats kind of brilliant. Reframing something with a slight twist can often be foolishly effective.
I was just thinking the same.
Gun responsibility may in fact be a far better description in the first place
And we were born a few weeks apart in November 1969 and both big U2 fans.
-
Honestly, thats kind of brilliant. Reframing something with a slight twist can often be foolishly effective.
"Gun responsibility" -- I like it!
The GOP always has been better at this than the Dems.
Frank Luntz made a science out of it:
"Death tax" instead of "estate tax" ... "exploring for energy" instead of "drilling for oil" ... "parental choice" instead of "school choice" ... "tax simplification" instead of "tax reform" ... "illegal aliens" instead of "undocumented workers" ... etc.
-
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762
-
"Gun responsibility" -- I like it!
The GOP always has been better at this than the Dems.
Frank Luntz made a science out of it:
"Death tax" instead of "estate tax" ... "exploring for energy" instead of "drilling for oil" ... "parental choice" instead of "school choice" ... "tax simplification" instead of "tax reform" ... "illegal aliens" instead of "undocumented workers" ... etc.
They had previously floated gun safety, but responsibility sounds better to me.
-
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762
Thanks for this link. Interesting study and interview
-
Thanks for this link. Interesting study and interview
Agreed. I thought this passage was especially illuminating:
POLITICO: In your book, you say that in an ideal world, 500,000 psychologists would be employed in schools around the country. If you assume a modest salary of $70,000 a year, that amounts to over $35 billion in funding. Are you seeing any national or state-level political momentum for even a sliver of these kind of mental health resources?
Densley: Every time these tragedies happen, you always ask yourself, “Is this the one that’s going to finally move the needle?” The Republican narrative is that we’re not going to touch guns because this is all about mental health. Well then, we need to ask the follow-up question of what’s the plan to fix that mental health problem. Nobody’s saying, “Let’s fund this, let’s do it, we’ll get the votes.” That’s the political piece that’s missing here.
POLITICO: Are Democrats talking about mental health?
Densley: Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.
Peterson: Post-Columbine there’s been this real focus on hardening schools — metal detectors, armed officers, teaching our kids to run and hide. The shift I’m starting to see, at least here in Minnesota, is that people are realizing hardening doesn’t work. Over 90 percent of the time, school shooters target their own school. These are insiders, not outsiders. We just had a bill in Minnesota that recognized public safety as training people in suicide prevention and funding counselors. I hope we keep moving in that direction.
-
"Gun responsibility" -- I like it!
The GOP always has been better at this than the Dems.
Frank Luntz made a science out of it:
"Death tax" instead of "estate tax" ... "exploring for energy" instead of "drilling for oil" ... "parental choice" instead of "school choice" ... "tax simplification" instead of "tax reform" ... "illegal aliens" instead of "undocumented workers" ... etc.
"Supply side economics" instead of trickle down/voodoo economics.
-
"Supply side economics" instead of trickle down/voodoo economics.
I'm still waiting to get trickled on
-
Tourists.
-
Getting off topic here, but Carlin had a brilliant routine on our use of euphemisms ro hide reality.
https://www.lingq.com/en/learn-english-online/courses/87644/george-carlin-euphemisms-447260/
-
Two weeks after Udalve, Texas lawmakers are finally taking action to ban an insidious threat to the state's children ... drag queens.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-lawmaker-proposes-ban-minors-watching-drag-shows-rcna32183
-
Two weeks after Udalve, Texas lawmakers are finally taking action to ban an insidious threat to the state's children ... drag queens.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-lawmaker-proposes-ban-minors-watching-drag-shows-rcna32183
And this is relevant to the thread, other than to bait and politically troll, how?
-
And this is relevant to the thread, other than to bait and politically troll, how?
It's relevant to show how Texas lawmakers' priorities are effed up, as they would rather waste time on meaningless gestures like this than anything that might actually protect children.
You are free to ignore my posts.
If you feel "baited" by this, you're part of the problem.
-
And this is relevant to the thread, other than to bait and politically troll, how?
It might be that it also shows how unserious we are as a nation
-
It's relevant to show how Texas lawmakers' priorities are effed up, as they would rather waste time on meaningless gestures like this than anything that might actually protect children.
You are free to ignore my posts.
If you feel "baited" by this, you're part of the problem.
I'm not baited in any way. I'm not offended by drag shows nor do they make me clutch my pearls.
You're a smart dude and a valuable poster, so ignored your posts would be loss, especially in season.
But I also enjoy this board most of the time. We've had 3 gun threads closed for political BS. People are rightly called out for injecting unrelated political banter into threads that cause chaos. This does nothing to enrich that discussion other than open an avenue for right and left to argue about something else.
You're smart enough to know exactly what you were doing. Everyone's favorite punching bag does the same thing but just not as smoothly or stating good intentions.
It might be that it also shows how unserious we are as a nation
Again, does nothing to further a thread on an already touchy topic that has been a powder keg. We have plenty of other "SMH America" threads.
I don't want Hunter's laptops in economic thread, coup attempts in a baby formula thread, AOC tweets when discussing China logistical issues, or whatever old Turtlehead Mitch did when we talk about Summerfest.
-
I don't want Hunter's laptops in economic thread, coup attempts in a baby formula thread, AOC tweets when discussing China logistical issues, or whatever old Turtlehead Mitch did when we talk about Summerfest.
Hunter's laptop has nothing to do with the economy.
Coup attempts have nothing to do with baby formula.
AOC's tweets have nothing to do China logistics.
Mitch McConnell has nothing to do with Summerfest.
Texas lawmakers who worry more about protecting children from a drag performance than a homicidal maniac armed with semiautomatic weapons has everything to do with the topic at hand.
When mass shootings happen elsewhere, legislators take action to try to prevent a reoccurrence. When massing shootings happen in the U.S., legislators condemn drag queens, video games and hip-hop. Oh, and doors. Too many doors.
How can you not see this as not only relevant, but central, to our problem?
-
Hunter's laptop has nothing to do with the economy.
Coup attempts have nothing to do with baby formula.
AOC's tweets have nothing to do China logistics.
Mitch McConnell has nothing to do with Summerfest.
Texas lawmakers who worry more about protecting children from a drag performance than a homicidal maniac armed with semiautomatic weapons has everything to do with the topic at hand.
When mass shootings happen elsewhere, legislators take action to try to prevent a reoccurrence. When massing shootings happen in the U.S., legislators condemn drag queens, video games and hip-hop. Oh, and doors. Too many doors.
How can you not see this as not only relevant, but central, to our problem?
The US government has a long and storied history of not addressing problems, diverting attention to other things while using tragedies to further alternate agendas and initiatives, misplacing blame and hatred, etc... Its not new, its not groundbreaking, I don't think it does anything for productive discussing here. Unlike the Matty M article and related commentary.
Nothing in the statement or the article mentions the shooting. He didn't say banning children at drag shows would have stopped the shooting. Its just another dumb piece of legislation from fundamentalist moron.
-
Hunter's laptop has nothing to do with the economy.
Coup attempts have nothing to do with baby formula.
AOC's tweets have nothing to do China logistics.
Mitch McConnell has nothing to do with Summerfest.
Texas lawmakers who worry more about protecting children from a drag performance than a homicidal maniac armed with semiautomatic weapons has everything to do with the topic at hand.
When mass shootings happen elsewhere, legislators take action to try to prevent a reoccurrence. When massing shootings happen in the U.S., legislators condemn drag queens, video games and hip-hop. Oh, and doors. Too many doors.
How can you not see this as not only relevant, but central, to our problem?
Plenty of time in a legislators day to pass more than one law.
-
Plenty of time in a legislators day to pass more than one law.
I’ll wait then for Texas to address the gun culture issues in their state knowing they can pass more than one law a day
-
Right in this thread, we had a long discussion about priorities.
Well, Texas GOP lawmakers -- presented over the weekend with a letter from Republican donors to enact common-sense gun-responsibility measures that a majority of people want -- instead prioritized legislating hatred against "others."
Not just relevant, but EXTREMELY relevant.
Happiness is a warm gun.
-
Incredibly powerful stuff from Matthew McConaughey at the White House.
"We can't truly be leaders if we are only living for reelection" is a pretty stinging indictment of politics in general.
I'm no fan of celebrity politics but I can think of far worse faces for a sea change movement. From Uvalde, dude is Texas to the CORE. Long time hunter, grew up with guns and isn't anti-gun by any imagination.
-
Right in this thread, we had a long discussion about priorities.
Well, Texas GOP lawmakers -- presented over the weekend with a letter from Republican donors to enact common-sense gun-responsibility measures that a majority of people want -- instead prioritized legislating hatred against "others."
Not just relevant, but EXTREMELY relevant.
Happiness is a warm gun.
Ever think they will enact some common sense gun responsibility measures, just maybe they are actually formulating something that will work and not some spur of the moment crap that wont do much (like a lot of legislation seems to do)
-
Ever think they will enact some common sense gun responsibility measures, just maybe they are actually formulating something that will work and not some spur of the moment crap that wont do much (like a lot of legislation seems to do)
In Texas? Absolutely not
-
Ever think they will enact some common sense gun responsibility measures, just maybe they are actually formulating something that will work and not some spur of the moment crap that wont do much (like a lot of legislation seems to do)
You mean like after Sandy Hook and Parkland?
-
Matthew McConaughey hit it out of the park in a speech at the White House today. Made the “leaders” of both parties (and most scoopers) look like the stubborn partisan fools they are on this issue.
If we could accept EVERYTHING he said and act on it we might have real progress and perhaps even a little healing. It was a wonderful moment - actually made me optimistic if only for a moment.
-
Matthew McConaughey hit it out of the park in a speech at the White House today. Made the “leaders” of both parties (and most scoopers) look like the stubborn partisan fools they are on this issue.
If we could accept EVERYTHING he said and act on it we might have real progress and perhaps even a little healing. It was a wonderful moment - actually made me optimistic if only for a moment.
Right, because it's "both sides" that have blocked every single piece of responsible gun legislation in the last 20 years. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Matthew McConaughey hit it out of the park in a speech at the White House today. Made the “leaders” of both parties (and most scoopers) look like the stubborn partisan fools they are on this issue.
If we could accept EVERYTHING he said and act on it we might have real progress and perhaps even a little healing. It was a wonderful moment - actually made me optimistic if only for a moment.
I saw the speech. It was great, but it sounded like what a lot of Scoopers and many left leaning politicians have been saying for years on this topic. I personally don't think his proposed remedies go far enough but I would gladly try them and would be happy to be wrong if they proved to be effective enough.
-
I'd love to see what would happen to Matthew if he ran in a GOP primary in Texas with his gun control ideas as his major platform
-
I'd love to see what would happen to Matthew if he ran in a GOP primary in Texas with his gun control ideas as his major platform
I'm sure he'd get murdered. Hopefully not literally.
-
I'd love to see what would happen to Matthew if he ran in a GOP primary in Texas with his gun control ideas as his major platform
He’d lose. His speech was from the heart and believable but his fellow Texans won’t care.
-
You mean like after Sandy Hook and Parkland?
I guess I should have put it in teal
-
I saw the speech. It was great, but it sounded like what a lot of Scoopers and many left leaning politicians have been saying for years on this topic. I personally don't think his proposed remedies go far enough but I would gladly try them and would be happy to be wrong if they proved to be effective enough.
Not to me. His speech was balanced. He realizes that the issue is multifaceted. Should an 18 year old be allowed to buy an AR 15? Should there be waiting periods? And other gun restrictions? Sure. On the other hand, should we do a better job of protecting our schools? What about red flag laws, dealing with young men who have obvious mental health problems? How about enforcing gun laws now on the books and toughening sentences for crimes committed with firearms? And maybe even stop demonizing law abiding responsible gun owners?
-
Matthew McConaughey hit it out of the park in a speech at the White House today. Made the “leaders” of both parties (and most scoopers) look like the stubborn partisan fools they are on this issue.
If we could accept EVERYTHING he said and act on it we might have real progress and perhaps even a little healing. It was a wonderful moment - actually made me optimistic if only for a moment.
That’s all garbage, Lenny. Pretend all you want that it is both sides, but you’re lying to yourself and to us.
Again today, Rs said they were fine with 18 year old kids buying weapons of war that destroy bodies. Little kids who couldn’t even be identified except from their parents DNA.
That comes from only one side.
-
I'd love to see what would happen to Matthew if he ran in a GOP primary in Texas with his gun control ideas as his major platform
He's a Democrat FWIW although I think he was thinking about running for Governor as an Independent in 2022.
-
This is where we are:
https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/status/1534161467288670208
-
Not to me. His speech was balanced. He realizes that the issue is multifaceted. Should an 18 year old be allowed to buy an AR 15? Should there be waiting periods? And other gun restrictions? Sure. On the other hand, should we do a better job of protecting our schools? What about red flag laws, dealing with young men who have obvious mental health problems? How about enforcing gun laws now on the books and toughening sentences for crimes committed with firearms? And maybe even stop demonizing law abiding responsible gun owners?
I am on board with everything you just outlined, Tony, and I've asked for just about all of those gun-responsibility measures in this and other gun-related threads.
Glad you're on board, too, and I trust that you will vote during the next election with those points in mind. Let's work together to save some lives!
-
And maybe even stop demonizing law abiding responsible gun owners?
Do you believe law-abiding, responsible gun owners oppose reasonable gun control measures - red flags, age limits, magazine limits, background checks - not because they disagree with such measures, but because they feel demonized?
-
Not to me. His speech was balanced. He realizes that the issue is multifaceted. Should an 18 year old be allowed to buy an AR 15? Should there be waiting periods? And other gun restrictions? Sure. On the other hand, should we do a better job of protecting our schools? What about red flag laws, dealing with young men who have obvious mental health problems? How about enforcing gun laws now on the books and toughening sentences for crimes committed with firearms? And maybe even stop demonizing law abiding responsible gun owners?
I'm glad to hear that you are on the team Lenny. I hope that we can see some meaningful progress on this topic
-
Do you believe law-abiding, responsible gun owners oppose reasonable gun control measures - red flags, age limits, magazine limits, background checks - not because they disagree with such measures, but because they feel demonized?
Could they not be opposed to those measures, but they don't trust those proposing them cause they do feel demonized? I think the opposition would be to those proposing them as to the explicit measure itself.
I can't speak for gun ownership or the feeling, but I have felt that way about some politicians on economic taxing issues...in that I fundamentally disagree with how they view/demonize business/the free market and wouldn't trust them to only enact "minor" changes.
-
Could they not be opposed to those measures, but they don't trust those proposing them cause they do feel demonized? I think the opposition would be to those proposing them as to the explicit measure itself.
I can't speak for gun ownership or the feeling, but I have felt that way about some politicians on economic taxing issues...in that I fundamentally disagree with how they view/demonize business/the free market and wouldn't trust them to only enact "minor" changes.
Hmmm.
So this is why the majority of GOP congresspeople won’t enact gun-responsibility laws?
-
Matthew McConaughey hit it out of the park in a speech at the White House today. Made the “leaders” of both parties (and most scoopers) look like the stubborn partisan fools they are on this issue.
If we could accept EVERYTHING he said and act on it we might have real progress and perhaps even a little healing. It was a wonderful moment - actually made me optimistic if only for a moment.
Oh look Lenny, "both sides" acting like stubborn partisan fools.
https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1534332233816981508
JUST IN: Republican leadership just sent out a notice telling all House Republicans to vote against common-sense gun safety bills tonight because the NRA opposes them— they told them all to refer to the Protect Our Kids Act as the “Unconstitutional Gun Restrictions Act.”
-
Do you believe law-abiding, responsible gun owners oppose reasonable gun control measures - red flags, age limits, magazine limits, background checks - not because they disagree with such measures, but because they feel demonized?
I want to do what I believe to be the right thing to do. However, since an unnamed they hurt my feelings, I will oppose.
ok.
-
Oh look Lenny, "both sides" acting like stubborn partisan fools.
https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1534332233816981508
JUST IN: Republican leadership just sent out a notice telling all House Republicans to vote against common-sense gun safety bills tonight because the NRA opposes them— they told them all to refer to the Protect Our Kids Act as the “Unconstitutional Gun Restrictions Act.”
I don't think the bill would pass constitutional muster in the courts; especially with limits on magazine capacity. Take that out there might be some agreement.
https://congressionalsportsmen.org/policies/state/full-capacity-magazines
-
I want to do what I believe to be the right thing to do. However, since an unnamed they hurt my feelings, I will oppose.
ok.
Ding Ding Ding!
If you believe things like age limits, background checks and red flag laws will make us safer and save lives, but will oppose them because someone said something on Facebook that hurt your feels or you fall for some slippery slope fallacy, then you deserve every bit of demonization.
-
I am on board with everything you just outlined, Tony, and I've asked for just about all of those gun-responsibility measures in this and other gun-related threads.
Glad you're on board, too, and I trust that you will vote during the next election with those points in mind. Let's work together to save some lives!
[/color]
Your point is well taken, but the high cost of gas, groceries and just about everything else with no plan in sight to get the country on the right track is what will drive people to the polls this fall, not gun control.
-
[/color]
Your point is well taken, but the high cost of gas, groceries and just about everything else with no plan in sight to get the country on the right track is what will drive people to the polls this fall, not gun control.
It’s driving me to the polls, along with Roe.
-
Hmmm.
So this is why the majority of GOP congresspeople won’t enact gun-responsibility laws?
Thats a completely different issue that I didn't speak to. I was only talking gun owners who don't have lobbyists and party politic BS to deal with.
Ding Ding Ding!
If you believe things like age limits, background checks and red flag laws will make us safer and save lives, but will oppose them because someone said something on Facebook that hurt your feels or you fall for some slippery slope fallacy, then you deserve every bit of demonization.
Yes, cause the only people in the US who have EVER demonized legal gun ownership is just some anonymous idiot on social media ::)
-
Yes, cause the only people in the US who have EVER demonized legal gun ownership is just some anonymous idiot on social media ::)
That's not at all what I said. No need for dishonesty Wags.
And what difference does it make? Is your argument that it's stupid to oppose something that will save lives to spite an anonymous social media user, but it's completely reasonable to do it to spite a politician you don't like?
Either way, if you do that, you're an idiot.
-
That's not at all what I said. No need for dishonesty Wags.
And what difference does it make? Is your argument that it's stupid to oppose something that will save lives to spite an anonymous social media user, but it's completely reasonable to do it to spite a politician you don't like?
Either way, if you do that, you're an idiot.
Its not dishonest. Lenny said don't demonize responsible gun owners and you and Frenns chose to focus on people getting butthurt over social media posts, like that was the main driver.
Go back to my reasonable earlier post you ignored to choose a different post for an easy alley oop. It doesn't have to be spite, it has to do with distrust. Distrusting a politician, much less one with pretty stark contrasting views to yours, even if you agree on minor measures, doesn't make you an idiot by any stretch.
-
Yes, cause the only people in the US who have EVER demonized legal gun ownership is just some anonymous idiot on social media ::)
But this is exactly how we got here, Wags. This notion that the right can't compromise because if they budge left on anything, there are more people who are still further left who will advocate for further left policies the next day. Of course they will and they should, that's the nature of what we're doing here.
-
Its not dishonest. Lenny said don't demonize responsible gun owners and you and Frenns chose to focus on people getting butthurt over social media posts, like that was the main driver.
It's entirely dishonest, because you know that's not what we wrote and you know we didn't claim it was the main driver. Whatever. Do you.
But since you know, what is the main driver?
Go back to my reasonable earlier post you ignored to choose a different post for an easy alley oop. It doesn't have to be spite, it has to do with distrust. Distrusting a politician, much less one with pretty stark contrasting views to yours, even if you agree on minor measures, doesn't make you an idiot by any stretch.
Your "distrust" argument is a slippery slope that's no better than opposing it out of spite.
"If we allow background checks, then they're coming for my guns!" is not a reasonable position. It's not even remotely based in fact. Like, how do we legislatively get from one to the other? You can't!
So yeah, if your position is "I'm OK with red-flag laws, but if we allow that it'll open the door to a gun ban," then you are ignorant of how the law and legislative process works.
-
But this is exactly how we got here, Wags. This notion that the right can't compromise because if they budge left on anything, there are more people who are still further left who will advocate for further left policies the next day. Of course they will and they should, that's the nature of what we're doing here.
Sure, but I think the issue, amongst many different political issues, is a lack of moderate voices. They get shouted down or blacklisted by those in their own party.
Its very easy for someone with no skin in the game from a gun ownership/interest stake to say "well if we go too far to the left with gun control and end up like Canada or Australia, so be it, its for the greater good", but for someone who truly responsibly partakes in gun ownership, thats not an easy choice.
Compromise needs to happen, but thats why bipartisanship is so key (and so concerning how bullheaded the GOP is about it) cause voices need to come from a pro-gun perspective on this, not just the anti-gun perspective.
-
It's entirely dishonest, because you know that's not what we wrote and you know we didn't claim it was the main driver. Whatever. Do you.
But since you know, what is the main driver?
Gun owners, much like the right in general, aren't a monolith, so treating them as such is silly. And I don't know, its different for many people. What I do know is I was the only person who posted that even posed that "demonization" could be something other than hurt feelings or a hissy fit over something they read online.
Your "distrust" argument is a slippery slope that's no better than opposing it out of spite.
"If we allow background checks, then they're coming for my guns!" is not a reasonable position. It's not even remotely based in fact. Like, how do we legislatively get from one to the other? You can't!
So yeah, if your position is "I'm OK with red-flag laws, but if we allow that it'll open the door to a gun ban," then you are ignorant of how the law and legislative process works.
Knew slippery slope was coming. Its your constant refrain whenever people you disagree with want to look past a single activity to future events. As much as it can be a fallacy, it is also an easy way to parry away any future hypothetical as silly and hysterical. You literally just posted about in the LBJ thread loosely supporting Jesu's position that labor regulation could crumble under a president but citing some teen work hours. Is that not a slippery slope?
I'm not ignorant of the process and they don't have to be either. Nobody intelligent truly thinks that passing reasonable gun reform in the near term means they won't be allowed to have guns in 2023. But if a gun reform platform converted a number of senate or congressional seats, its not unreasonable to think its a continued elevated and visible priority pushing further in that direction. Do you truly think, if the Dems passed a number of sensible gun control measures, things like a handgun ban wouldn't be in their sights in the near future?
-
Knew slippery slope was coming. Its your constant refrain whenever people you disagree with want to look past a single activity to future events. As much as it can be a fallacy, it is also an easy way to parry away any future hypothetical as silly and hysterical. You literally just posted about in the LBJ thread loosely supporting Jesu's position that labor regulation could crumble under a president but citing some teen work hours. Is that not a slippery slope?
What are you talking about? I literally wrote that 1900s-style child labor isn't returning. Again, we can have a good-faith disagreement here without dishonesty.
Do you truly think, if the Dems passed a number of sensible gun control measures, things like a handgun ban wouldn't be in their sights in the near future?
Given that handgun bans were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago (see: District of Columbia v. Heller) ... No, I don't believe a handgun ban would be in their sights. And again, people who understand the law and legislative process already know this.
The gun lobby preys upon the uninformed with these exact kind of fear tactics to prevent any action, even on measures the large majority of gun owners support.
-
Given that handgun bans were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago (see: District of Columbia v. Heller) ...
Things ruled unconstitutional being overturned by a new Supreme Court? Could that happen?
-
It’s driving me to the polls, along with Roe.
If gun control and Roe are your priorities that is your right, but I suspect voters like you will be in the minority this fall.
-
If gun control and Roe are your priorities that is your right, but I suspect voters like you will be in the minority this fall.
January 6th treason, too.
-
[/color]
Your point is well taken, but the high cost of gas, groceries and just about everything else with no plan in sight to get the country on the right track is what will drive people to the polls this fall, not gun control.
Then I guess all lives don't really matter.
-
Then I guess all lives don't really matter.
Only until delivery. As soon as the cord is cut, they're on their own.
-
Full disclosure I've only read about 2/3 of the pages on this thread so not sure if this has been mentioned or not...
the only way we can get some common sense laws passed is if what happened in Australia happens here. In Australia, the laws were actually shockingly spearheaded by a conservative president/prime minister and conservative government in 1995/1996. The evidence is ample that the laws worked. Just look at the data of mass shootings before and after the laws were enacted. We need some conservatives to have the balls to do the right thing despite all of the gun lobbying money. It worked in Australia and can work here if enough break party lines to do the right thing.
It worked in Australia because they have no right to bare arms. In the US the government just can't pass legislation to ban the sale of guns as that would violate the Constitution.
-
Only until delivery. As soon as the cord is cut, they're on their own.
Yeah, I forgot about it being OK for "small government" to reach into women's wombs without their consent.
-
It worked in Australia because they have no right to bare arms. In the US the government just can't pass legislation to ban the sale of guns as that would violate the Constitution.
Well, except the U.S. government did pass legislation to ban the sale of some guns and it withstood all legal challenges.
The right to bear arms has never been considered absolute. That's why your neighbor can't own a rocket launcher or a tank.
-
Well, except the U.S. government did pass legislation to ban the sale of some guns and it withstood all legal challenges.
The right to bear arms has never been considered absolute. That's why your neighbor can't own a rocket launcher or a tank.
Yep. The entire 2nd Amendment has 27 words, and 2 of them are well regulated. In fact, except for the article "a," well regulated are the amendment's very first two words.
Let's regulate this imperfect and vague amendment, and let's regulate it well!
-
Only until delivery. As soon as the cord is cut, they're on their own.
There’s these things called “parents”….these days, however, usually singular with a missing father….
-
If gun control and Roe are your priorities that is your right, but I suspect voters like you will be in the minority this fall.
This seems correct based on everyone I have talked to. We will see.
-
Yeah, I forgot about it being OK for "small government" to reach into women's wombs without their consent.
Actually small government advocates would prefer no one reach into a women’s womb, especially if the purpose is to extinguish a life.
-
Actually small government advocates would prefer no one reach into a women’s womb, especially if the purpose is to extinguish a life.
1. What does being an advocate for small or large government have to do with a healthcare decision between a woman and her doctor?
2. If life begins at conception, I look forward to the US census reflecting this as well as any government benefits/tax changes.
-
Actually small government advocates would prefer no one reach into a women’s womb, especially if the purpose is to extinguish a life.
Ah, that explains why you're voting for politicians who are in favor of paid parental leave, paid child care, pre-K school for all, improved conditions and pay for teachers, at least one mental-healthcare professional in every school, and the strong gun-responsibility laws that you've already echoed McConaughey in supporting.
Thanks in advance for vowing to vote out all those who would deny those important measures.
Just because you agree with religious zealots instead of scientists about what constitutes "life," and just because you seem to favor government telling women what to do with their reproductive systems, it's great that you won't support all the politicians who abandon those human lives after they enter the world.
Thanks again!
-
What are you talking about? I literally wrote that 1900s-style child labor isn't returning. Again, we can have a good-faith disagreement here without dishonesty.
Given that handgun bans were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago (see: District of Columbia v. Heller) ... No, I don't believe a handgun ban would be in their sights. And again, people who understand the law and legislative process already know this.
The gun lobby preys upon the uninformed with these exact kind of fear tactics to prevent any action, even on measures the large majority of gun owners support.
...but the law proposed in Congress if passed would essentially ban many guns. If you make it illegal to have a gun with a magazine of more than ten rounds you made it illegal to purchase that gun. The law also wants to raise the age to 21 to purchase a rifle. Even the 9th circuit just ruled that a minimum age of 21 to purchase a rifle (AR-15) is unconstitutional. So what is in that proposed law is not fear mongering but of legitimate concerns.
I'll concede the courts decisions on many of these laws are inconsistent and vary from state to state and circuit court district to circuit court district.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-11/federal-court-rules-california-ban-on-gun-sales-to-people-under-21-unconstitutional
-
Actually small government advocates would prefer no one reach into a women’s womb, especially if the purpose is to extinguish a life.
You woke up this morning and decided this on your own. Your opinion has nothing to do with 'small government advocates'.
Small government means what it means. Minimal government overreach. And reproductive rights have never once been on the agenda until the moral majority decided to use it as a wedge issue starting in the late 70s with Jerry Falwell.
Lines perfectly up with when your brain rot probably started.
-
...but the law proposed in Congress if passed would essentially ban many guns. If you make it illegal to have a gun with a magazine of more than ten rounds you made it illegal to purchase that gun. The law also wants to raise the age to 21 to purchase a rifle. Even the 9th circuit just ruled that a minimum age of 21 to purchase a rifle (AR-15) is unconstitutional. So what is in that proposed law is not fear mongering but of legitimate concerns.
I'll concede the courts decisions on many of these laws are inconsistent and vary from state to state and circuit court district to circuit court district.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-11/federal-court-rules-california-ban-on-gun-sales-to-people-under-21-unconstitutional
No, you've just regulated the size of the magazine for that particular firearm, not banned the weapon.
-
No, you've just regulated the size of the magazine for that particular firearm, not banned the weapon.
...but a 10 round magazine won't fit that firearm. It is my understanding that the magazine capacity for each firearm is fixed and are not interchangeable. If I am wrong I'll stand corrected.
-
...but a 10 round magazine won't fit that firearm.
I assure you, in a world of supply and demand, someone will manufacture a magazine that would fit that weapon.
-
Ah, that explains why you're voting for politicians who are in favor of paid parental leave, paid child care, pre-K school for all, improved conditions and pay for teachers, at least one mental-healthcare professional in every school, and the strong gun-responsibility laws that you've already echoed McConaughey in supporting.
Thanks in advance for vowing to vote out all those who would deny those important measures.
Just because you agree with religious zealots instead of scientists about what constitutes "life," and just because you seem to favor government telling women what to do with their reproductive systems, it's great that you won't support all the politicians who abandon those human lives after they enter the world.
Thanks again!
I am very sorry that you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, or hold two thoughts about two separate issues at the same time.
The answer to republicans who oppose these things for liberals is just to snuff out innocent life, I guess. Very sophisticated.
-
I am very sorry that you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, or hold two thoughts about two separate issues at the same time.
The answer to republicans who oppose these things for liberals is just to snuff out innocent life, I guess. Very sophisticated.
Interesting. Do you believe in the death penalty?
-
I am very sorry that you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, or hold two thoughts about two separate issues at the same time.
The answer to republicans who oppose these things for liberals is just to snuff out innocent life, I guess. Very sophisticated.
The answer is to care about those who actually are human beings -- including women who need to be allowed to control their own reproductive systems, and innocent children who are getting gunned down in part because of how easy it is for murderers to get guns.
-
...but a 10 round magazine won't fit that firearm. It is my understanding that the magazine capacity for each firearm is fixed and are not interchangeable. If I am wrong I'll stand corrected.
Is there some Constitutional right that says gun manufacturers must never be required to change the capacity of their magazines?
-
Interesting. Do you believe in the death penalty?
I don’t. I’m pro life for the most innocent and the most heinously guilty in our society.
How about you? Kill the innocent and protect the guilty?
-
The answer is to care about those who actually are human beings -- including women who need to be allowed to control their own reproductive systems, and innocent children who are getting gunned down in part because of how easy it is for murderers to get guns.
they are very much allowed to control their reproduction systems-and many wish they would please
abstain
rhythm method
use birth control
abortion kills innocent children-period
-
LOL..."rhythm method"
Are you serious with that sh*t???
-
they are very much allowed to control their reproduction systems-and many wish they would please
abstain
rhythm method
use birth control
abortion kills innocent children-period
So do guns. Period.
-
Let's just be clear. Rocket cares more about a mass of cells that's not viable outside the womb than he does school age children.
-
Let's just be clear. Rocket cares more about a mass of cells that's not viable outside the womb than he does school age children.
He doesn’t really
-
they are very much allowed to control their reproduction systems-and many wish they would please
abstain
rhythm method
use birth control
abortion kills innocent children-period
I thank God every day for the rythym method. Without it, I wouldn't exist!
The only one of these methods that works 100% is abstaining and even that can "fail" in the event that there's a sexual assault. I'm not saying that justifies abortion, just pointing out that it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
That being said, I am very for increasing comprehensive sexual education in the schools and increasing access to free/affordable contraceptives. Would you support both of these things?
-
Let's just be clear. Rocket cares more about a mass of cells that's not viable outside the womb than he does school age children.
"The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." - Pastor David Barnhart
-
"The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." - Pastor David Barnhart
Wow. That is really good...and accurate.
Believe me, I am not an "unlimited abortion" guy. The state has a compelling reason at some point to protect the rights of the unborn more than the rights of the mother. I just place that later in pregnancy than others do.
But mostly I am amazed at the hypocrisy from a lot of people who would label themselves "pro life."
-
they are very much allowed to control their reproduction systems-and many wish they would please
abstain
rhythm method
use birth control
abortion kills innocent children-period
You want fool-proof birth control? Let’s sterilize every male, starting with all those in the extended roQQet family.
And, as a scientist like you knows, they aren’t “children” for many, many weeks in the womb. They are cell groups.
Please start caring about actual living, breathing children. Support the strong gun-responsibility laws that McConaughey and our friend Lenny are advocating.
-
here's what 82 wants-
women who need to be ALLOWED to CONTROL their OWN reproductive systems
once a consenting woman voluntarily has intercourse, she gave up that control whether you like to admit it or not
btw-your vitiole 82 is very revealing. btw II-why did you go to MU?
what ever happened to the ole it's between the woman and her doctor with regards to other things, such as...and i realize that you don't recognize the fact that people may believe in a "higher power" so that helps explain your disdain for the unborn or "clump of cells" bullshot. there are so very few abortions performed on "clumps of cells" most are done way further up the development cycle well after that "clump of cells" has a heart beat
i care about ALL LIVES buddy
-
here's what 82 wants-
women who need to be ALLOWED to CONTROL their OWN reproductive systems
once a consenting woman voluntarily has intercourse, she gave up that control whether you like to admit it or not
btw-your vitiole 82 is very revealing. btw II-why did you go to MU?
what ever happened to the ole it's between the woman and her doctor with regards to other things, such as...and i realize that you don't recognize the fact that people may believe in a "higher power" so that helps explain your disdain for the unborn or "clump of cells" bullshot. there are so very few abortions performed on "clumps of cells" most are done way further up the development cycle well after that "clump of cells" has a heart beat
i care about ALL LIVES buddy
Sometimes, your stupidity amazes even me.
-
Yep. The entire 2nd Amendment has 27 words, and 2 of them are well regulated. In fact, except for the article "a," well regulated are the amendment's very first two words.
Let's regulate this imperfect and vague amendment, and let's regulate it well!
If you enjoy parsing the U.S. Constitution and cute little linguistic games, then you surely know that no matter how many words appear in the 14th Amendment, the words "privacy" and "abortion" are not there.
So let's not take the imperfect and vague 14th Amendment to manufacture "rights" that don't exist.
-
here's what 82 wants-
women who need to be ALLOWED to CONTROL their OWN reproductive systems
once a consenting woman voluntarily has intercourse, she gave up that control whether you like to admit it or not
btw-your vitiole 82 is very revealing. btw II-why did you go to MU?
what ever happened to the ole it's between the woman and her doctor with regards to other things, such as...and i realize that you don't recognize the fact that people may believe in a "higher power" so that helps explain your disdain for the unborn or "clump of cells" bullshot. there are so very few abortions performed on "clumps of cells" most are done way further up the development cycle well after that "clump of cells" has a heart beat
i care about ALL LIVES buddy
Buffon Grande.
-
If you enjoy parsing the U.S. Constitution and cute little linguistic games, then you surely know that no matter how many words appear in the 14th Amendment, the words "privacy" and "abortion" are not there.
So let's not take the imperfect and vague 14th Amendment to manufacture "rights" that don't exist.
I mean, neither the word "guns" or "firearms" are in the Second Amendment. Obviously the authors were talking about the right to go sleeveless.
-
If you enjoy parsing the U.S. Constitution and cute little linguistic games, then you surely know that no matter how many words appear in the 14th Amendment, the words "privacy" and "abortion" are not there.
So let's not take the imperfect and vague 14th Amendment to manufacture "rights" that don't exist.
It doesn’t take a lot of “parsing” or “cute little linguistic games” to find “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment.
And women should have control of their own bodies, not have the government in their wombs.
-
I mean, neither the word "guns" or "firearms" are in the Second Amendment. Obviously the authors were talking about the right to go sleeveless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpeUznIhgLU
-
i care about ALL LIVES buddy
No you don’t.
-
here's what 82 wants-
women who need to be ALLOWED to CONTROL their OWN reproductive systems
once a consenting woman voluntarily has intercourse, she gave up that control whether you like to admit it or not
btw-your vitiole 82 is very revealing. btw II-why did you go to MU?
what ever happened to the ole it's between the woman and her doctor with regards to other things, such as...and i realize that you don't recognize the fact that people may believe in a "higher power" so that helps explain your disdain for the unborn or "clump of cells" bullshot. there are so very few abortions performed on "clumps of cells" most are done way further up the development cycle well after that "clump of cells" has a heart beat
i care about ALL LIVES buddy
Why does having a heart beat matter?
-
once a consenting woman voluntarily has intercourse, she gave up that control whether you like to admit it or not
wut?
btw-your vitiole 82 is very revealing. btw II-why did you go to MU?
What is "vitiole"? Is it something unique to biggot Buffons like you? You obviously didn't go to MU to learn how to spell, write, think or make rational arguments.
i care about ALL LIVES buddy
You don't even care about Mike Pence's life, buddy. Or the lives of the Capitol Police officers.
-
I don’t. I’m pro life for the most innocent and the most heinously guilty in our society.
How about you? Kill the innocent and protect the guilty?
One is alive, the other is not.
But I wasn't asking you.
-
I always marvel at people who try to have a rational argument with fools.
Unless you post your argument on Fox or Newsmax, it ain’t gonna matter to these mental midgets.
-
One is alive, the other is not.
But I wasn't asking you.
Might want to pull out the old dictionary and double check the definition of the words you are using.
-
Buffon Grande Gronday.
There, I fixed it up to roqqet standard spelling
-
Back on topic, the House passed gun legislation last night.
Newsweek hilariously tried to call it "with Republican help"; technically true since 5 whole Republicans, or 2.4% of their Representatives, voted for it. If the same percentage of Republican Senators support it, that would be one vote. Let's see--not Murkowski, because Alaska; not Romney, because bushels of NRA cash. Perhaps Concerned Susan, since she knows her vote won't pass it?
-
There, I fixed it up to roqqet standard spelling
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=3.0 (https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=3.0)\\
Welcome to MUScoop! Glad you found us.
After registration it may take about 15 minutes to get the confirmation/activation e-mail. If you don't receive it within an hour, send an e-mail to muscoop@muscoop.com.
Some (very brief) forum rules:
• Respect other posters. Insults, and flames will not be tolerated
-
Might want to pull out the old dictionary and double check the definition of the words you are using.
I apologize for the oversimplification, but I think it doesn't dilute my point.
But thanks for being pedantic.