Mass Shootings

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Agree. All in favor of universal background checks as long as they are low/no cost, accessible, and efficient. I would find moving things like 30rd magazines to the NFA acceptable as well, as long as we address the 12m turn around times and $200 tax stamps. 

agreed, I've said this in the past - dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs is so complete that I bet you could trade (legislatively) faster turnarounds and taking suppressors and SBRs off the list for:
1) A seven day waiting period on semi-automatic centerfires
2) Universal background checks
3) Adding 20+ round magazines to NFA
4) Red flag laws

But the gun lobby would never let that happen, because they exist to serve the status quo and fuck the gun owners if they want something else. 

[jimmyjazz 45899]

46 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

In the context of this discussion of mass shootings, I do not think that the semi-auto platform is the real concern. It's the magazine capacity, which is why I am open to stricter controls on magazine access.  

I agree.  Whodathunkit?

[Covri 6247]

46 minutes ago, royiv said:

IDGAF about your hearing.

 

43 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

wahhhh, my weapon of death is too loud! and the government makes me wait to make my loud ass thing less damaging to my sensitive ears. hoooooly shit

This is how you know he's not serious about anything he says. There is no reason a civilian needs a noise suppressor for his gun. Framing it as hearing protection instead of the what it really is to him, a neat little gadget for his toy, shows you exactly what he's about. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

50 minutes ago, royiv said:

IDGAF about your hearing.

 

47 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

wahhhh, my weapon of death is too loud! and the government makes me wait to make my loud ass thing less damaging to my sensitive ears. hoooooly shit

 

36 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Government isn't making him wait at all. He's probably within a half hour of at least six different stores that sell hearing protection that don't require any governmental approval, or if he's got Prime he could get it shipped to his house today. He doesn't want hearing protection, he wants a cool looking accessory.

Well, typically we regulate things for a reason, and the reasons for regulating suppressors and SBRs are ... not good. 

The NFA was passed to deal with a range of concerns, famously including organized crime, but also more mundane problems, such the fact that during the depression  poaching was a real problem and they wanted to make it easy for game wardens and land owners to hear fire from far away. Thus the regulation of suppressors - to make quieter hunting impossibly expensive for starving people in rural areas. 
Likewise, the NFA was supported by robber barons who wanted to do as much as possible to ensure their strike breakers had superior firepower to that of striking workers and union organizers. In addition to fully automatic rifles, the act bans things like short barreled rifles and shotguns. The reason is that the original drafts also banned handguns, and the drafters wanted to close loopholes. But ultimately handguns were removed in the process of legislative compromise while SBRs and sawed off shotguns stayed in.
This is not 1934. We regulate SBRs, therefore, as the detritus of legislative construction - regulation that only has cost but no real benefit to anyone.  Most western nations, like England and France essentially require suppressors not to protect the shooters but to protect others. Simply put, it's a muffler for your gun. It doesn't "silence" guns, or even make more calibers quiet. It just makes the sound of shooting slightly less annoying.  I don't think we can say Europe needs to follow our lead on gun control. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[C-Man 27216]

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I can understand your perspective, but do not share it. The AR is a very versatile gun. My son took his first deer with one. The adjustable stock (one of those parts that make it an EBR under the old AWB) makes it very well suited to size appropriately. He's got a .243 now in the safe waiting for my lazy ass to put a scope on it for this season, but it was extremely hard to find a youth sized rifle a few years back when I was looking, and the AR was a well suited stand in. I know a good number of guys that use AR platform for hunting, both for them and their younger sons. 

In the context of this discussion of mass shootings, I do not think that the semi-auto platform is the real concern. It's the magazine capacity, which is why I am open to stricter controls on magazine access.  

Ana, first off, I appreciate you actually taking this discussion seriously -- unlike others on this thread (fatty calling a suppressor/silencer "ear protection" GTAFOOH). You get beat up quite a bit as a pusher (fair or otherwise) of both sides-ism. Whatever.

There are alternatives to kids using AR's as deer rifles. Period. I'm really sorry but the wackos of the world have ruined the fun for the rest of the AR community. They need to go IMO. Or, here's a thought. Maybe somebody can take that exact body/specs and make a rifle that functions like a bolt-action rifle. Three or four rounds max per magazine, or have it load like a traditional bolt-action rifle. What needs to happen is the rate of fire needs to dialed back, however you do it. You don't need something that can pop off 30 rounds in 30 seconds to take down whitetail deer. I eagerly await fatty and DalTx to come after this guns a-blazin' so to speak.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

6 minutes ago, Covri said:

This is how you know he's not serious about anything he says. There is no reason a civilian needs a noise suppressor for his gun. Framing it as hearing protection instead of the what it really is to him, a neat little gadget for his toy, shows you exactly what he's about. 

disagree, see above. Would love to hear the case against supressors.  In fact, I'm even more curious about the non-civilian application for supressors. What would that even be? Training maybe? To protect people's ears?

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[YGIFS 19450]

By far, the most easily monetized component of the U.S. Constitution is the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  

A huge portion of the manufacturing base of both the weapons and the ammunition is privately held, and funded by Private Equity.  

We have convinced a huge portion of the population that the only way to truly demonstrate their patriotism is to buy more and more guns.

The NRA and the party they support look the other way during mass shootings because it allows for the narrative of "If we do anything about this, it's because they're coming for our patriotic guns next." 

So here's the kicker.  That panic, that drivel we feed you to make you purchase more shit out of paranoid impulse?  We amplify that because even though nobody is coming for your guns, we get you to buy more of them out of a sense of fear and government intrusion.  And in doing so, you're being even more patriotic to stave off the imposing regime.  And around and around and around we go.  

When you hold that assault rifle and feel like all that is man.  Remember, we put it there.  And we'll put the next one there.  And you'll do what we say.  And you'll buy what we command.  Because you're not an American gun owner.  You're a rounding error on our balance sheet.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

57 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The AR is a very versatile gun. My son took his first deer with one. The adjustable stock (one of those parts that make it an EBR under the old AWB) makes it very well suited to size appropriately. He's got a .243 now in the safe waiting for my lazy ass to put a scope on it for this season, but it was extremely hard to find a youth sized rifle a few years back when I was looking, and the AR was a well suited stand in.

Obviously it can do a lot of things adequately, but (and this probably isn't the place for this) - it seems like your own post indicates that an appropriate size bolt action .243 (that pappy gave to Daddy, and Daddy gave me) would have been better.  That was my point. 

[Covri 6247]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

disagree, see above. Would love to hear the case against supressors.  In fact, I'm even more curious about the non-civilian application for supressors. What would that even be? Training maybe? To protect people's ears?

I figure military use inside buildings and tight spaces is about it’s only need. I read your above post and while it may be rooted I historical accuracy that is certainly not the reason people purchase them today in the US.

[C-Man 27216]

This is probably pertinent to the "Mass Shootings" thread: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12461821/Doctors-warn-barreling-fertility-crisis-Japan-one-10-men-30s-VIRGINS-women-childless.html

Study says one in 10 Japanese men in their 30's are virgins and US trending that direction as well. US birth rate is 1.6, which is the lowest since 1800. Maybe the GQP is on to something with repealing Roe-v-Wade. Gotta replace all those people killed in gun-related incidents.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

18 minutes ago, Covri said:

I figure military use inside buildings and tight spaces is about it’s only need. I read your above post and while it may be rooted I historical accuracy that is certainly not the reason people purchase them today in the US.

I am a buyer and the reason I bought mine is for hearing protection for myself and courtesy to others. It's an expensive hassle to get them and among other things makes you need to clean your guns more often. AR guns in particular suffer from reliability problems when surpressed because most of them shit where they eat (another problem with ARs). 

Mass shooters don't ever use surpessors and neither do regular criminals. What other reasons are there, other than hearing protection and courtesy? Serious question. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[wildcat09 29349]

37 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

 

Well, typically we regulate things for a reason, and the reasons for regulating suppressors and SBRs are ... not good. 

The NFA was passed to deal with a range of concerns, famously including organized crime, but also more mundane problems, such the fact that during the depression  poaching was a real problem and they wanted to make it easy for game wardens and land owners to hear fire from far away. Thus the regulation of suppressors - to make quieter hunting impossibly expensive for starving people in rural areas. 
Likewise, the NFA was supported by robber barons who wanted to do as much as possible to ensure their strike breakers had superior firepower to that of striking workers and union organizers. In addition to fully automatic rifles, the act bans things like short barreled rifles and shotguns. The reason is that the original drafts also banned handguns, and the drafters wanted to close loopholes. But ultimately handguns were removed in the process of legislative compromise while SBRs and sawed off shotguns stayed in.
This is not 1934. We regulate SBRs, therefore, as the detritus of legislative construction - regulation that only has cost but no real benefit to anyone.  Most western nations, like England and France essentially require suppressors not to protect the shooters but to protect others. Simply put, it's a muffler for your gun. It doesn't "silence" guns, or even make more calibers quiet. It just makes the sound of shooting slightly less annoying.  I don't think we can say Europe needs to follow our lead on gun control. 

Sure, it's fairly pointless to regulate suppressors. My point was that they're not the only (or even best) form of hearing protection and nobody wants them for hearing protection.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Sure, it's fairly pointless to regulate suppressors. My point was that they're not the only (or even best) form of hearing protection and nobody wants them for hearing protection.

it's a second layer of protection and not a substitue. Most ear muffs/plugs give you 30dbs, and supressors give you another 25 or so. That's significantly better and safer. You can't wear 2 sets of earmuffs. The second part is just not true - why else would somebody use a supressor?

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Foosters 17850]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

it's a second layer of protection and not a substitue. Most ear muffs/plugs give you 30dbs, and supressors give you another 25 or so. That's significantly better and safer. You can't wear 2 sets of earmuffs. The second part is just not true - why else would somebody use a supressor?

Bc they think it makes them look cool? Like 95% of all things gun culture?

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

@wildcat09 - let me ground this in reality:

Anything over 85db is hazardous, and anything over 130 causes pain. 

a .22lr is about 140dbs. That's quiet. a large centerfire cartridge is in the 160's. an AR shoting 5.56/223 is 155db. So let's go with that. 

Upprotected: 155dbs (injury)
With earmuffs: 125dbs (harmful)
With earmuffs+plugs: 105dbs (hazardous and unpleasant)
Earmuffs+plugs+suppressor: (safe)

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Bc they think it makes them look cool? Like 95% of all things gun culture?

there may be some people who think they look cool and are willing to go through all the trouble to get one, but three things make me think otherwise:
1) Mass shooters don't use them
2) You don't see them at the range
3) You don't see them in those absurd public displays of mah-gun at political protests and so forth

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[YGIFS 19450]

The 2nd Amendment is very clear on audible/hearing protection.  Read a fucking book, you neanderthals! 

[royiv 9288]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

there may be some people who think they look cool and are willing to go through all the trouble to get one, but three things make me think otherwise:
1) Mass shooters don't use them
2) You don't see them at the range
3) You don't see them in those absurd public displays of mah-gun at political protests and so forth

IDGAF about your hearing.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

2 minutes ago, royiv said:

IDGAF about your hearing.

Indeed not, but why are suppressors regulated? It benefits nobody unless your goal is to own the cons. 
For everyone else,  this is political capital to be deployed. Would you trade that to get robust red flag laws and waiting periods? I would. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[scottsins 1966]

Ana, first off, I appreciate you actually taking this discussion seriously -- unlike others on this thread (fatty calling a suppressor/silencer "ear protection" GTAFOOH). You get beat up quite a bit as a pusher (fair or otherwise) of both sides-ism. Whatever.
There are alternatives to kids using AR's as deer rifles. Period. I'm really sorry but the wackos of the world have ruined the fun for the rest of the AR community. They need to go IMO. Or, here's a thought. Maybe somebody can take that exact body/specs and make a rifle that functions like a bolt-action rifle. Three or four rounds max per magazine, or have it load like a traditional bolt-action rifle. What needs to happen is the rate of fire needs to dialed back, however you do it. You don't need something that can pop off 30 rounds in 30 seconds to take down whitetail deer. I eagerly await fatty and DalTx to come after this guns a-blazin' so to speak.

Agreed, which is why I think that a simplistic “ban the AR”approach will not be very effective and shouldn’t be the focus. Focus on what makes an AR-15 such a concern and ban those features across the board. I’m talking about the high capacity mags.

[Born to Run 6569]

I think we should give out free suppressors to anybody that wants them. That way mass shooting survivors will have less hearing damage.

[royiv 9288]

56 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Indeed not, but why are suppressors regulated? It benefits nobody unless your goal is to own the cons. 
For everyone else,  this is political capital to be deployed. Would you trade that to get robust red flag laws and waiting periods? I would. 

Maybe, but the gun nuts won't negotiate so fuck 'em.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

14 minutes ago, royiv said:

Maybe, but the gun nuts won't negotiate so fuck 'em.

Actually, fuck you and fuck everybody who is getting killed because while the gun fetishists won't negotiate, neither will prohibitionists, which means that normies who actually understand gun violence as a subject matter can't negotiate with each other. 
Right now weirdo gun fetishists and prohibitionists are a defacto coalition obstructing solutions to curb gun violence. And to the extent that prohibitionists have a kind of moral superiority, it is utterly negated by their service to the status quo. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[royiv 9288]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Actually, fuck you and fuck everybody who is getting killed because while the gun fetishists won't negotiate, neither will prohibitionists, which means that normies who actually understand gun violence as a subject matter can't negotiate with each other. 
Right now weirdo gun fetishists and prohibitionists are a defacto coalition obstructing solutions to curb gun violence. To the extent that prohibitionists have some kind of moral superiority, it is negated by their service to the status quo. 

I know you like to put yourself out as a gun enthusiast that is for sensible gun laws, but until the gun lobby is in your corner, I have a hard time giving a fuck about your gun accessories.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

6 minutes ago, royiv said:

I know you like to put yourself out as a gun enthusiast that is for sensible gun laws, but until the gun lobby is in your corner, I have a hard time giving a fuck about your gun accessories.

I'm not a "gun enthusiast" and I'm pretty vocally critical of the whole culture of tacticool accessories, but I agree that gun owners are pretty generally useful idiots. 

[jimmyjazz 45899]

28 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

while the gun fetishists won't negotiate, neither will prohibitionists, 

What would you say the ratio of gun fetishists to gun prohibitionists is?  I mean, I just joined the latter, because fuck guns, but I think I'm pretty rare.

[Goofyboy 3280]

What would you say the ratio of gun fetishists to gun prohibitionists is?  I mean, I just joined the latter, because fuck guns, but I think I'm pretty rare.

As a gun owner - I’m now in the Prohibitionist camp. I’ll turn mine in when it’s time. Till then, they are in a safe.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What would you say the ratio of gun fetishists to gun prohibitionists is?  I mean, I just joined the latter, because fuck guns, but I think I'm pretty rare.

Prohibitionist are a much larger group, I’d say. Actual gun fetishists aren’t super common but they wield enormous political and economic power, because normie gun owners are so dumb and have been co-opted by a minority of weirdos.  

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[jimmyjazz 45899]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Prohibitionist are a much larger group, I’d say. 

No fucking way.

[C-Man 27216]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

No fucking way.

This

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 hours ago, royiv said:

IDGAF about your hearing.

I get it. The same way IDGAF about your thoughts or concerns on the issue.  Mad because I can get an AR in an hour at the 7/11? I couldn’t find a fuck to give if you gave a barrel of fucks to me.  But eventually the youth will save us!!1!

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What other reasons are there, other than hearing protection and courtesy? Serious question. 

AcCeSsOrIeS!!1! TaCtICoOL  #gravyseal hrrrdrrr 

who upthread was sucking NZ over their gun laws?  Might want check on their feelings on suppressors. 

[Biff Tannen 45676]

Silencers...silencers...NOPE.  DON'T GIVE A FUCK.  

[Stilicho 1397]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Actually, fuck you and fuck everybody who is getting killed because while the gun fetishists won't negotiate, neither will prohibitionists, which means that normies who actually understand gun violence as a subject matter can't negotiate with each other. 
Right now weirdo gun fetishists and prohibitionists are a defacto coalition obstructing solutions to curb gun violence. And to the extent that prohibitionists have a kind of moral superiority, it is utterly negated by their service to the status quo. 

Not real sure how to respond to this without getting some time off from the site. But fuck it, whatever.

You're the status quo. Your money and your fucking votes built the machine. Your money and your votes helped push reactionary legislation and impact litigation through Washington. Heller and McDonald and all the senseless fucking deaths in their wake exist solely because of the people you enabled. Your ilk fucking denied Sandy Hook ever. fucking. happened.

Now you want to prattle on about magazine capacity and lecture the rest of us because we're just too damn dumb to "get gun violence", all while clutching your AR15 to your chest like an aggy with his favorite possum carcass. Because we're the ones with all the legislative power in this fucking scenario? Contemptible and pathetic.

Fire up some more bar graphs and memories of whatever random animal a random member of your family managed to kill. I'm sure you modern day warriors have all sorts of articles about Chicago and crisis actors and capacity and cartridge and clips and blah blah fucking blah how it's everyone else's fucking fault except you responsible gun owners. That shit goes a long way to justify your position to the folks getting gunned down in schools and outlet malls and basically wherever the fuck else more than three people may gather.

Well, not everywhere since the NRA, CPAC, and RNC don't allow firearms at their conventions. They just like to take pictures with them out on the sidewalk I guess.

Clean up the mess in your fucking interest and lobbying group. You're the one with the fucking access. Move, be moved, or fuck off.

  

[Anastasis 23469]

Lol. Bozo comes into this thread a few different times and just drops some political reality on people, and there are some posters that react by losing their fucking minds and all context from his posting history. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Anastasis

[Stilicho 1397]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Lol. Bozo comes into this thread a few different times and just drops some political reality on people, and there are some posters that react by losing their fucking minds and all context from his posting history. 

I'm aware of his posting history, as I am of yours, across three fucking websites. The point was his posting history and the nonsensical notion that not-gun-owners are to blame for this shit show.

As for political realities, you're welcome to wade through the existential dread of all the bomb and shooter threats and swats that we've been dealing with here in OKC the last two weeks at your own leisure.

Just me losing my mind. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

37 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

You're the status quo. Your money and your fucking votes built the machine. Your money and your votes helped push reactionary legislation and impact litigation through Washington. Heller and McDonald and all the senseless fucking deaths in their wake exist solely because of the people you enabled. Your ilk fucking denied Sandy Hook ever. fucking. happened.

 

Actually I’ve spent my own money advocating for red flag laws and waiting periods, but go on.

37 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Now you want to prattle on about magazine capacity and lecture the rest of us because we're just too damn dumb to "get gun violence", all while clutching your AR15 to your chest like an aggy with his favorite possum carcass.

Im for regulating high cap magazines and make fun AR15s, including my own AR15, including in this very thread. But do go on!

37 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Fire up some more bar graphs and memories of whatever random animal a random member of your family managed to kill.

I don’t hunt, but I do find data useful. Guilty! Please do continue. 
 

 

37 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Clean up the mess in your fucking interest and lobbying group. You're the one with the fucking access. Move, be moved, or fuck off.

Ma’am, this is an Arby’s.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Stilicho 1397]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Actually I’ve spent my own money advocating for red flag laws and waiting periods, but go on.

Im for regulating high cap magazines and make fun of my own AR15, including in this very thread. But do go on!

I don’t hunt, but I do find data useful. Guilty! Please do continue. 
 

 

Ma’am, this is an Arby’s.

I think I actually typed this out at one point.

[Goredho 17399]

20 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Thanks, errybody.  I DGAF about rep, but I enjoy debate and would like to honestly discuss the difficult issues that we deal with in our country.

I seem to be swimming upstream against the prevailing political orthodoxy here.

Great that Texas Football starts on September 2nd!  Hook 'em!

You say you want an honest discussion.  In that spirit, I have two simple and direct questions for you.  First, do you see the trends in the above graphs as a problem that society needs to solve?  Secondly and if so, what actions do you see that society can take to curb those trends?

So far you have only wanted to talk about your 2nd amendment rights.  Rights that are still firmly intact.  You have yet to offer up any ideas for how society can protect the right of shooting victims TO LIVE.  There are an awful lot of people across the country that have or know someone who has had that fundamental right taken away from them through gun violence.  So here is your chance to meet them somewhere in the middle: what ideas do you have about how those victims rights to live can be protected that might leave your 2nd amendment rights intact?

Tick tock, tick tock.  I eagerly await your honest engagement on the subject.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Goredho

[dieucla98 2942]

4 minutes ago, Goredho said:

You say you want an honest discussion.  In that spirit, I have two simple and direct questions for you.  First, do you see the trends in the above graphs as a problem that society needs to solve?  Secondly and if so, what actions do you see that society can take to curb those trends?

So far you have only wanted to talk about your 2nd amendment rights.  Rights that are still firmly intact.  You have yet to offer up any ideas for how society can protect the right of shooting victims TO LIVE.  There are an awful lot of people across the country that have or know someone who has had that fundamental right taken away from them through gun violence.  So here is your chance to meet them somewhere in the middle: what ideas do you have about how those victims rights to live can be protected that might leave your 2nd amendment rights intact?

Tick tock, tick tock.  I eagerly await your honest engagement on the subject.

Presented with reason and logic, they cower and hide. Same with my posts pointing to other countries enacting gun control measures and their outcomes. They have no real refute, so they ignore and strawman.

And they are a significant part of this country.

[aggie08 21497]

Yeah, Bozo has pretty much the perfect temperament on all of this. Basing more of the messaging around his perspective--and less around anything that could be mildly construed as taking guns--still wouldn't help because of the GOP and gun lobby's adherence to the extremists and status quo*...but at least it wouldn't actively hurt.

*see the reaction to Gavin Newsome's relatively mild proposal

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

7 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Yeah, Bozo has pretty much the perfect temperament on all of this. Basing more of the messaging around his perspective--and less around anything that could be mildly construed as taking guns--still wouldn't help because of the GOP and gun lobby's adherence to the extremists and status quo*...but at least it wouldn't actively hurt.

*see the reaction to Gavin Newsome's relatively mild proposal

Getting strong red flag laws and waiting periods would help a lot, and trying to do impossible things at the cost of doing what is possible is worse than doing nothing. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[hobbes2702 13032]

45 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Getting strong red flag laws and waiting periods would help a lot, and trying to do impossible things at the cost of doing what is possible is worse than doing nothing. 

Since when are those things possible?

[atomheartbevo 89651]

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

4) Red flag laws
But the gun lobby would never let that happen, because they exist to serve the status quo and fuck the gun owners if they want something else. 

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Getting strong red flag laws and waiting periods would help a lot, and trying to do impossible things at the cost of doing what is possible is worse than doing nothing. 

28 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Since when are those things possible?

They are not possible.  I hear plenty of gun owners who are okay with red flag laws, as they know that reducing the amount of crime/mass shootings/whatever is going to benefit them. Maybe it's selfish and more about relieving pressure on them and what they can buy and not out of a "would this improve society" kind of thing, but whatever, they still support it.  A lot of these guys are older though, and I wonder if it's an age thing.

But holy fuck I also hear plenty that are completely opposed to any red flag laws because they can be "abused" by "the state".  And tying into the above, it seems like all of these types are under the age of 55 or so (although not all under that age are against them). 

My gut tells me that they think they or a family member might run afoul of a red flag law, whether it's an issue of them getting into a domestic altercation that ends up with a visit by the local law enforcement, or some other legal altercation, or maybe somebody (or them) being on some kind of medication for a mental illness. For a handful of  relatives/high-school friends that said they opposed them, I've been able to verify they've had run-ins with the law through online records, but not enough of a run-in to currently get their guns taken away.

The thing is - the people I've talked to who oppose them, oppose them completely.  None of them have said "oh, okay, some schizo is on medication, he shouldn't have access" or "somebody knocks their wife around and gets a visit from the cops should be on a list". You would at least think that some of them would be okay with red flag laws for somebody with serious mental issues or somebody who has shown themselves to become violent/out-of-control, but it's a fucking line in the sand with them.

This is all anecdotal obviously, and these conversations have taken place over several years (Facebook, family reunions, etc.) and are limited to my family/friends/co-workers that I've talked to.

[HenryJames 66041]

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

There will never be any sensible gun controls laws because no Republican will ever get elected that wants sensible gun control. Even if the majority of voters responsible gun owners want it. The crazy 2A people will brand them as “coming for our guns”. They will never make it past a primary. 

Gun control will come from a Democratic super majority. 

[YGIFS 19450]

statesman just reported now that the Arboretum gunman was killed by police.  WTF?  That places is teeming with store cameras and witnesses, why is this story still so fucked up?  Now they're debating about why they didn't deploy the active shooter alert to people's phones in the area.  Shooter's name was Tang-Kang Dave Chang.  

Police calling it a "random shooting."  A curious term considering how bullets work.  

[Stilicho 1397]

So after climbing down a bit, I think I’m just going to have to bow out of this conversation for a bit.

The events going on in my little corner of the world haven’t left much room for me to be objective or level-headed on this particular subject  

Apologies to @Bozo_Casanova and @Anastasis for coming in like a house on fire and out of line. 

wellbye.jpeg and all that. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

1 minute ago, Stilicho said:

So after climbing down a bit, I think I’m just going to have to bow out of this conversation for a bit.

The events going on in my little corner of the world haven’t left much room for me to be objective or level-headed on this particular subject  

Apologies to @Bozo_Casanova and @Anastasis for coming in like a house on fire and out of line. 

wellbye.jpeg and all that. 

Not necessary. There's a lot of hurt and trauma out here, and it's weighing heavily on all of us.

[Brisketexan 105096]

Not necessary. There's a lot of hurt and trauma out here, and it's weighing heavily on all of us.

Shit’s just mean and cruel out there. That it’s purposefully driven that way is maddening, but…it can’t last forever. That’s what I tell myself, at least.