Mass Shootings

[Biff Tannen 45673]

11 hours 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

It's really hard to have a calm and rational demeanor when the pro-gun people are completely obstinate.  I'm 100% gun prohibition now purely because these people have behaved so ghoulishly.  Fuck em.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

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.

Politics is the art of the possible, and it's more about who than what. Right now gun owners broadly align themselves with gun fetishists and the gun lobby because they think it's in their interest and prohibitionists make sure they think that by dragging incrementalist Democrats, despite the fact that it gets prohibitionists literally nothing. 

So the play, in my mind, is to put deals on the table to separate the interests of normie gun owners and law enforcement from fetishists and force the gun lobby to choose sides, and there are plenty of fractures to work with in this exceptionally vulnerable coalition if gun prohibitionists would stop imposing purity tests on elected Democrats:

Red Flag laws:
Supported by large majorities of gun owners
Supported by law enforcement
Opposed by fetishists
Concern trolled to death by gun lobby

Safe storage laws:
Strongly supported by larg majority of gun owners
Strongly supported by law enforcement
Opposed by fetishists
Weakly supported by gun lobby

Deregulating suppressors and SBRs:
Strongly supported by large majorities of gun owners
Strongly supported by fetishists
Weakly supported by gun lobby in theory
Strongly opposed by law enforcement

Regulating high cap magazines:
Fairly Acceptable to gun owners
Totally unacceptable to fetishists
opposed by gun lobby
Strongly supported by law enforcement

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Degenerate Gardner 4085]

One great thing about being a city on a hill is all the excellent vantage points for snipers.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

"Hold my beer"

[YGIFS 19450]

HOw fucking hammered is that dude in the orange shirt over Sen. Crunt's left shoulder?  

[Anastasis 23469]

39 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

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

None necessary. My response was largely a reaction to framing people on this board and on the “other” side of the discussion as sandy hook deniers. 

[aggie08 21496]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's really hard to have a calm and rational demeanor when the pro-gun people are completely obstinate.  I'm 100% gun prohibition now purely because these people have behaved so ghoulishly.  Fuck em.

I get it. And, even in a world where every single gun control advocate took Bozo's reasoned, compromise approach, the GOP would still drum up fear about Democrats wanting to come door-to-door to snatch up your guns. Because they're fundamentally dishonest, and it would continue to work because a large chunk of their voters are emotionally-charged idiots.

But Bozo is one of the few who I would bet puts his actions and his vote where his mouth is.

[hobbes2702 13032]

13 hours 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. 

@Bozo_Casanova can you explain what you mean here? It sounds like you’re blaming people who want gun reform on the lack of gun reform?

[hobbes2702 13032]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Politics is the art of the possible, and it's more about who than what. Right now gun owners broadly align themselves with gun fetishists and the gun lobby because they think it's in their interest and prohibitionists make sure they think that by dragging incrementalist Democrats, despite the fact that it gets prohibitionists literally nothing. 

So the play, in my mind, is to put deals on the table to separate the interests of normie gun owners and law enforcement from fetishists and force the gun lobby to choose sides, and there are plenty of fractures to work with in this exceptionally vulnerable coalition if gun prohibitionists would stop imposing purity tests on elected Democrats:

Red Flag laws:
Supported by large majorities of gun owners
Supported by law enforcement
Opposed by fetishists
Concern trolled to death by gun lobby

Safe storage laws:
Strongly supported by larg majority of gun owners
Strongly supported by law enforcement
Opposed by fetishists
Weakly supported by gun lobby

Deregulating suppressors and SBRs:
Strongly supported by large majorities of gun owners
Strongly supported by fetishists
Weakly supported by gun lobby in theory
Strongly opposed by law enforcement

Regulating high cap magazines:
Fairly Acceptable to gun owners
Totally unacceptable to fetishists
opposed by gun lobby
Strongly supported by law enforcement

Dude come on. You’re blaming dems for the gun extremists. That’s bullshit.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

9 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

@Bozo_Casanova can you explain what you mean here? It sounds like you’re blaming people who want gun reform on the lack of gun reform?

Obviously they aren’t primarily responsible, but the strident opposition to political gun realism among prohibitionists is a huge contributor to why Democrats can’t accomplish anything meaningful. 
Do you remember, for example, the way Bernie Sanders was excoriated for his position that rural areas in rural states could have different regulatory regimes than the largest cities in the bluest states?

I’ve talked to elected democrats about this stuff. They will get lit up if they give anything (like suppressors and SBRs) to get anything. There’s NO upside for them to pursue things that could actually pass, even though stuff is available.

Look at this thread. Now imagine you are a Democrat congressman. Would you put silencers on the table?

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Dude come on. You’re blaming dems for the gun extremists. That’s bullshit.

No. I’m saying prohibitionists are politically useful to the gun lobby, because they are. They do the heavy lifting to keep Democrats in line. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[jimmyjazz 45898]

Yeah, and there aren't that many "prohibitionists".

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, and there aren't that many "prohibitionists".

There are even fewer fetishists. But they are both loud.

Plenty of research on this topic from Pew, here’s a good starting point:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

[jimmyjazz 45898]

It's as if you think the "fetishists" are the only ones impeding gun reform.

[hobbes2702 13032]

26 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Obviously they aren’t primarily responsible, but the strident opposition to political gun realism among prohibitionists is a huge contributor to why Democrats can’t accomplish anything meaningful. 
Do you remember, for example, the way Bernie Sanders was excoriated for his position that rural areas in rural states could have different regulatory regimes than the largest cities in the bluest states?

I’ve talked to elected democrats about this stuff. They will get lit up if they give anything (like suppressors and SBRs) to get anything. There’s NO upside for them to pursue things that could actually pass, even though stuff is available.

Look at this thread. Now imagine you are a Democrat congressman. Would you put silencers on the table?

I see your points here. I think where I would disagree is that if, today, a bill went to the floor with all the things we universally agree on every Democrat would support it and the large majority of the Republican Party would not.

Also, they really shouldn’t have to give up anything to pass common sense legislation. 

Prohibitionists and extremists are both problems, but one is certainly less of a problem than the other, both politically and in terms of safety for our citizens.

Edited September 2, 2023 by hobbes2702

[hobbes2702 13032]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's as if you think the "fetishists" are the only ones impeding gun reform.

This is largely my point. Fetishists aren’t the problem for the Republicans. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

Republicans are the only people stopping gun reform. It’s not Democrats. It’s not Prohibitionists. It’s not AOC. It’s not the crazy libs on this board. 

stop gaslighting 

Republican use whatever boogeyman de jour (“the prohibitionists”) to blame others why they won’t agree on ANYTHING 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

31 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Republicans are the only people stopping gun reform. It’s not Democrats. It’s not Prohibitionists. It’s not AOC. It’s not the crazy libs on this board. 

stop gaslighting 

Republican use whatever boogeyman de jour (“the prohibitionists”) to blame others why they won’t agree on ANYTHING 

No offense but that's very naive. Let's try this thought experiment:
Imagine that you are a Democratic congressman from, say, Dallas or Houston, and you think some large-scale grand bargain is possible involving requiring shorter wait times and lower taxes for NFA items in exchange for taxing high cap magazines under NFA and start pitching it to Democrats and Republicans, and you think you have some early support. 
What do you think happens next? This isn't hypothetical, BTW - I was told what happened next, but I'm curious what you think happened and why.
 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[hobbes2702 13032]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense but that's very naive. Let's try this thought experiment:
Imagine that you are a Democratic congressman from, say, Dallas or Houston, and you think some large-scale grand bargain is possible involving requiring shorter wait times and lower taxes for NFA items in exchange for taxing high cap magazines under NFA and start pitching it to Democrats and Republicans, and you think you have some early support. 
What do you think happens next? This isn't hypothetical, BTW - I was told what happened next, but I'm curious what you think happened and why.
 

Again I’m not sure why we should have to exchange things at all. If people on both sides support these common sense measures then why are we bartering?

Edited September 2, 2023 by hobbes2702

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

13 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Again I’m not sure why we should have to exchange things at all. If people on both sides support these common sense measures then why are we bartering?

Because politics is not about the what, it's about the who. You aren't trying to bring human beings to agreement. You're trying to assemble a purpose built, one-off non-partisan majority for a moment in time so they can deliver victory to the people they need to stay elected.  

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[hobbes2702 13032]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Because politics is not about the what, it's about the who. You aren't trying to bring human beings to agreement. You're trying to assemble a purpose built, one-off non-partisan majority for a moment in time so they can deliver victory to the people they need to stay elected.  

That doesn’t really make sense. If everyone is so in favor of these measures, then we should be able to build a bill with those common sense measures. No dem is stopping a bill with those measures in it unless they are giving something up in return. So it comes down to the pubs not wanting the common sense measures. This isn’t a dem problem.

Maybe i’m misunderstanding your point or not explaining my question well. Either way appreciate your thoughts 

Edited September 2, 2023 by hobbes2702

[Biff Tannen 45673]

I have never seen gun person come up with a reason they need a gun other than "because it's a right".  

[CooterBrown 18006]

I have never seen gun person come up with a reason they need a gun other than "because it's a right".  

The 2A doesn’t specify what those “arms” are. Fuck it. Ban everything but nunchucks and throwing stars.

[Biff Tannen 45673]

Just now, CooterBrown said:

The 2A doesn’t specify what those “arms” are. Fuck it. Ban everything but nunchucks and throwing stars.

This would be so much more awesome.

[jimmyjazz 45898]

The other day, I asked one of our 2A stalwarts how their 2A rights would be infringed should we ban AR-15 guns and associated variants.

Crickets.

They know.  They know 2A isn't carte blanche for any and all weapons.  They just don't want to play along.  This is what Bozo misses -- it's not just the fetishes, it's the VAST MAJORITY of conservative gun owners.

[Neonmoon 38129]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense but that's very naive. Let's try this thought experiment:
Imagine that you are a Democratic congressman from, say, Dallas or Houston, and you think some large-scale grand bargain is possible involving requiring shorter wait times and lower taxes for NFA items in exchange for taxing high cap magazines under NFA and start pitching it to Democrats and Republicans, and you think you have some early support. 
What do you think happens next? This isn't hypothetical, BTW - I was told what happened next, but I'm curious what you think happened and why.
 

The crazy prohibitionists show up and ruin the party? Why? Because Democrats are stopping sensible gun laws? What did I win?
 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

18 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

The crazy prohibitionists show up and ruin the party? Why? Because Democrats are stopping sensible gun laws? What did I win?

No. I mean, yes Democrats do not use an effective political strategy to pass gun laws*, bot no the "crazy prohibitionists" do not "show up and ruin the party."
Would you like to try again? 



* I don't see how the idea that Democrats strategy on gun violence has been counterproductive since the AWB expired is even controversial, but y'all do y'all.
 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Neonmoon 38129]

53 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. I mean, yes Democrats do not use an effective political strategy to pass gun laws*, bot no the "crazy prohibitionists" do not "show up and ruin the party."
Would you like to try again? 



* I don't see how the idea that Democrats strategy on gun violence has been counterproductive since the AWB expired is even controversial, but y'all do y'all.
 

It’s not controversial, it’s unproductive. It’s akin to stating that a woman being mouthy is counterproductive to her husband stopping hitting her in the face. So yes, while true, she is definitely not helping the situation, so the real focus of change should be one the abuser. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s not controversial, it’s unproductive. It’s akin to stating that a woman being mouthy is counterproductive to her husband stopping hitting her in the face. So yes, while true, she is definitely not helping the situation, so the real focus of change should be one the abuser. 

Democrats are a political party with plenty of funding, widely popular positions on issues, a better governing record, etc. They have demographics moving their way, low unemployment, the presidency, one house of congress and the two largest states locked up. And they're ... victims?

OK, I stand corrected. Democrats are executing the optimal strategy and obviously have been for 30 years.   It's just this war and that lying bastard Johnson.
 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Neonmoon 38129]

Democrats could fuck up a ham sandwich, but they are not the obstacle to gun reform. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Democrats could fuck up a ham sandwich, but they are not the obstacle to gun reform. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it. 

I said above they weren't the primary obstacle, but their coalition strategy on gun violence has been literally counter productive, meaning it has been a net negative. Not sure how that's controversial. 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I said above they weren't the primary obstacle, but their coalition strategy on gun violence has been literally counter productive, meaning it has been a net negative. Not sure how that's controversial. 

Dude.  Rs have shown they don't give a fuck about rules, decorum, logic, decency, or fucking children getting liquified.  THEY DO NOT CARE.  There is no win here.  You could give them full on guns being handed out to newborns in delivery rooms and they would still find something to bitch about with gun control.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Dude.  Rs have shown they don't give a fuck about rules, decorum, logic, decency, or fucking children getting liquified.  THEY DO NOT CARE.  There is no win here.  You could give them full on guns being handed out to newborns in delivery rooms and they would still find something to bitch about with gun control.

Because Democrats don't spend much or any time with the subject matter (no offense) you see a monolith. If you did, you would see and recognize a deeply fractured, fragile, aging (not to mention minority) coalition just barely holding it together.  It just seems resilient to you, because Democrats won't drive wedges, and choose instead to keep ramming away at literally the only thing they all agree on. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[softlynow 1814]

Does everyone not see that y’all are making BC’s point for him? Dems have varied opinions on lots of things, and are ready to compromise on a lot. But the base won’t let their electeds do that on GC.

[hobbes2702 13032]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Because Democrats don't spend much or any time with the subject matter (no offense) you see a monolith. If you did, you would see and recognize a deeply fractured, fragile, aging (not to mention minority) coalition just barely holding it together.  It just seems resilient to you, because Democrats won't drive wedges, and choose instead to keep ramming away at literally the only thing they all agree on. 

Dude it is a monolith. This is ridiculous 

1 minute ago, softlynow said:

Does everyone not see that y’all are making BC’s point for him? Dems have varied opinions on lots of things, and are ready to compromise on a lot. But the base won’t let their electeds do that on GC.

Why would there be a compromise for things that are supposedly agreed on? If pubs need compromise to pass gun legislation then they don’t believe in the legislation. 

[Born to Run 6569]

Obviously they aren’t primarily responsible, but the strident opposition to political gun realism among prohibitionists is a huge contributor to why Democrats can’t accomplish anything meaningful. 
Do you remember, for example, the way Bernie Sanders was excoriated for his position that rural areas in rural states could have different regulatory regimes than the largest cities in the bluest states?
I’ve talked to elected democrats about this stuff. They will get lit up if they give anything (like suppressors and SBRs) to get anything. There’s NO upside for them to pursue things that could actually pass, even though stuff is available.
Look at this thread. Now imagine you are a Democrat congressman. Would you put silencers on the table?

I don't know, maybe look at the overall political picture in this country over the last 5 years and Then consider compromise. The right has taken everything and conceded nothing. I was just in progressive ass Mexico where reproductive rights and lbgt rights are largely better than here. It's twisted.

One side wants to go back to the 50s

[Neonmoon 38129]

19 minutes ago, softlynow said:

But the base won’t let their electeds do that on GC

Please show your work with this accusation 

[softlynow 1814]

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Please show your work with this accusation 

Lol. The post above yours.

You know how we often complain that our various failed football coaches don’t effectively self-scout and shore up weaknesses? This is kinda like that.

[hobbes2702 13032]

4 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Lol. The post above yours.

You know how we often complain that our various failed football coaches don’t effectively self-scout and shore up weaknesses? This is kinda like that.

No one is saying we can’t give them suppressors. I’m simply saying if they need to barter for gun reform of any kind, then they are against gun reform. There is no dem problem here. This is entirely a Republican problem fueled by their lobbies and their base.

The republicans do not compromise. They take and obfuscate and take more. What’s the last issue they gave any ground on?

Edited September 3, 2023 by hobbes2702

[Biff Tannen 45673]

Show me a pro-gun congress person that would legitimately vote for these so-called "agreed upon" reforms.  I'll wait.

[Neonmoon 38129]

52 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Lol. The post above yours.

You know how we often complain that our various failed football coaches don’t effectively self-scout and shore up weaknesses? This is kinda like that.

Your evidence is a stranger posting on a message board? Do you think any “liberal” on this board gives a flying fuck if their Democratic representative spreads their cheeks wide and passes ANY limp dick gun reform crafted by Republicans? Please tell me your joking. 

In most Republicans viewpoint, I’m probably a social communist pinko devil, I would vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but I would triple my donation to any elected Democrat that agreed to Republican legislation that extended the waiting period from zero to 1 day. 

It’s a farce that people think that Democrats, Prohibitionist, or ANYONE other than Republicans are stopping gun control 

[Nivek 16923]

If we want to end school shootings, maybe we should end schools! /gqp

[jimmyjazz 45898]

Crazy pills.

Sure, the Dems are willing to compromise, but the Republicans won't, so it's the Dems' fault.

WTF?  This isn't Reagan era Washington DC where Tip O'Neill outsmarted seemingly slightly willing Republicans.  The modern Republicans WILL NOT COMPROMISE AND THAT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE DEMOCRATS.

For fuck's sake, Bozo.  Move forward a few decades.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

4 hours ago, softlynow said:

Does everyone not see that y’all are making BC’s point for him? Dems have varied opinions on lots of things, and are ready to compromise on a lot. But the base won’t let their electeds do that on GC.

oprah.gif

[hayden_horn 11362]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

If we want to end school shootings, maybe we should end schools! /gqp

oh they are trying that as well

[softlynow 1814]

14 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

oprah.gif

This one?

 

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

This one?

 

Hmm, for some reason, I can't quite put my finger on it, I was thinking of this as something more like what Bozo was thinking:

[SilasCoade 2622]

I'm one of the crazy prohibitionists. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Fuck guns. Save lives not political careers. Why is this even a debate? It's literally the worst thing about America and the only thing that exists only in this country.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

29 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

I'm one of the crazy prohibitionists. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Fuck guns. Save lives not political careers. Why is this even a debate? It's literally the worst thing about America and the only thing that exists only in this country.

This sounds like excellent strategy. When things stay the same or get even worse and gun fetishists accrue even more power it will definitely not be your fault and since your privilege protects you from gun violence you’ll get to say I told you so. 
Wont that be nice? 

[Neonmoon 38129]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This sounds like excellent strategy. When things stay the same or get even worse and gun fetishists accrue even more power it will definitely not be your fault and since your privilege protects you from gun violence you’ll get to say I told you so. 
Wont that be nice? 

Translation: I only hurt you because you hurt me first