Mass Shootings

[Pam Cummings 9640]

16 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

To the contrary. I would say that you are only and exclusively engaged with them.
Look how you reacted when I had the temerity to suggest that progress and reform was possible and that a broad consensus exists today across a broad slate of things.  80+% of gun owners (about 1/3 of the adult population) support red flag laws. The majority of gun owners are also fine with expanded background checks, permitting requirements, etc.  Your faction or side has made it impossible for Democrats to work with those people in the same way that the absolutist faction has made it impossible for Republicans to support what the majority wants. There's no upside and no incentive for progress. 

If 80% of gun owners are pro red flag laws, then why don't the politicians that they vote for reflect that?

Edited April 11, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[Hermanator 7039]

11 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

If 80% of gun owners are pro red flag laws, then why don't the politicians that they vote for reflect that?

[DDD Dad 14335]

30 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's ludicrous that we have all universally accepted that Democrats are the ones that need to solve this very Republican problem.

Well someone has to be the adult in the room.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

31 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

If 80% of gun owners are pro red flag laws, then why don't the politicians that they vote for reflect that?

It's all downside for them. What you are really asking is why the subset of that 80% of gun owners who ALSO vote republican don't vote for Democrats instead, solely on the basis of gun control.  That's not how coalition politics work. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

25 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

but you can't. You can do many other good things that would save lives, but that one is out of reach. Maybe not forever but for now. 

We can talk about solutions even though we know the Republicans will prevent ANYTHING from being done. They’re two separate subjects. You started this all by expressing your ire at the Democrats for not suggesting any solutions that will get majority support even though you acknowledge that the Republicans are solely responsible for obstructing ANY action whatsoever.

By saying that it’s too late or that we’ve gone past the point of an assault weapons ban being effective, you called it a “symbolic gesture” before which is wholly inaccurate and unfair, by suggesting that it’s people’s “private despair” or the mental state of the citizenry, you’re cynically making the NRA’s case for them. It’s not the guns, it’s something else and there’s nothing we can do. You’re Tim Burchett. But no, we know what the problem is. It’s the guns. It’s the one thing we have that the countries who don’t have this problem don’t have.

We can talk about all sorts of good solutions that the Democrats have pushed for. The assault weapons ban is one. Universal background checks is another. That has huge popular support. We should require that. We shouldn’t allow people to buy and carry concealed weapons without a permit, license, or training of any kind. That’s another common sense solution.

Again, it’s the Republican Party that is standing in the way of anything getting done. Since you admit that, I don’t know what your point was in blaming the Democrats for not performing the impossible. But if you want to bring up solutions, and after acknowledging that the Republicans will block everything, you deride any talk about solutions that would be effective if we COULD get them passed because we CAN’T get them passed, then what is your point and what were you hoping to achieve by criticizing the Dems for not solving the problem in the first place?

[Hawndoh 2386]

Once again, you folks are arguing with religious zealots. The gun is their god.

You don't have rational policy debates with zealots.

[Neonmoon 38129]

Republicans want to live in the Wild West. Everyone has to carry a gun everywhere. That’s freedom!

dumbest people 

[YGIFS 19450]

Some of you need to take your own advice and read the Bill of Rights again.  And then another time after that. 

After you've bought your F-250, and put up a half dozen American flags.  And gotten your wrap-around Oakleys and Ed Hardy t-shirts and MAGA schwag.  There isn't much left to do to prove your patriotism.  You can't purchase proof of your love of the constitution.  Most of the articles and amendments are just legal and judicial mechanisms that can't be made tangible.  Except the right to bear arms.  Buying as many guns as you can possibly afford is the ultimate patriotic flex.  It means you love America more than your neighbor.  1 for hunting, 1 for self-defense, 1 for the castle/homestead, and 34 more to show how much you love freedom.  50 years ago, they figured out how to monetize patriotism and we've been bilking suckers for cash ever since.

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Last i checked, in America, majority rules.

Huh. This must be something new.  Also, your echo chamber is showing.  The fastest growing demographic in firearm purchases are first time POC.   Might want to look a bit deeper into your majority. 

[Gap03 3304]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Huh. This must be something new.  Also, your echo chamber is showing.  The fastest growing demographic in firearm purchases are first time POC.   Might want to look a bit deeper into your majority. 

... he says with no introspection whatsoever ...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What is ludicrous is the idea that the leading cause of death for Children in the United States is a Republican problem. Republicans are certainly alone in their defense of the status quo, but it's everyone's problem, and Democrats not taking more leadership on it is both a lost opportunity and a goddamn shame.

I don't think I've ever seen someone twist themselves in so many knots to be "both sides." This comment is completely detached from reality. 

"Republicans are alone in their defense of the status quo.... but it's the Dems' fault." 

"Sure that drunk driver was wasted and speeding, but what was the other car doing out on the road after midnight?"

[Guest]

On 4/10/2023 at 11:51 AM, A-Tex Devil said:

It really sucks that one, if not the, major downfall of this country will be an intentional misinterpretation of an amendment in order to suit the needs of a very specific lobbying group, leading to one party benefitting and realizing the idiots that fall for it might win them elections, causing said party to  quadruple down on the same intentional misinterpretation because they know it delivers votes, even though it kills children.  

Whoa. This is a succinct summation of this terrible affliction. For the life of me I cannot see how any Republican politician with a pair of balls wouldn’t use this societal stain as a huge opportunity for reform. GOP must lead on this. But, they’re not. I’m on vacay with wife and have heard some vague BS from TN Governor. 

[Pam Cummings 9640]

47 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's all downside for them. What you are really asking is why the subset of that 80% of gun owners who ALSO vote republican don't vote for Democrats instead, solely on the basis of gun control.  That's not how coalition politics work. 

I mean, you'd basically be slowing the flow from their money faucet. That's the real reason.

[royiv 9292]

45 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Republicans want to live in the Wild West. Everyone has to carry a gun everywhere. That’s freedom!

dumbest people 

Don't forget the banning of books, outlawing abortion, marginalizing the LGBTQ community, shoving their religion down everyone else's throat, pissing off our foreign allies and the all important tax cuts for the richest Americans. It's truly breathtaking that their are university educated folks on this board that see all of this shit and then think to themselves, "sign me up for that!" Once again, I ask the Republicans on this board, what is so offensive to voting for a Democrat when you consider all of the above? What part of that agenda is so attractive to you that you will pull that lever?

[DDD Dad 14335]

8 minutes ago, royiv said:

Don't forget the banning of books, outlawing abortion, marginalizing the LGBTQ community, shoving their religion down everyone else's throat, pissing off our foreign allies and the all important tax cuts for the richest Americans. It's truly breathtaking that their are university educated folks on this board that see all of this shit and then think to themselves, "sign me up for that!" Once again, I ask the Republicans on this board, what is so offensive to voting for a Democrat when you consider all of the above? What part of that agenda is so attractive to you that you will pull that lever?

To own the libs, duh!

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

 

 

47 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I mean, you'd basically be slowing the flow from their money faucet. That's the real reason.

Not really, that's just not enough to make deals by itself.

You have to give them something to vote for, or hard to vote against in return. I suggested a bunch of things that the industry and gun fetishists want that are non-lethal and don't expand access to weapons or firearms, in return for things that save lives.
Do you oppose those things?

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I don't think I've ever seen someone twist themselves in so many knots to be "both sides." This comment is completely detached from reality. 

Can you really tell yourself that the political incompetence of the Democratic party has played no role into what's happened to Texas and America?  And can you really tell yourself that the failure to create and sell a viable alternative vision on gun violence to the public that sticks on election day has played no role?
The function of parties is to win elections and the purpose of winning is to make policy happen. On this issue they have failed to do either. There's no extra credit for pure motives or noble failures when lives are literally at stake.
Results count. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[C-Man 27217]

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I don't think I've ever seen someone twist themselves in so many knots to be "both sides." This comment is completely detached from reality. 

"Republicans are alone in their defense of the status quo.... but it's the Dems' fault." 

"Sure that drunk driver was wasted and speeding, but what was the other car doing out on the road after midnight?"

Asking for it ...

 

[Foosters 17850]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Can you really tell yourself that the political incompetence of the Democratic party has played no role into what's happened to Texas and America?  And can you really tell yourself that the failure to create and sell a viable alternative vision on gun violence to the public that sticks on election day has played no role?
The function of parties is to win elections and the purpose of winning is to make policy happen. On this issue they have failed to do either. There's no extra credit for pure motives or noble failures when lives are literally at stake.
Results count. 

Did you forget the states that are controlled by Dems and regularly pass gun laws? 

Quote

We compared gun policy across the country, scoring every state on the strength of its gun laws and comparing it with its rate of gun violence. In states where elected officials have taken action to pass gun safety laws, fewer people die by gun violence. Choose a state to see how it stacks up on 50 key policies, or explore a policy to see how much of the country has adopted it.

Quote

The below are laws passed by the state of California

 

Background Check and/or Purchase Permit

       -Requires Background checks for handgun purchases at point of sale and/or for permit to purchase

Concealed Carry Permit Required

       -Requires any person who carries a concealed firearm in public to first obtain a permit

Extreme Risk Law

      -Allows law enforcement (and often family members) to petition for a court order to temporarily prevent someone in crisis from accessing guns.

No Shoot First Law

          -Does not have a dangerous Shoot First law in place

Secure Storage or Child Access Prevention Required

           -Requires that firearms be stored locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition in certain circumstances

CaliforniaGun industry and product safety

Assault Weapons Prohibited

Bars purchase of certain assault-style weapons originally designed for military use

Consumer Safety

         -Requires new handgun models sold in the state to have childproofing features

Ghost Guns Regulated

          -Regulates ghost gun parts, ensuring they cannot be sold without serial numbers and a background check

High Capacity Magazines Prohibited

            -Bars purchase of gun magazines larger than a prescribed size

Microstamping for New Handguns

            -Requires new handgun models sold in the state to include microstamping technology

No Special Immunity for Gun Industry

            -Does not have a dangerous legal immunity law in place

CaliforniaGuns in public

Crime Gun Tracing

         -Requires officials to trace all guns recovered at crime scenes, using the federal tracing system

No Carry After Violent Offense

         - Bars concealed carry by people with assault or other violent misdemeanor convictions

No Guns Mandate on College Campuses

        -Does not force colleges and universities to allow concealed carry

No Guns at State Capitols and/or Demonstrations

        -Blocks the public carry of guns on state capitol grounds and/or political protests

No Guns in Bars

          -Blocks the concealed carry of guns in bars

No Guns in K-12 Schools

          -Does not have a law allowing carry in K–12 schools by staff or other permit holders

Open Carry Regulated

           -Regulates how guns may be carried visibly in public, either requiring a permit or else barring open carry altogether

Strong Concealed Carry Authority

           -Allows officials to bar concealed carry by people who pose a danger

CaliforniaKeeping guns out of the wrong hands

Emergency Restraining Order Prohibitor

            -Bars domestic abusers from having guns while subject to short-term emergency orders

Felony Prohibitor

           -Bars gun possession by people with felony convictions

Fugitive from Justice Prohibitor

            -Bars gun possession by fugitives

Gun Removal Program

             -Requires officials to identify and seek removal of illegal guns

Hate Crime Prohibitor

          -Bars people from having guns after a hate crime conviction

Mental Health Prohibitor

           -Bars gun possession by people who have been involuntarily committed or found to be a danger to self or others

Minimum Age to Purchase

           -Requires handgun buyers to be 21+ and rifle and shotgun buyers to be 18+

No Gun Purchases After Violent Offense

           -Bars gun purchases by people with assault or other violent misdemeanor convictions

Prohibition for Convicted Domestic Abusers

          -Bars domestic abusers from having guns after a misdemeanor conviction

Prohibition for Domestic Abusers Under Restraining Orders

           -Bars domestic abusers from having guns while subject to restraining orders

Relinquishment for Convicted Domestic Abusers

           -Requires domestic abusers to turn in guns after a misdemeanor conviction

Relinquishment for Domestic Abusers Under Restraining Orders

           -Requires domestic abusers to turn in guns when a restraining order is placed

School Threat Assessment Teams

         -Requires threat assessment programs to identify students at risk of violence

Stalker Prohibitor

         -Bars gun possession by convicted stalkers

CaliforniaPolicing and civil rights

Funding for Services for Victims of Gun Violence

Issues targeted solicitations to use federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funds to assist victims of gun violence or for gun violence intervention

Local Gun Laws Allowed

        -Does not preempt towns and cities from making their own gun safety policy

No Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights

         -Does not impede efforts to hold police accountable for excessive force and other misconduct

Office of Violence Intervention

         -Has a dedicated office for gun violence prevention

Police Use of Deadly Force Standard

          -Bars deadly force unless necessary to prevent serious bodily injury, does not make exception for felony suspects fleeing arrest

Police Use of Force Incident Data Collection and Reporting

           -Requires law enforcement agencies to collect and report data on use of force incidents

Qualified Immunity Limited

         -Limits qualified immunity, a legal shield for police officers accused of civil and constitutional violations

Violence Intervention Program Funding

         -State budget includes funding for community violence intervention programming

CaliforniaSales and permitting

         -Authority to Deny Gun Purchase for Public Safety

         -Allows officials to deny sales if buyer poses a danger

Charleston Loophole Closed or Limited

         -Ensures gun sales can’t proceed while a background check is still ongoing

Dealer License Required

         -Requires all gun dealers to obtain a state license

Lost and Stolen Reporting

           -Requires gun owners to notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen

Mental Health Record Reporting

           -Requires or allows officials to report prohibiting records into the background check system

Notification of Failed Background Checks

          -Requires notice to law enforcement when a prohibited person tries to buy a gun

Sales Records Sent to Law Enforcement

          -Requires all handgun sale information be recorded by officials

Training Required to Purchase Guns

          -Requires certain gun buyers to take a training course before their purchase

Waiting Periods

         -Requires gun buyers to wait a prescribed time before completing a purchase

https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

Edited April 11, 2023 by Foosters

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

Did you forget the states that are controlled by Dems and regularly pass gun laws? 

Quote

Uh, congrats? I live in Texas. And Democrats can't do much nationally in large part because they can't stop stepping on their own dicks here. 

[Foosters 17850]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Uh, congrats? I live in Texas. And Democrats can't do much nationally in large part because they can't stop stepping on their own dicks here. 

So in the states Dems control, they get gun legislation passed, no problem. In jurisdictions where the number require they get the GOP on board, they get nothing passed.

And its still your takeaway that its the Dems' fault?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

complete and utter garbage, @Bozo_Casanova.  all of it.

[A-Tex Devil 2446]

6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

So in the states Dems control, they get gun legislation passed, no problem. In jurisdictions where the number require they get the GOP on board, they get nothing passed.

And its still your takeaway that its the Dems' fault?

It doesn’t help between unapologetic extreme gerrymandering and the fact that 35-40% of the Texas electorate’s first priority is to vote for God and/or white supremacy over their own economic and social self-interest and it’s a pretty tough hill to fucking climb. It’s going to take some time. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13511]

3 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

If 80% of gun owners are pro red flag laws, then why don't the politicians that they vote for reflect that?

I've yet to see a GOP politician even respond to a question that even their voters want some gun control reform. They refuse to acknowledge the question, and side step it to the inevitable thoughts and prayers about the most recent gun carnage, today's not the day to discuss change, etc. etc.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

So in the states Dems control, they get gun legislation passed, no problem. In jurisdictions where the number require they get the GOP on board, they get nothing passed.

And its still your takeaway that its the Dems' fault?

Oh I’m sorry I thought we were talking about places where no progress was being made. Do you suggest we focus tightly only on places where Democratic Party coalitions haven’t failed to stay competitive?

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh I’m sorry I thought we were talking about places where no progress was being made. Do you suggest we focus tightly only on places where Democratic Party coalitions haven’t failed to stay competitive?

He wants to talk about places where mass shootings don’t exist, like California.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

1 hour ago, A-Tex Devil said:

It doesn’t help between unapologetic extreme gerrymandering and the fact that 35-40% of the Texas electorate’s first priority is to vote for God and/or white supremacy over their own economic and social self-interest and it’s a pretty tough hill to fucking climb. It’s going to take some time. 

Remember that time the Democrats “kept their powder dry” in 2000? Remember when Ron Kirk actually challenged Jon Cornyn over who could be most useful to President George W. Bush? Remember when Texas Democrats sent money out of state when Obama was gaining? Did you see the Lupe Fiasco? 
But sure, tough hill to climb.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh I’m sorry I thought we were talking about places where no progress was being made. Do you suggest we focus tightly only on places where Democratic Party coalitions haven’t failed to stay competitive?

Seems to me you've been talking about Democrats writ large, not those Democrats in states where they don't have control.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

1 hour ago, A-Tex Devil said:

It doesn’t help between unapologetic extreme gerrymandering and the fact that 35-40% of the Texas electorate’s first priority is to vote for God and/or white supremacy over their own economic and social self-interest and it’s a pretty tough hill to fucking climb. It’s going to take some time. 

Remember that time the Democrats “kept their powder dry” in 2000? Remember when Ron Kirk actually challenged Jon Cornyn over who could be most useful to President George W. Bush? Remember when Texas Democrats sent money out of state when Obama was gaining? Did you see the Lupe Fiasco? 
But sure, tough hill to climb.

[Foosters 17850]

38 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh I’m sorry I thought we were talking about places where no progress was being made. Do you suggest we focus tightly only on places where Democratic Party coalitions haven’t failed to stay competitive?

If you're talking about the Democratic party only in places controlled by the GOP, then yeah, I'd have to concede they're not effective in those places.

33 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Seems to me you've been talking about Democrats writ large, not those Democrats in states where they don't have control.

This

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

37 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Seems to me you've been talking about Democrats writ large, not those Democrats in states where they don't have control.

I am, just to be clear. Part of the reason they can’t be effective nationally is a near total collapse outside of cities. 

[jimmyjazz 45903]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I am, just to be clear. Part of the reason they can’t be effective nationally is a near total collapse outside of cities. 

There are a lot of moving parts to this.  Gerrymandering, a century of stasis in the size of the House, etc.  What do you think would happen if # reps were appropriately reapportioned according to current population?  Texas and Florida would benefit, but so would California, New York, Illnois, etc.

[aggie08 21497]

52 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

He wants to talk about places where mass shootings don’t exist, like California.  

California has the 7th lowest firearm mortality rate in the country. But you know that. Of the lowest 19 states, only 2--Iowa and Nebraska--have a heavy GOP slant.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Less guns in circulation and stricter gun regulations work. We know they work. It's pretty basic math. Anyone trying to deny it is being willfully ignorant, or using some bullshit version of the slippery slope to try to justify anything and everything.

Bozo's point that it's the Democrats share a large part of the blame for not doing more in states where they have virtually no power--while continuously passing reforms in states that they do--is asinine.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by aggie08

[Satchel 6938]

9 hours ago, C-Man said:

Sturgeon purchased the AR legally on 4/4 as per the current PC out of Louisville

This is only marginally better than the Tulsa shooter who bought his AR on his way to commit murder. As a country, we’re lost in the muck and mire of gun lust and there doesn’t appear to be way for us to will ourselves out of it.

[Satchel 6938]

5 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

If 80% of gun owners are pro red flag laws, then why don't the politicians that they vote for reflect that?

Because politicians get to pick their voters who inoculate them from accountability and consequences.

[lemonlime 5503]

17 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

California has the 7th lowest firearm mortality rate in the country. But you know that. Of the lowest 19 states, only 2--Iowa and Nebraska--have a heavy GOP slant.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Less guns in circulation and stricter gun regulations work. We know they work. It's pretty basic math. Anyone trying to deny it is being willfully ignorant, or using some bullshit version of the slippery slope to try to justify anything and everything.

Bozo's point that it's the Democrats share a large part of the blame for not doing more in states where they have virtually no power--while continuously passing reforms in states that they do--is asinine.

 

 

This.  I was just looking at those lists and it's striking.  What do 9 out of 10 of the states with the lowest firearm mortality rate have in common?  And what do 9 out of 10 states with the highest firearm mortality have in common?  It's a mystery for the ages.

That said, I don't know how to separate out how much of that breakdown has to do with gun control laws verses that the bulk of elected reps and the public in those states isn't fetishizing guns, and there aren't large swaths of people too terrified of the world to go for a walk without packing heat.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There are a lot of moving parts to this.  Gerrymandering, a century of stasis in the size of the House, etc.  What do you think would happen if # reps were appropriately reapportioned according to current population?  Texas and Florida would benefit, but so would California, New York, Illnois, etc.

I guess? I mean, they aren’t, so I hadn’t thought about it. Look I absolutely loathe partisan gerrymandering but it’s not as though the GOP didn’t have to break Democratic gerrymanders throughout Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky etc. to reach this point. 

[jimmyjazz 45903]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I guess? I mean, they aren’t, so I hadn’t thought about it. Look I absolutely loathe partisan gerrymandering but it’s not as though the GOP didn’t have to break Democratic gerrymanders throughout Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky etc. to reach this point. 

You referenced the collapse in rural states . . . it wouldn't hurt if the rise in urban population was appropriately represented in Congress.  I think it's a legitimate, if hidden, factor.

[Hornius Emeritus 12459]

How is this even possible? If you get into a gunfight with police in 2021 you should not be walking around in 2023, let alone walking around and killing people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/nyregion/easter-killings-arrest.html

 

[Sawbonz 27547]

13 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

How is this even possible? If you get into a gunfight with police in 2021 you should not be walking around in 2023, let alone walking around and killing people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/nyregion/easter-killings-arrest.html

 

Messiah huh?

[wild_turkey 3159]

7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

but you can't. You can do many other good things that would save lives, but that one is out of reach. Maybe not forever but for now. 

Why do you keep saying this (assault weapons ban) is out of reach?

Is it your belief that there are already too many assault weapons in circulation, so banning them now would not make a difference? In other words, the battle has been lost and we should just give up?

Or are you simply saying it is highly unlikely to occur for political reasons?

Legit questions, looking for a straightforward answer. Spare me the talking in circles and blaming political parties and deflections. I just want an honest answer why assault weapons cannot be banned.

From where I stand, it seems that banning assault weapons is both physically and politically possible. Other first world countries exist where people are unable to legally purchase these weapons, and those countries seem to do just fine without them.

It also seems that at least some of these mass shootings are committed with a recently purchased AR-15, and if they were not available to purchase, those shooters would have to choose a different weapon that is presumably less efficient for committing mass murder. Even if their next best choice is only 5% less effective, when you add up the number of victims in mass shootings, many of them children, that translates into saving human lives. (at the small expense of some men no longer being able to purchase their preferred toy)

I'm really struggling to see the downside of banning assault weapons, and I'm struggling to understand your position that it's not possible.

I say this as someone who grew up in a rural Texas town where guns are commonplace. I personally own 2 pistols that I never use and are locked away. I have friends that own AR-15s and some of them beat their chests over them as if they have a Super Bowl ring, and there was a point in my life when I probably thought that was cool and just a fun way to shoot stupid shit in the country, but my mind changed on that a long time ago when these stupid pointless weapons keep getting used for mass murder. It angers me to no end and it is the sole reason I will turn out to vote, even if that means voting for someone who I disagree with many other political points on.

Edited April 12, 2023 by wild_turkey

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

If I liked to play cowboys and indians and knew full well that no amount of dead school children would ever prevent me from playing cowboys and indians, I would come on the internet and play another game of pretend when it came to discussing ways we could come together to enact common sense reform.

Some of you would then say “see, that guy is reasonable!”

Meanwhile, I’d just keep amassing more and more guns so I could play more cowboys and indians.

[tx 3 putt 76908]

Sickening …

 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

4 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

Why do you keep saying this (assault weapons ban) is out of reach?

Is it your belief that there are already too many assault weapons in circulation, so banning them now would not make a difference? In other words, the battle has been lost and we should just give up?

Or are you simply saying it is highly unlikely to occur for political reasons?

Legit questions, looking for a straightforward answer. Spare me the talking in circles and blaming political parties and deflections. I just want an honest answer why assault weapons cannot be banned.

From where I stand, it seems that banning assault weapons is both physically and politically possible. Other first world countries exist where people are unable to legally purchase these weapons, and those countries seem to do just fine without them.

It also seems that at least some of these mass shootings are committed with a recently purchased AR-15, and if they were not available to purchase, those shooters would have to choose a different weapon that is presumably less efficient for committing mass murder. Even if their next best choice is only 5% less effective, when you add up the number of victims in mass shootings, many of them children, that translates into saving human lives. (at the small expense of some men no longer being able to purchase their preferred toy)

I'm really struggling to see the downside of banning assault weapons, and I'm struggling to understand your position that it's not possible.

I say this as someone who grew up in a rural Texas town where guns are commonplace. I personally own 2 pistols that I never use and are locked away. I have friends that own AR-15s and some of them beat their chests over them as if they have a Super Bowl ring, and there was a point in my life when I probably thought that was cool and just a fun way to shoot stupid shit in the country, but my mind changed on that a long time ago when these stupid pointless weapons keep getting used for mass murder. It angers me to no end and it is the sole reason I will turn out to vote, even if that means voting for someone who I disagree with many other political points on.

Reminder that not too long ago, the firearms industry considered black rifle and tacticiool stuff as a fringey, not-acceptable part of gun culture that they needed to keep at arms length. 
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/ar-15-rifle-mass-shootings-gun-control/661275/

They’ve pivoted to this shit to compensate for a drop in people using firearms as ranch/farm tools and sporting equipment. They are lifestyle accessories as evidenced by the merch that surrounds them.  They’re like big Salt Life stickers that you can use to kill a person. And the gun industry also likes them because you can sell a LOT of this shit to preppers/2A nuts/race war mongers.
 

 They absolutely benefit from increased gun violence, and they’ve gotten over shame they once felt. They profit off both sides as people buy guns for fear of guns being banned by the Libs and buy guns to protect themselves from other people with guns. It’s a real racket, and a sickness. But the best day to be in the AR-15 selling business is the day after a bunch of elementary school kids have their brains spattered again a classroom wall by a 5.56 NATO round. 
 

And I don’t see how the Ds are wanting to upset the status quo on this as the GOP has been doubling down and advancing gun shit relentlessly. Constitutional carry, anyone? 

[Bookman 4639]

We need to think about the real issue here, which is how many Americans are not killed each day by guns. Why focus on the negative?

[royiv 9292]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Sickening …

 

I mean we wouldn't want a perfectly good gun going to waste now, would we?

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

9 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

Why do you keep saying this (assault weapons ban) is out of reach?

Is it your belief that there are already too many assault weapons in circulation, so banning them now would not make a difference? In other words, the battle has been lost and we should just give up?

Or are you simply saying it is highly unlikely to occur for political reasons?

Both of those things, but also what @956 Worldwide said. In 1994 gun ownership and shooting sports were bipartisan and most gun owners associated assault weapons with criminals and goofy paranoids. That’s not the case anymore. Gun ownership is far less bipartisan, and the AR-15 is a mainstream totem of tribal identity.

There are many good things we could do to save lives (like waiting periods, NFA restrictions, red flag laws, etc) but reinstating the ban or specifically banning the AR-15 seems out of reach. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Sickening …

 

Wow that’s fucked up. 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

big Salt Life stickers that you can use to kill a person

Damn, that's 100% it

[Nivek 16923]

17 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

We can talk about solutions even though we know the Republicans will prevent ANYTHING from being done. They’re two separate subjects. You started this all by expressing your ire at the Democrats for not suggesting any solutions that will get majority support even though you acknowledge that the Republicans are solely responsible for obstructing ANY action whatsoever.

By saying that it’s too late or that we’ve gone past the point of an assault weapons ban being effective, you called it a “symbolic gesture” before which is wholly inaccurate and unfair, by suggesting that it’s people’s “private despair” or the mental state of the citizenry, you’re cynically making the NRA’s case for them. It’s not the guns, it’s something else and there’s nothing we can do. You’re Tim Burchett. But no, we know what the problem is. It’s the guns. It’s the one thing we have that the countries who don’t have this problem don’t have.

We can talk about all sorts of good solutions that the Democrats have pushed for. The assault weapons ban is one. Universal background checks is another. That has huge popular support. We should require that. We shouldn’t allow people to buy and carry concealed weapons without a permit, license, or training of any kind. That’s another common sense solution.

Again, it’s the Republican Party that is standing in the way of anything getting done. Since you admit that, I don’t know what your point was in blaming the Democrats for not performing the impossible. But if you want to bring up solutions, and after acknowledging that the Republicans will block everything, you deride any talk about solutions that would be effective if we COULD get them passed because we CAN’T get them passed, then what is your point and what were you hoping to achieve by criticizing the Dems for not solving the problem in the first place?

Same playbook for global warming.  First, deny.  Then deny.  Then point to something else.  Then deny.  Then pivot to "Well, it's too late now."