How many of you carry ?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, pearlandhorn said:

I'm all for some type of gun reform law that will take guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.  But given the political climate, ain't nothing going to change.  Which is why I carry.  You literally never know.

No, you aren’t.

The “political climate” is of your own making. You’ve decided to elect officials that will never bring forth gun reform.

You are the opposite of “all for”. 

[pearlandhorn 3274]

7 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

No, you aren’t.

The “political climate” is of your own making. You’ve decided to elect officials that will never bring forth gun reform.

You are the opposite of “all for”. 

lol ok

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

SO MANY PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM GUN VIOLENCE BECAUSE OF A LACK OF CIVIL DISCOURSE AND OH BTW WE COULD FIX THIS BY HAVING MORE GUNS!!!!

You continue to illustrate my point. You seem to think you’re landing haymakers when all you are doing is retreating deeper into just what I suggested. 
 

No. We don’t have civil discourse. On the micro level we can’t disagree anymore in an adult manner. Friends and family members are cut off. People seek to professionally ruin others. People think the sniping that they are now accustomed to on their particular brand of social media is an acceptable interaction in real life. 
 

On the macro, our elected officials are equally incapable of actual debate and dialogue on the subject of gun violence. It’s just a series of talking points, one ups, fact checks and gotchas. So nothing gets done. Or will get done anytime soon. 
 

You keep dreaming that dream though. It’s the world we live in and directs me to the most logical way to protect our children since  actual reforms aren’t going to happen. And no, that’s not strictly a more guns option though it’s would be a part of the process. 
 

I’d love to go back to never worrying about it. To open campuses, no need for resource officers and the occasional good old boy’s pickup in the lot with a shotgun  on the rack that no one cares about because it’s not even considered an option. 
 

That is not the world we live it. It’s not anywhere close to the world we’re headed towards. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Bobby_Batronic

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

8 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Yeah.  I don't give a shit if the gun laws change or not.  I already have the guns I want.  And no my guns aren't for hunting.  Although I use them for hunting.  They are to kill people if needed.  Do I believe society is going to collapse?  No.  But damn.  It's getting surprisingly close.  Desperate people do bad things.  I would rather be able to fend for myself than not.

At least I appreciate your honesty in admitting you don’t give a flying fuck whether kids keep getting murdered at school.

You’ve said what none of the other gun nuts on this thread have had the guts to say, so…thanks?

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

35 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I am willing to bet most democrats would be ecstatic to try out what Bozo outlined.

A democratic politician with any national profile at all in this climate would get absolutely dragged for proposing what I listed out or any idiosyncratic views at all. So would a Republican. By both dominant factions.  The two factions are too deeply invested in the conflict, and the parties both benefit from the status quo.  Having the temerity to suggest that what is appropriate for NYC might not be appropriate for rural Vermont very possibly cost Bernie the nomination in 2016 by throwing the anti-gun crowd solidly to HRC..

It's like when Anastasis says the devil is in the details on red flag laws. Not really, but that's the roadmap for killing any effort to pass one. It's the old kayfabe "death panel" routine.

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

You continue to illustrate my point. You continue to think your landing haymakers when all you are doing is retreating deeper into just what I suggested. 
 

No. We don’t have civil discourse. On the micro level we can’t disagree anymore in an adult manner. Friends and family members are cut off. People seek to professionally ruin others. People think the sniping that they are now accustomed to on their particular brand of social media is an acceptable interaction in real life. 
 

On the macro, our elected officials are equally incapable of actual debate and dialogue on the subject of gun violence. It’s just a series of talking points, one ups, fact checks and gotchas. So nothing gets done. Or will get done anytime soon. 
 

You keep dreaming that dream though. It’s the world we live in and directs me to the most logical way to protect our children sense actual reforms aren’t going to happen. And no, that’s not strictly a more guns option though it’s would be a part of the process. 
 

I’d love to go back to never worrying about it. To open campuses, no need for resource officers and the occasional good old boy’s pickup in the lot with a shotgun  on the rack that no one cares about because it’s not even considered an option. 
 

That is not the world we live it. It’s not anywhere close to the world we’re headed towards. 

We live in a world where “nothing gets done” because you choose to elect officials that wouldn’t ever consider making it more difficult for people to get the weapons of war that keep being used to murder school children because doing so would be political suicide.

We will be whatever society we collectively choose to be.

You’ve decided we should live a society where schools are war zones. You vote for politicians that agree, and whose solution is to arm teachers and janitors because they are soldiers at war.

[Pam Cummings 9646]

6 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

You continue to illustrate my point. You seem to think you’re landing haymakers when all you are doing is retreating deeper into just what I suggested. 
 

No. We don’t have civil discourse. On the micro level we can’t disagree anymore in an adult manner. Friends and family members are cut off. People seek to professionally ruin others. People think the sniping that they are now accustomed to on their particular brand of social media is an acceptable interaction in real life. 
 

On the macro, our elected officials are equally incapable of actual debate and dialogue on the subject of gun violence. It’s just a series of talking points, one ups, fact checks and gotchas. So nothing gets done. Or will get done anytime soon. 
 

You keep dreaming that dream though. It’s the world we live in and directs me to the most logical way to protect our children since  actual reforms aren’t going to happen. And no, that’s not strictly a more guns option though it’s would be a part of the process. 
 

I’d love to go back to never worrying about it. To open campuses, no need for resource officers and the occasional good old boy’s pickup in the lot with a shotgun  on the rack that no one cares about because it’s not even considered an option. 
 

That is not the world we live it. It’s not anywhere close to the world we’re headed towards. 

You insist that this is some big and complicated issue. It's not. It's people who are selling a lot of a certain product not wanting any restrictions put on who they can sell that product to and how they can do it. That means less money in their pocket. That's it. Everything else is BS.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

6 minutes ago, pearlandhorn said:

lol ok

Do you see the disconnect in saying you are all for gun reform while voting for politicians that are staunchly opposed to any gun reform?

[Celery Man 20981]

On 3/29/2023 at 2:29 AM, Bobby_Batronic said:

 

I train all the time for emergencies and life saving procedures at work for something that statistically is less likely than winning the lotto or attracting lightening to my DeLorean.

you're a pilot, right?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

2 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

You insist that this is some big and complicated issue. It's not. It's people who are selling a lot of a certain product not wanting any restrictions put on who they can sell that product to and how they can do it. That means less money in their pocket. That's it. Everything else is BS.

I bet @Handcruser and his associates have a clever nickname for the spike in business they see every time a bunch of innocent kids get murdered while trying to learn in school.

[Anastasis 23480]

19 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

A democratic politician with any national profile at all in this climate would get absolutely dragged for proposing what I listed out or any idiosyncratic views at all. So would a Republican. By both dominant factions.  The two factions are too deeply invested in the conflict, and the parties both benefit from the status quo. 

You are of course correct.

 

[aggie08 21507]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

A democratic politician with any national profile at all in this climate would get absolutely dragged for proposing what I listed out or any idiosyncratic views at all. So would a Republican. By both dominant factions.  The two factions are too deeply invested in the conflict, and the parties both benefit from the status quo.  Having the temerity to suggest that what is appropriate for NYC might not be appropriate for rural Vermont very possibly cost Bernie the nomination in 2016 by throwing the anti-gun crowd solidly to HRC.

 

I don't believe this. Maybe as it relates to pitting two Democrat politicians against each other in debate to fight for the ultra progressive vote. But not as it relates to passing legislation.

If the regulations they you proposed were brought before the House today, one side would absolutely give them overwhelming support. They want something, ANYTHING to take back to their constituents (and help their reelection campaign). The majority of Americans across all parties want reforms. Shit, why do you think there are ammo runs after every school shooting? Even gun enthusiasts think to themselves, "We'll, surely, this is time that the government does something, right?" Only for it to get stopped in its tracks immediately.

I'm not saying that extremism in some gun advocacy groups don't deserve blame for the status quo, but we're talking, generously, a 20/80 split between them and the much better funded gun lobby that has one political party--and a decent amount from the other--completely bought and paid for.

 

 

[Anastasis 23480]

22 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's like when Anastasis says the devil is in the details on red flag laws. Not really, but that's the roadmap for killing any effort to pass one. 

This is dumb though bozo. The details of how such laws work are relevant, and matter. They will have to balance a variety of considerations related to civil liberties and the actual benefits/outcomes realized. That it is important to dig into the details and have that debate should not be an excuse by anytone to not have that discussion and hash those details. I understand that politically it will be, but that doesn't make the point any less valid, nor does it make the point a roadmap for killing any such efforts. It only speaks to our political dysfunction on the topic. 

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I bet [mention=214]Handcruser[/mention] and his associates have a clever nickname for the spike in business they see every time a bunch of innocent kids get murdered while trying to learn in school.

They’re coming for our guns sale.

[closetohumping 17453]

34 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

You continue to illustrate my point. You seem to think you’re landing haymakers when all you are doing is retreating deeper into just what I suggested. 
 

No. We don’t have civil discourse. On the micro level we can’t disagree anymore in an adult manner. Friends and family members are cut off. People seek to professionally ruin others. People think the sniping that they are now accustomed to on their particular brand of social media is an acceptable interaction in real life. 
 

On the macro, our elected officials are equally incapable of actual debate and dialogue on the subject of gun violence. It’s just a series of talking points, one ups, fact checks and gotchas. So nothing gets done. Or will get done anytime soon. 
 

You keep dreaming that dream though. It’s the world we live in and directs me to the most logical way to protect our children since  actual reforms aren’t going to happen. And no, that’s not strictly a more guns option though it’s would be a part of the process. 
 

I’d love to go back to never worrying about it. To open campuses, no need for resource officers and the occasional good old boy’s pickup in the lot with a shotgun  on the rack that no one cares about because it’s not even considered an option. 
 

That is not the world we live it. It’s not anywhere close to the world we’re headed towards. 

Supporting your effort.  Not necessarily your cause.  Clear and concise post

[Foosters 17858]

All this talk about regulations is somewhat pointless after Bruen. Look at California. They have all sorts of regulations that have been passed in the last 30-40 years. Many are the kinds of regulations often discussed here. Many are going to be axed within the next 12-18 months. So, have the debates, donate to your cause, rally in front of courthouses; but know that none of it is going to make a bit of difference. Once the GOP realized that conservative justices (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy) actually had to kinda follow the law and weren't going to give them what they wanted, they simply moved to appointing political ideologues to the bench to accomplish their goals. 

Quote

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association (the state’s National Rifle Association chapter), told CalMatters that he plans to file a host of new legal briefs in existing court challenges against the state’s assault weapon ban, its background check requirements, its large capacity magazine ban and against Los Angeles County’s concealed carry restrictions.

He said the ruling is “going to simplify the whole process of judging whether or not a gun law is constitutional” and that the State of California will now have a harder time arguing that its strict rules are legal.

Quote

Ari Freilich, state policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group, agreed that the ruling could have broad implications.

“The consequences won’t show up tomorrow or the next day but (the opinion is) a fundamentally rewriting of the legal landscape and the battlefield on which all Second Amendment cases have been fought,” he said. “It definitely puts at risk much of what California and other states have fought for and defended for decades.”

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is dumb though bozo. The details of how such laws work are relevant, and matter. They will have to balance a variety of considerations related to civil liberties and the actual benefits/outcomes realized. That it is important to dig into the details and have that debate should not be an excuse by anytone to not have that discussion and hash those details. I understand that politically it will be, but that doesn't make the point any less valid, nor does it make the point a roadmap for killing any such efforts. It only speaks to our political dysfunction on the topic. 

 

You're acutely aware that there aren't any GOP reps diving into the details of how to legislate/enact any meaningful gun reform laws because the second they put forth any reforms some fucking whack job will primary them and win.

That's the dysfunction we're faced with, not a lack of reasonable officials on the other side willing to debate the details.

[aggie08 21507]

11 minutes ago, Foosters said:

All this talk about regulations is somewhat pointless after Bruen. Look at California. They have all sorts of regulations that have been passed in the last 30-40 years. Many are the kinds of regulations often discussed here. Many are going to be axed within the next 12-18 months. So, have the debates, donate to your cause, rally in front of courthouses; but know that none of it is going to make a bit of difference. Once the GOP realized that conservative justices (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy) actually had to kinda follow the law and weren't going to give them what they wanted, they simply moved to appointing political ideologues to the bench to accomplish their goals. 

...and there's also that. The extremists in the Supreme Court have already told us what we can do with all of proposed (and currently standing) reforms.

But let's definitely point the fingers at everything else except the blatantly obvious.

Edited March 30, 2023 by aggie08

[Frank Drebin 5653]

36 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

You continue to illustrate my point. You seem to think you’re landing haymakers when all you are doing is retreating deeper into just what I suggested. 
 

No. We don’t have civil discourse. On the micro level we can’t disagree anymore in an adult manner. Friends and family members are cut off. People seek to professionally ruin others. People think the sniping that they are now accustomed to on their particular brand of social media is an acceptable interaction in real life. 
 

On the macro, our elected officials are equally incapable of actual debate and dialogue on the subject of gun violence. It’s just a series of talking points, one ups, fact checks and gotchas. So nothing gets done. Or will get done anytime soon. 
 

You keep dreaming that dream though. It’s the world we live in and directs me to the most logical way to protect our children since  actual reforms aren’t going to happen. And no, that’s not strictly a more guns option though it’s would be a part of the process. 
 

I’d love to go back to never worrying about it. To open campuses, no need for resource officers and the occasional good old boy’s pickup in the lot with a shotgun  on the rack that no one cares about because it’s not even considered an option. 
 

That is not the world we live it. It’s not anywhere close to the world we’re headed towards. 

I don't really want to go back 30 or 40 years ago.  Gun death rates in schools were significantly higher then.

There were fewer mass casualty "big events".  But a whole lot more smaller shootings that unless you lived nearby, you probably never heard about.

Quote

“There is not an epidemic of mass shootings,” says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University who has been tracking these events for decades and helps keep the AP/USA Today/Northeastern Mass Killing database. “What’s increasing and is out of control is the epidemic of fear.”

As Fox notes, the annual odds that an American child will die in a mass shooting at school are nearly 10 million to 1, about the odds of being killed by lightning or of dying in an earthquake. Those are also about the same odds that any American will die in a mass public shooting like the recent one in Buffalo. Such numbers, of course, are no consolation to the grieving parents and families in Uvalde and Buffalo, but neither is the frenzy to manipulate these tragedies for ratings and political gain.

https://www.city-journal.org/school-shootings-horrific-but-statistically-rare

If you would like the real data on school shootings, here is a pretty good link.  The researcher also has updated stats if you want something more recent than the grapgs below.

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Here we go with the drunk deacon’s usual talking points. I’ll sum it up:

What’s the big deal, it could be worse.

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is dumb though bozo. The details of how such laws work are relevant, and matter. They will have to balance a variety of considerations related to civil liberties and the actual benefits/outcomes realized. That it is important to dig into the details and have that debate should not be an excuse by anytone to not have that discussion and hash those details. I understand that politically it will be, but that doesn't make the point any less valid, nor does it make the point a roadmap for killing any such efforts. It only speaks to our political dysfunction on the topic. 

 

Sure the details matter. On a recent discussion of red flag laws a person who i believe to be sincere said that he could hypothetically get behind red flag laws and proposed an evidentiary standard higher than what's required for a murder conviction. Does that seem more like bad faith or delusion to you? Unreasonable people won't ever be satisfied with reason. Invariably the "devil in the details" quickly devolves into the fantastical scenarios involving jilted women. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Here we go with the drunk deacon’s usual talking points. I’ll sum it up:

What’s the big deal, it could be worse.

The ole 52-80 “I mean, is it really a problem?” argument.

[pearlandhorn 3274]

47 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Do you see the disconnect in saying you are all for gun reform while voting for politicians that are staunchly opposed to any gun reform?

I tend to vote for people that will leave me the fuck alone. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Ted Cruz left everyone alone in the cold to die while he ran off to Cancun.

Cool.

[Frank Drebin 5653]

Some people really get offended by data and result to insults.  Those people are not worth engaging.

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

19 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You're acutely aware that there aren't any GOP reps diving into the details of how to legislate/enact any meaningful gun reform laws because the second they put forth any reforms some fucking whack job will primary them and win.

That's the dysfunction we're faced with, not a lack of reasonable officials on the other side willing to debate the details.

bingo. The other problem is the activist legislators who now occupy 5 seats on the Supreme Court.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 minutes ago, pearlandhorn said:

I tend to vote for people that will leave me the fuck alone. 

OK cool, I appreciate your honesty. It looks like we both agree you are not 'all for' gun reform.

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

38 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

I don't believe this. Maybe as it relates to pitting two Democrat politicians against each other in debate to fight for the ultra progressive vote. But not as it relates to passing legislation.

If the regulations they you proposed were brought before the House today, one side would absolutely give them overwhelming support.

That's why it would never be allowed on the floor, by leaders of either party. There's no upside for Jeffries et al to whip that bill, are you kidding? There's no upside for a rising Democratic or Republican star to sponsor it, and there's no upside for McCarthy to allow a vote. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Foosters 17858]

4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Some people really get offended by data and result to insults.  Those people are not worth engaging.

Here you go Johnny

 

[Nivek 16946]

3 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

This is true, if you define "children" to both include 18 and 19 year olds and to exclude infants (aged 0 to 1).

Yeah, that makes it more palpable.  

 

1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

Yeah.  I don't give a shit if the gun laws change or not.  I already have the guns I want.  And no my guns aren't for hunting.  Although I use them for hunting.  They are to kill people if needed.  Do I believe society is going to collapse?  No.  But damn.  It's getting surprisingly close.  Desperate people do bad things.  I would rather be able to fend for myself than not.

I would suggest reading a book like Factfullness to try to change that cliched dystopian outlook of yours.  

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Here you go Johnny
 

How dare you cal such a pious man of god out?! He is thinking about the children. His children.

[closetohumping 17453]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I bet @Handcruser and his associates have a clever nickname for the spike in business they see every time a bunch of innocent kids get murdered while trying to learn in school.

I don’t believe that can be true.  I hope not.  Wow

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

At least I appreciate your honesty in admitting you don’t give a flying fuck whether kids keep getting murdered at school.

You’ve said what none of the other gun nuts on this thread have had the guts to say, so…thanks?

No.  The first line has Jack shit to do with responsible gun ownership, but keep reaching…

 

[txhorns 2409]

We should ban guns but mandate carrying a sword and encourage duels to settle disputes.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

No.  The first line has Jack shit to do with responsible gun ownership, but keep reaching…

 

I don’t know Slorch, I feel like all of these legal gun owners that keep mowing down little kids at school are pretty irresponsible.

[Brothahorn 10087]

Here's the thing - the gun issue is dominated by partisans of two competing factions
1) Gun grabbers, who understand very little about guns, are often motivated by trauma, and advocate for a highly restrictive  and punitive national gun regime, and
2) Gun obsessives, who have a fetishistic relationship with guns, are often motivated by insecurity or anger, and advocate for a radically permissive national gun regime. 
Both of these factions are deeply tribal, ideologically radical, easily gulled, and usefully idiotic base voters for their respective political party to the exclusion of all other inputs. That's why, absurdly, discussion of gun policy is shouted down on the gun hobby thread. 
Obviously there are other camps and neither faction represents any kind of plurality, but those are the dominant groups in the discourse. As such, policy positions on the issue exist on a continuum of unhealthy, shrill irrationality, and any point in the "middle," as it were, will be not only highly contested but will be as silly and irrational as either end, and no "group" will  ever be able to shout down the moonbats. 
 
So the reason why I'm mocking your common ground bullshit is that I've opted out of this dynamic.  I'm not interested in advocating common ground between these factions. I'm interested in things that they would and have joined forces to oppose, because they are in the business of trauma and conflict, not progress and resolution. If you choose to caucus with moonbats, fine. But considering that your efforts to find "common ground" will achieve jack shit, I can achieve jack shit by advocating things that are outside of spectrum and get the benefit of antagonizing two factions that I find equally sad and repulsive. At least that way I'll be amused.

What I want at the national level:

1. 7-day waiting period on all retail gun purchases
2. Removal of NFA restrictions on SBRs, suppressors and braces
3. ATF eForm 4 & 5 processing modernization with a mandate for completion in 30 days or less.
4. NFA restriction of binary triggers equivalent to those on fully automatic weapons
5. Requirements for states to have locally appropriate red flag laws consistent with federal law
6. Most other matters left to states

What I want in Texas:

1. Minimum age or 21 to purchase a semi-automatic firearm
2. Permissibility of open carry subject to local law in homerule cities (i.e. population >5000)
3. A strong red flag law

I'll never get these, but at least the people in those factions who read them or hear me say them will have their jimmies rustled. 

I'll more readily accept a 7 day waiting period and age limits before I accept 'stronger red flag laws', whatever that means. We don't even enforce the red flag laws on the books that we have.

And you can call me whatever names you want, but I don't trust LEO and politicians to not make it a political weapon. Americans face political persecutions in this country every day from their political opposites. Why would I want to give them more power?

And don't fool yourself into thinking that it only cuts one way on guns. There are rumblings that Trans people shouldn't have guns because of their supposed mental conditions. And those clowns claim to be 2A supporters.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

We live in a world where “nothing gets done” because you choose to elect officials that wouldn’t ever consider making it more difficult for people to get the weapons of war that keep being used to murder school children because doing so would be political suicide.

We will be whatever society we collectively choose to be.

You’ve decided we should live a society where schools are war zones. You vote for politicians that agree, and whose solution is to arm teachers and janitors because they are soldiers at war.

My choices aren’t between two politicians I largely agree with but have differing opinions on gun violence. I tend to mostly disagree with most of what one candidate offers and vice versa. 
 

Don’t pretend you are a single issue voter. 

[Frank Drebin 5653]

29 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Here you go Johnny

 

My stats are per capita, not raw numbers.  
 

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

4 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

My choices aren’t between two politicians I largely agree with but have differing opinions on gun violence. I tend to mostly disagree with most of what one candidate offers and vice versa. 
 

Don’t pretend you are a single issue voter. 

We're talking about a single issue here: gun violence. You are a completely dishonest person that has suggested we live in a world where our kids' schools are war zones that must be 'hardened' because of a lack of civil discourse. That's complete and utter bullshit.

We live in that world because one political party is entirely dependent upon gun lobbyists whose job it is to make sure as many guns as possible are sold, not because I won't stop calling you out as a disingenuous moron.

[SHOOTER12 8812]

On 3/29/2023 at 12:26 PM, CHIEF said:

Kind of a long story:

Normal small town thugs, apparently. Everyone in Throckmorton was scared of them. They had gotten off work and stopped at the beer store at the Stephens/Throckmorton county line. Didn't have enough money for the amount of beer they wanted to buy. Tried to get me to pull over to rob me on the side of the road. Had my eight year old in the truck. I was meeting uncles in town to eat. Both were already CCL holders. Tried to call them multiple times but no signal. I arrived about 15 minutes before they did. Throckmorton has no LEOs. Had the truck in reverse and the turbo spoiled when they slid in behind me in the parking lot, so I parked it on top of their Olds Aurora. I opened the driver door and backed into the A-pillar to keep them from getting behind me. They attacked me with full beer bottles, I had one of the new boxcutter pocketknives that had just come out. It had a fresh blade. They started swinging and I went to town on them, cutting biceps, kidneys, hands, legs, and feet. It took them a little while to figure out what was happening to them. The hospital was across the street, so they all ran over there to the emergency room. 

The streets were so bloody they had to wash it down with a firetruck. They ran out of sutures after about 1000 stitches on these fools, and was trying to get them careflighted out, but we hunted with a careflight commander, and he had all flights coming to Throckmorton grounded. These fuckers had called their family, so about another 10-15 of them was about to show up. Thats when the first LEO, a game warden, showed up about 18 minutes after the fight started. He cuffed me and threw me in his truck and guarded it with his AR-15 drawn on them. The next closest LEO was nearly an hour away.

I got a scolding that night from both the game warden and state trooper. This was something that occurred on desolate rural highways a couple of times a year, and that only idiots aren't carrying on these roads. Said if I would have been armed I could have done the town a great service. I only had a cut on my scalp from a beer bottle, got cleaned up and went hunting the next morning. The thugs got assault with a deadly weapon, child endangerment charges, scars, and some pretty permanent damage.

After that, one uncle gave me his 1911 to carry until I bought a P365 a couple of years ago. So even after that, I don't have a CCL, and only have gotten serious about having one in the truck now that I'm too old to participate in such shenanigans.

I still regret that night, those thugs were someone's son, father, brother, and husband. You can't count on the dregs of society to feel the same way. That is what is puzzling to me when I see people advocating that no-one be armed at all, that you can just "reason" your way out of the situation. The perps objective is to not spend time in prison. The easiest way to do it, is to leave no witnesses. Those that live in their little affluent neighborhoods with overlapping LEO departments,  are ignorant, and oblivious to what true desolation, and no LEO presence can mean once you get 100+ miles away from the city. I will say that CCL and open carry have not been the biggest preventative obstacles to crime, but the iPhone camera, and more cell towers

I told CHIEF Jr. before the fight started that Dad probably wasn't going to live through this, and to take care of his Mom. But, when fists, bottles, and knives started flying it was like everything was in slow motion. Then, that glimmer of hope, and the realization that you are gonna live through this takes place.

CHIEF

Lord, I've been in some hairy situations,  especially since I've gotten older but nothing like that.  I cannot imagine having to tell my child what you told CHIEF Jr. That gave me a huge limp in my throat. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

8 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

We're talking about a single issue here: gun violence. You are a completely dishonest person that has suggested we live in a world where our kids' schools are war zones that must be 'hardened' because of a lack of civil discourse. That's complete and utter bullshit.

We live in that world because one political party is entirely dependent upon gun lobbyists whose job it is to make sure as many guns as possible are sold, not because I won't stop calling you out as a disingenuous moron.

“The world would be a much better place if everyone would just agree with me and vote for my political candidates” said the tribalist as he derided any opposition, misrepresented their viewpoints and denied that we have issues with discourse. 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

30 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

I'll more readily accept a 7 day waiting period and age limits before I accept 'stronger red flag laws', whatever that means. We don't even enforce the red flag laws on the books that we have.

And you can call me whatever names you want, but I don't trust LEO and politicians to not make it a political weapon. Americans face political persecutions in this country every day from their political opposites. Why would I want to give them more power?

And don't fool yourself into thinking that it only cuts one way on guns. There are rumblings that Trans people shouldn't have guns because of their supposed mental conditions. And those clowns claim to be 2A supporters.

I'm not going to accept this thing I don't know the meaning of, says serious person.

No offense but this is the kind of silliness I'm not going to engage with. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[SydneyCarton 48133]

Trans folks not being able to own guns because of their perceived mental state...I wonder if we continue to regress we'll start hearing that women shouldn't be able to own guns because they're too emotional. Nevermind the number of female mass shooters there are, based on percentages. But I mean, we all know that's why a woman shouldn't be a president, amirite?

[BabaYaga 15302]

24 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You are a completely dishonest person that has suggested we live in a world where our kids' schools are war zones that must be 'hardened' because of a lack of civil discourse. That's complete and utter bullshit.

Despite the fact that the shooter was confirmed to have passed on an alternate target specifically because it had heightened security.  

[Anastasis 23480]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

quickly devolves into the fantastical scenarios involving jilted women. 

Too soon. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Here's the thing - the gun issue is dominated by partisans of two competing factions
1) Gun grabbers, who understand very little about guns, are often motivated by trauma, and advocate for a highly restrictive  and punitive national gun regime, and

2) Gun obsessives, who have a fetishistic relationship with guns, are often motivated by insecurity or anger, and advocate for a radically permissive national gun regime. 

Both of these factions are deeply tribal, ideologically radical, easily gulled, and usefully idiotic base voters for their respective political party to the exclusion of all other inputs. That's why, absurdly, discussion of gun policy is shouted down on the gun hobby thread. 

Obviously there are other camps and neither faction represents any kind of plurality, but those are the dominant groups in the discourse. As such, policy positions on the issue exist on a continuum of unhealthy, shrill irrationality, and any point in the "middle," as it were, will be not only highly contested but will be as silly and irrational as either end, and no "group" will  ever be able to shout down the moonbats. 
 

So the reason why I'm mocking your common ground bullshit is that I've opted out of this dynamic.  I'm not interested in advocating common ground between these factions. I'm interested in things that they would and have joined forces to oppose, because they are in the business of trauma and conflict, not progress and resolution. If you choose to caucus with moonbats, fine. But considering that your efforts to find "common ground" will achieve jack shit, I can achieve jack shit by advocating things that are outside of spectrum and get the benefit of antagonizing two factions that I find equally sad and repulsive. At least that way I'll be amused.

What I want at the national level:

1. 7-day waiting period on all retail gun purchases
2. Removal of NFA restrictions on SBRs, suppressors and braces
3. ATF eForm 4 & 5 processing modernization with a mandate for completion in 30 days or less.
4. NFA restriction of binary triggers equivalent to those on fully automatic weapons
5. Requirements for states to have locally appropriate red flag laws consistent with federal law
6. Most other matters left to states

What I want in Texas:

1. Minimum age or 21 to purchase a semi-automatic firearm
2. Permissibility of open carry subject to local law in homerule cities (i.e. population >5000)
3. A strong red flag law

I'll never get these, but at least the people in those factions who read them or hear me say them will have their jimmies rustled. 

Best post in several days.  

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Just now, Bobby_Batronic said:

“The world would be a much better place if everyone would just agree with me and vote for my political candidates” said the tribalist as he derided any opposition, misrepresented their viewpoints and denied that we have issues with discourse. 

 

“Vote for my political candidate” while accusing me of misrepresenting your viewpoints?

What the fuck are you talking about?

It’s in the best interest of our country to have political parties with opposing views/ideas on how best to shape our future. That’s a foundational piece of a functioning democracy.

Again, we’re in a state of dysfunction not because I keep calling you a disingenuous moron, but because politicians for one political party can’t even consider trying to address gun violence. Any “gun reform” efforts that don’t start with “get more guns into the hands of more Americans” will ensure a well-backed primary challenger and political ruin.

We’re here because politicians don’t have the moral courage to take action to try and save kids’ lives because doing so would mean they lose power. You can keep screaming and pointing over there, but your bullshit won’t work here.

[aggie08 21507]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Despite the fact that the shooter was confirmed to have passed on an alternate target specifically because it had heightened security.  

What do you think this proves, exactly? So she chose the path of least resistance which, in this case, was shooting out the glass of a locked door at a different school. If that school also had a guard or two, do you think she gives up on her months long plan, or she takes an extra 5 minutes to find another door or window? How many security guards should each school have?

And in this ideal world where every school is a fortress--no non-bulletproof windows  no unguarded doors, no ability for students to use a door on their own, lest they leave it unlocked--as Fooster's data shows, most mass shootings take place somewhere else than schools. Schools just get the most coverage, for obvious reasons. If the target is specifically kids, schools aren't the only place where children congregate.

[Pam Cummings 9646]

20 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

“The world would be a much better place if everyone would just agree with me and vote for my political candidates” said the tribalist as he derided any opposition, misrepresented their viewpoints and denied that we have issues with discourse. 

 

Man, for a guy who hates "gotcha" posts, you sure do attempt a lot of them.

[Brothahorn 10087]

I'm not going to accept this thing I don't know the meaning of, says serious person.

No offense but this is the kind of silliness I'm not going to engage with. 

No offense taken. I was just giving my opinion.