Will the NRA's grip on the GOP diminish in your lifetime? (Y/N)

AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AND, the easy availability of legal firearms is right across the border in Mike Pence's Indibama. This just adds to the issue in Chicago.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

AND, the easy availability of legal firearms is right across the border in Mike Pence's Indibama. This just adds to the issue in Chicago.
Yup, also covered in the article. Chicago's biggest problem with gun violence is being located right next to red states.

Again, do not pay attention to this argument whenever it comes up. It's not serious.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

AunBear89 said:

AND, the easy availability of legal firearms is right across the border in Mike Pence's Indibama. This just adds to the issue in Chicago.
Yup, also covered in the article. Chicago's biggest problem with gun violence is being located right next to red states.

Again, do not pay attention to this argument whenever it comes up. It's not serious.


That's really the issue with all dog whistles. They are calculated to attract and control low information consumers. It sounds logical at first pass, it confirms my biases and assumptions - must be true! No further research required, and now that I am convinced I can ignore well reasoned and researched evidence to the contrary.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

iwantwinners said:



It's gotten to the point that it's so obvious it's amusing.


And yet you still haven't addressed my original response to you. You said gun violence was down as gun ownership was up. So what was your point again?
That's not what I read.

For the sake of discussion let's say it's true. You believe the lesser guns is the reason for less gun violence? They're just as easy to acquire.

Chicago has the harshest and most restrictive gun laws yet has the highest rate of gun violence and homicide.

The general point is that this general idea that if you make guns more restrictive (how?) or eliminate certain types of firearms, you will decrease the desire to commiit gun violence and mass murder.

Let's talk about how we can restrict more guns from people who are more prone to violence. Felons? Check. Psychological profiles? (I'd support, but doubt it would pass constitutional muster). Magazine limits? (I'd support). We must acknowledge that this will not really curb gun violence. You have to change culture to change the desire to use firearms to hurt people. Or eliminate the 2nd amendment. And that would create problems too.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

AND, the easy availability of legal firearms is right across the border in Mike Pence's Indibama. This just adds to the issue in Chicago.
Yup, it's a Republican's fault why a Democrat-run city executing their own political agenda results in the highest gun violence rate in the country. Could it possibly be the caliber of human being in Chicago is complete ***** That restrictive gun laws do nothing to curb the desire to hurt or the availability of firearms legally or illegally?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:




Chicago has the harshest and most restrictive gun laws yet has the highest rate of gun violence and homicide.


Neither of these things is true.

Where do you get your information? Same place that says that gun ownership is at an all time high?

Last I saw Chicago was 25th in homicide rate and had a 75% lower murder rate than St. Louis. As for restrictive gun laws, this has been repeatedly debunked. First - a number of their strictest laws have been overturned by courts. Second - they weren't as restrictive to begin with as a number of other cities like NY, LA and SF. Third - see what Sycasey has posted upthread. Most of the guns in Chicago come out of state.

Sycasey is right that it's a waste of time to argue with people who continue to peddle this garbage because they cannot be doing so in good faith.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's truly amazing the willingness by some seemingly well educated people to bury their heads in a pile of crap rhetoric and misinformation. Basic problem solving says identity the issue or problem, isolate and/or eliminate it. In this case that would be firearms, guns and weapons.

Every other industrialized nation that has put in gun control legislation and restrictions have seen lower rates of gun deaths and violence. The United States is obviously not in this group.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


Sycasey is right that it's a waste of time to argue with people who continue to peddle this garbage because they cannot be doing so in good faith.


Correct. That's the best lesson to take away from this exchange.

As I have noted before, iwantwinners is not on the level.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

It's truly amazing the willingness by some seemingly well educated people to bury their heads in a pile of crap rhetoric and misinformation. Basic problem solving says identity the issue or problem, isolate and/or eliminate it. In this case that would be firearms, guns and weapons.

Every other industrialized nation that has put in gun control legislation and restrictions have seen lower rates of gun deaths and violence. The United States is obviously not in this group.


Yeah, that's not basic problem solving, even as you described it. The basic problem solving is not to make assumptions on what you think the problem is or what the solution is. The basic problem solving is to go to the ground floor of where the action is, keep asking the "why" question until you get to the root cause of the problem and not just symptoms or assumptions, determine among the root causes which causes are causing the most deviation from the desired result and then assess the cost / benefit of addressing the root causes, with the lowest cost and highest impact targeted first. What you described is just "I have figured out the whole world's problem because I am so much smarter than the rest" way of problem solving.

Now gun control may be the most impactful and easiest solution. But facts do matter and not just throwing **** out there and treating rhetoric or fallacy as obvious truth (e.g., your false basic problem solving or false results of bogus rigorous results of problem solving discipline).
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

It's truly amazing the willingness by some seemingly well educated people to bury their heads in a pile of crap rhetoric and misinformation. Basic problem solving says identity the issue or problem, isolate and/or eliminate it. In this case that would be firearms, guns and weapons.

Every other industrialized nation that has put in gun control legislation and restrictions have seen lower rates of gun deaths and violence. The United States is obviously not in this group.


Good lord you can get guns just about everywhere else.

Anti-gun liberals want gun restrictions without admitting they want the 2nd amendment abolished because they know that will never fly if they do. So they want gun restrictions fully KNOWING that won't markedly change anything about the crime rates or gun culture and wide spread cultural factors that stimulate gun violence, so that when crime rates continue, they can come back for more (like taxes), because gun violence and people's lives aren't really their concern -- their concern is their political ideology that stipulates guns should be abolished, so they "stand on the graves of the dead" to advance this agenda from a position of virtue and empathy. It's a brilliant strategy, it really is.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dumb is dumb as goes...and when it goes full r e t a r d, nothing can be done. Have a nice day.
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:

Could it possibly be the caliber of human being in Chicago is complete *****?
Hard to know what you mean here with the censorship. Please elaborate.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

iwantwinners said:

Could it possibly be the caliber of human being in Chicago is complete *****?
Hard to know what you mean here with the censorship. Please elaborate.
C u b s f a n
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Dumb is dumb goes...and when it goes full r e t a r d, nothing can be done. Have a nice day.
Nice intelligent, progressive choice of words there. Do continue to win us over with your brilliance and shining character.
graguna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:

Another Bear said:

It's truly amazing the willingness by some seemingly well educated people to bury their heads in a pile of crap rhetoric and misinformation. Basic problem solving says identity the issue or problem, isolate and/or eliminate it. In this case that would be firearms, guns and weapons.

Every other industrialized nation that has put in gun control legislation and restrictions have seen lower rates of gun deaths and violence. The United States is obviously not in this group.


Good lord you can get guns just about everywhere else.

Anti-gun liberals want gun restrictions without admitting they want the 2nd amendment abolished because they know that will never fly if they do. So they want gun restrictions fully KNOWING that won't markedly change anything about the crime rates or gun culture and wide spread cultural factors that stimulate gun violence, so that when crime rates continue, they can come back for more (like taxes), because gun violence and people's lives aren't really their concern -- their concern is their political ideology that stipulates guns should be abolished, so they "stand on the graves of the dead" to advance this agenda from a position of virtue and empathy. It's a brilliant strategy, it really is.
one of the least intelligent posts I've ever read on BI.
BearChemist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Another Bear said:

Dumb is dumb goes...and when it goes full r e t a r d, nothing can be done. Have a nice day.
Nice intelligent, progressive choice of words there. Do continue to win us over with your brilliance and shining character.
And a fitting reply to iwantwinners.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Another Bear said:

Dumb is dumb goes...and when it goes full r e t a r d, nothing can be done. Have a nice day.
Nice intelligent, progressive choice of words there. Do continue to win us over with your brilliance and shining character.

Have you seen the movie Tropic Thunder? This word choice is a reference to that.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Another Bear said:

Dumb is dumb goes...and when it goes full r e t a r d, nothing can be done. Have a nice day.
Nice intelligent, progressive choice of words there. Do continue to win us over with your brilliance and shining character.

Have you seen the movie Tropic Thunder? This word choice is a reference to that.
Cultural illiteracy is a critical component of tedious humorlessness
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's demonstrated banning semi autos won't stop mass shootings or gun violence, or violence generally. So then we move onto limiting gun ownership through legislation, presumably keeping more guns out of bad people's hands. You already cannot legally own a gun if you are a felon. Then it's onto drawing a straight line from let's just limit gun ownership (how?) because lesser guns = lesser violence, which is actually the dumbest thing I've ever heard. When the violence doesn't stop after making gun owners jump through additional hoops and restrictions, what say you? My guess is you will demonize anybody who stands pat as you seek more restrictions in some vain attempt to curb gun violence.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

iwantwinners said:




Chicago has the harshest and most restrictive gun laws yet has the highest rate of gun violence and homicide.


Neither of these things is true.

Where do you get your information? Same place that says that gun ownership is at an all time high?

Last I saw Chicago was 25th in homicide rate and had a 75% lower murder rate than St. Louis. As for restrictive gun laws, this has been repeatedly debunked. First - a number of their strictest laws have been overturned by courts. Second - they weren't as restrictive to begin with as a number of other cities like NY, LA and SF. Third - see what Sycasey has posted upthread. Most of the guns in Chicago come out of state.

Sycasey is right that it's a waste of time to argue with people who continue to peddle this garbage because they cannot be doing so in good faith.


St. Louis likely remained the national murder capital of the United States based on murder rate, with nearly 60 murders per 100,000 residents. St. Louis has had the country's highest murder rate each year since 2014. Baltimore likely had the country's second-highest murder rate for the second-consecutive year with roughly 52 murders per 100,000 residents, with Detroit, New Orleans and Cleveland probably rounding out the top five. The table below shows the top 10 big cities in terms of estimated murder rate calculated using the FBI's 2015 population totals for each city. This kind of cross-city comparison can be tricky, however, because cities draw their borders differently: St. Louis and Baltimore, for example, include only a relatively small geographic area around their downtowns, while cities such as Phoenix and Los Angeles include large suburban areas within their borders.

Police investigated 188 killings in St. Louis in 2016.

Chicago made national headlines this year by eclipsing 750 murders for the first time since the 1990s. Chicago had the most murders of any U.S. city in 2016, but the city's murder rate of roughly 28 per 100,000 residents likely "only" ranked 8th. Chicago's rate jumped by about 10 murders per 100,000 people between 2015 and 2016, so Chicago joined Memphis as the only cities with a double-digit increase in murder rate in 2016.

538
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This may sound like an insult directed at you. It is not. It is directed at the cluelessness of fake SJWs. I think you are biased because of your political leanings but that is understandable. However, I do believe you are at least sincere.

First of all, I did see the movie. It was funny. Did you? You think taking a phrase used by an extreme method actor character explaining why someone didn't win an Oscar is justification for using a term in a way that progressives find offensive and taboo when used by others? Second of all, you do realize progressives protested the use of that word in the movie even in such a limited sense. Who is clueless about pop culture? I personally don't give a **** he used it and think progressives are fake on these matters. This proves it. However, use of that phrase in a completely different manner and context in a movie is justification for using it a manner that IS identified as taboo by progressives when used by nonprogressives? So, someone using the n word in Mississippi Burning is justification for using the N word in a taboo manner? That is rediculous. And the coward and faker who thinks gun ownership is cool parroting on in clueless manner is just another example of the clueless and empty liberal agenda.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You kind of missed the point there, champ. You should step away from the computer and your gun on Saturday nights to get a clue. Get out there and find an actual friend.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

This may sound like an insult directed at you. It is not. It is directed at the cluelessness of fake SJWs. I think you are biased because of your political leanings but that is understandable. However, I do believe you are at least sincere.

First of all, I did see the movie. It was funny. Did you? You think taking a phrase used by an extreme method actor character explaining why someone didn't win an Oscar is justification for using a term in a way that progressives find offensive and taboo when used by others? Second of all, you do realize progressives protested the use of that word in the movie even in such a limited sense. Who is clueless about pop culture? I personally don't give a **** he used it and think progressives are fake on these matters. This proves it. However, use of that phrase in a completely different manner and context in a movie is justification for using it a manner that IS identified as taboo by progressives when used by nonprogressives? So, someone using the n word in Mississippi Burning is justification for using the N word in a taboo manner? That is rediculous. And the coward and faker who thinks gun ownership is cool parroting on in clueless manner is just another example of the clueless and empty liberal agenda.


Of course I've seen the movie. How else would I understand the reference?

I'll say that just because ONE group of liberals was offended by a joke does not mean ANOTHER group using same said joke proves they are "fake" about their convictions. I could just as easily turn around and claim that your outrage here is "fake" because conservatives are supposed to be the thick-skinned manly men of "personal responsibility" and not snowflakes who get offended by bad words used in jest. Or maybe liberalism and conservatism are not monoliths and there can be varying beliefs therein.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYT: "The True Source of the N.R.A.'s Clout: Mobilization, Not Donations"

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/us/politics/nra-gun-control-florida.html
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How the NRA uses an app to organize opposition to gun control
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

You kind of missed the point there, champ. You should step away from the computer and your gun on Saturday nights to get a clue. Get out there and find an actual friend.
Thank you for your concern, but my wife and I spent our Saturday evening at a local dojo awards banquet while you were busy c u n ting up this board.

It's almost as if you don't realize just how bad you are at all this, which is rather mindblowing.

BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:

Another Bear said:

It's truly amazing the willingness by some seemingly well educated people to bury their heads in a pile of crap rhetoric and misinformation. Basic problem solving says identity the issue or problem, isolate and/or eliminate it. In this case that would be firearms, guns and weapons.

Every other industrialized nation that has put in gun control legislation and restrictions have seen lower rates of gun deaths and violence. The United States is obviously not in this group.


Good lord you can get guns just about everywhere else.

Anti-gun liberals want gun restrictions without admitting they want the 2nd amendment abolished because they know that will never fly if they do. So they want gun restrictions fully KNOWING that won't markedly change anything about the crime rates or gun culture and wide spread cultural factors that stimulate gun violence, so that when crime rates continue, they can come back for more (like taxes), because gun violence and people's lives aren't really their concern -- their concern is their political ideology that stipulates guns should be abolished, so they "stand on the graves of the dead" to advance this agenda from a position of virtue and empathy. It's a brilliant strategy, it really is.
So more guns are the answer? Just look at places where anyone can get a gun like they can buy a package of gum, is that what we want this country to become? Liberals aren't the only ones who want sensible gun laws, look at some of your Republican brothers who have realized that enough is enough. There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to own AR 15 type weapons is protected. Reasonable and sensible gun laws are needed in this country. How many guns does one need? How many can you shoot at one time? I have hunted , know people who hunt on a regular basis and and come from a law enforcement family, and when discussing using an AR 15 type weapon to hunt with the consensus is, if you need to hunt with an AR 15 type weapon, you probably need to get a new hobby because you're a poor shot and shouldn't be hunting in the first place. Now every idiot who has a few bucks is going out and buying an AR 15 type weapon(s) and a few thousand rounds of ammo and is waiting for the black helicopters or government jack-booted thugs to come. Do you really want these yahoos running around with guns in shoot/don't shoot scenarios, at the gun range, or walking behind you with their new toy(s) playing army? Like my old man and my uncles said, "everybody wants to be a warrior until the shooting starts, they **** their pants, and want to go home to mama." They all saw action in Korea and Vietnam.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

iwantwinners said:

Another Bear said:

It's truly amazing the willingness by some seemingly well educated people to bury their heads in a pile of crap rhetoric and misinformation. Basic problem solving says identity the issue or problem, isolate and/or eliminate it. In this case that would be firearms, guns and weapons.

Every other industrialized nation that has put in gun control legislation and restrictions have seen lower rates of gun deaths and violence. The United States is obviously not in this group.


Good lord you can get guns just about everywhere else.

Anti-gun liberals want gun restrictions without admitting they want the 2nd amendment abolished because they know that will never fly if they do. So they want gun restrictions fully KNOWING that won't markedly change anything about the crime rates or gun culture and wide spread cultural factors that stimulate gun violence, so that when crime rates continue, they can come back for more (like taxes), because gun violence and people's lives aren't really their concern -- their concern is their political ideology that stipulates guns should be abolished, so they "stand on the graves of the dead" to advance this agenda from a position of virtue and empathy. It's a brilliant strategy, it really is.
So more guns are the answer? Just look at places where anyone can get a gun like they can buy a package of gum, is that what we want this country to become? Liberals aren't the only ones who want sensible gun laws, look at some of your Republican brothers who have realized that enough is enough. There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to own AR 15 type weapons is protected. Reasonable and sensible gun laws are needed in this country. How many guns does one need? How many can you shoot at one time? I have hunted , know people who hunt on a regular basis and and come from a law enforcement family, and when discussing using an AR 15 type weapon to hunt with the consensus is, if you need to hunt with an AR 15 type weapon, you probably need to get a new hobby because you're a poor shot and shouldn't be hunting in the first place. Now every idiot who has a few bucks is going out and buying an AR 15 type weapon(s) and a few thousand rounds of ammo and is waiting for the black helicopters or government jack-booted thugs to come. Do you really want these yahoos running around with guns in shoot/don't shoot scenarios, at the gun range, or walking behind you with their new toy(s) playing army? Like my old man and my uncles said, "everybody wants to be a warrior until the shooting starts, they **** their pants, and want to go home to mama." They all saw action in Korea and Vietnam.
I'm not opposed to profoundly more heightened restrictions on semi auto rifles. A reasonable discussion can be had about banning them (though I'd disagree, I don't find it unreasonable). The NRA will object of course because they are protecting their business interests as any other business would.

But given the stats about semi auto rifle use in mass shootings (and gun violence generally), and what we know about violent intent, mass shootings and will continue (I'd guess it would not decrease it at all, though we can reasonably conclude it would lessen the death toll of such shootings by a small percentage, assuming they didn't get a hold of one of the million illegal guns in circulation).

Thus ardent anti-gun folks (for lack of a better phrase) will come back for more reactionary prescriptions after the next shooting. Banning semi autos as a matter of principle makes some sense, not as a reactionary prescription after a mass shooting, with the implication being semi autos = mass shootings. This is demonstrably not the case.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Y'all in here(this thread) straight clowning each other geez us
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:

BearNIt said:

iwantwinners said:

Another Bear said:

It's truly amazing the willingness by some seemingly well educated people to bury their heads in a pile of crap rhetoric and misinformation. Basic problem solving says identity the issue or problem, isolate and/or eliminate it. In this case that would be firearms, guns and weapons.

Every other industrialized nation that has put in gun control legislation and restrictions have seen lower rates of gun deaths and violence. The United States is obviously not in this group.


Good lord you can get guns just about everywhere else.

Anti-gun liberals want gun restrictions without admitting they want the 2nd amendment abolished because they know that will never fly if they do. So they want gun restrictions fully KNOWING that won't markedly change anything about the crime rates or gun culture and wide spread cultural factors that stimulate gun violence, so that when crime rates continue, they can come back for more (like taxes), because gun violence and people's lives aren't really their concern -- their concern is their political ideology that stipulates guns should be abolished, so they "stand on the graves of the dead" to advance this agenda from a position of virtue and empathy. It's a brilliant strategy, it really is.
So more guns are the answer? Just look at places where anyone can get a gun like they can buy a package of gum, is that what we want this country to become? Liberals aren't the only ones who want sensible gun laws, look at some of your Republican brothers who have realized that enough is enough. There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to own AR 15 type weapons is protected. Reasonable and sensible gun laws are needed in this country. How many guns does one need? How many can you shoot at one time? I have hunted , know people who hunt on a regular basis and and come from a law enforcement family, and when discussing using an AR 15 type weapon to hunt with the consensus is, if you need to hunt with an AR 15 type weapon, you probably need to get a new hobby because you're a poor shot and shouldn't be hunting in the first place. Now every idiot who has a few bucks is going out and buying an AR 15 type weapon(s) and a few thousand rounds of ammo and is waiting for the black helicopters or government jack-booted thugs to come. Do you really want these yahoos running around with guns in shoot/don't shoot scenarios, at the gun range, or walking behind you with their new toy(s) playing army? Like my old man and my uncles said, "everybody wants to be a warrior until the shooting starts, they **** their pants, and want to go home to mama." They all saw action in Korea and Vietnam.
I'm not opposed to profoundly more heightened restrictions on semi auto rifles. A reasonable discussion can be had about banning them (though I'd disagree, I don't find it unreasonable). The NRA will object of course because they are protecting their business interests as any other business would.

But given the stats about semi auto rifle use in mass shootings (and gun violence generally), and what we know about violent intent, mass shootings and will continue (I'd guess it would not decrease it at all, though we can reasonably conclude it would lessen the death toll of such shootings by a small percentage, assuming they didn't get a hold of one of the million illegal guns in circulation).

Thus ardent anti-gun folks (for lack of a better phrase) will come back for more reactionary prescriptions after the next shooting. Banning semi autos as a matter of principle makes some sense, not as a reactionary prescription after a mass shooting, with the implication being semi autos = mass shootings. This is demonstrably not the case.
Mass shootings are so frequent the gun lobby will always argue that a ban is a reaction to the latest mass shooting. What difference does it make if it s a reaction or not? You are making some sort of argument about intellectual purity that, I have to confess, I do not follow. If a ban will help with mass shootings, let's be practical about it and put it in place.

If your issue is that anti-gun folks will want more, you are right. I make no bones about my view that a ban on sales of new assault rifles, however you define that, is only a good first step. Eventually, I want what Australia has, a ban on assault rifle ownership. Or, if it is that much fun to fire one of those things, require that they be locked up at a licensed gun range, not to leave the premises. Australia went from numerous mass shootings to zero. You will still have your random crazy disgruntled ex-employee or spouse who shoots up a place and kills a couple of people with a handgun, but the shooting deaths of 10, 20 or 50 at a time will become exceedingly rare without assault rifles.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

iwantwinners said:

BearNIt said:

iwantwinners said:

Another Bear said:

It's truly amazing the willingness by some seemingly well educated people to bury their heads in a pile of crap rhetoric and misinformation. Basic problem solving says identity the issue or problem, isolate and/or eliminate it. In this case that would be firearms, guns and weapons.

Every other industrialized nation that has put in gun control legislation and restrictions have seen lower rates of gun deaths and violence. The United States is obviously not in this group.


Good lord you can get guns just about everywhere else.

Anti-gun liberals want gun restrictions without admitting they want the 2nd amendment abolished because they know that will never fly if they do. So they want gun restrictions fully KNOWING that won't markedly change anything about the crime rates or gun culture and wide spread cultural factors that stimulate gun violence, so that when crime rates continue, they can come back for more (like taxes), because gun violence and people's lives aren't really their concern -- their concern is their political ideology that stipulates guns should be abolished, so they "stand on the graves of the dead" to advance this agenda from a position of virtue and empathy. It's a brilliant strategy, it really is.
So more guns are the answer? Just look at places where anyone can get a gun like they can buy a package of gum, is that what we want this country to become? Liberals aren't the only ones who want sensible gun laws, look at some of your Republican brothers who have realized that enough is enough. There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to own AR 15 type weapons is protected. Reasonable and sensible gun laws are needed in this country. How many guns does one need? How many can you shoot at one time? I have hunted , know people who hunt on a regular basis and and come from a law enforcement family, and when discussing using an AR 15 type weapon to hunt with the consensus is, if you need to hunt with an AR 15 type weapon, you probably need to get a new hobby because you're a poor shot and shouldn't be hunting in the first place. Now every idiot who has a few bucks is going out and buying an AR 15 type weapon(s) and a few thousand rounds of ammo and is waiting for the black helicopters or government jack-booted thugs to come. Do you really want these yahoos running around with guns in shoot/don't shoot scenarios, at the gun range, or walking behind you with their new toy(s) playing army? Like my old man and my uncles said, "everybody wants to be a warrior until the shooting starts, they **** their pants, and want to go home to mama." They all saw action in Korea and Vietnam.
I'm not opposed to profoundly more heightened restrictions on semi auto rifles. A reasonable discussion can be had about banning them (though I'd disagree, I don't find it unreasonable). The NRA will object of course because they are protecting their business interests as any other business would.

But given the stats about semi auto rifle use in mass shootings (and gun violence generally), and what we know about violent intent, mass shootings and will continue (I'd guess it would not decrease it at all, though we can reasonably conclude it would lessen the death toll of such shootings by a small percentage, assuming they didn't get a hold of one of the million illegal guns in circulation).

Thus ardent anti-gun folks (for lack of a better phrase) will come back for more reactionary prescriptions after the next shooting. Banning semi autos as a matter of principle makes some sense, not as a reactionary prescription after a mass shooting, with the implication being semi autos = mass shootings. This is demonstrably not the case.
Mass shootings are so frequent the gun lobby will always argue that a ban is a reaction to the latest mass shooting. What difference does it make if it s a reaction or not? You are making some sort of argument about intellectual purity that, I have to confess, I do not follow. If a ban will help with mass shootings, let's be practical about it and put it in place.

If your issue is that anti-gun folks will want more, you are right. I make no bones about my view that a ban on sales of new assault rifles, however you define that, is only a good first step. Eventually, I want what Australia has, a ban on ownership. Or, if it is that much fun to fire one of those things, require that they be locked up at a licensed gun range, not to leave the premises. Australia went from numerous mass shootings to zero. You will still have your random crazy disgruntled ex-employee or spouse who shoots up a place and kills a couple of people with a handgun, but the shooting deaths of 10, 20 or 50 at a time will become exceedingly rare without assault rifles.
Fair enough. I assume you mean a ban on semi-autos, not all firearms.

I'm all for an official gun registry, longer wait periods, and more intrusive and compelling requirements to own firearms, like Australia. That doesn't have much support on the Right, however.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCLA beats us to the punch:
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They should be recruiting kids who own guns
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yup, let's remind our HS kids that skipping school (your job) is perfectly fine so long as you're virtue signaling a cause we agree with!

Universities doubling down on becoming regressive breeding grounds. My kid is getting his ass whooped for pulling that garbage -- regardless of the cause. And any school vouching to overlook suspensions because of it aren't getting funded by mom and dad if the kid decides to go there.

Cal has already embarrassed itself enough on social issues lately.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Look at Mr Tough Guy bragging about child abuse. Do you beat your wife when she talks back to you too or do you save your ass whoopings for defenseless children?
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.