I promise not to debate you…

[IMGASMD]

---

Members don't see this ad.

He said if lowering the speed limit would reduce GUN deaths, he would do it. That was weird. You must not have read his actual words.

I admit I do have a reading problem. Diagnosed actually. I thought his response was actually reasonable.

“If lowering the speed limit to 30 mph reduces the amount of dead kids/people from gun violence, I’ll sign up.”

I took is as, he would trade some of personal inconvenience to save some kids. I have a lead foot, and I said I would do the same.

By your response to my previous question. I suppose we are not even in the same country. If we cannot even agree on what the problem is….

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I admit I do have a reading problem. Diagnosed actually. I thought his response was actually reasonable.

“If lowering the speed limit to 30 mph reduces the amount of dead kids/people from gun violence, I’ll sign up.”

I took is as, he would trade some of personal inconvenience to save some kids. I have a lead foot, and I said I would do the same.

By your response to my previous question. I suppose we are not even in the same country. If we cannot even agree on what the problem is….

You are correct, guess it flew over their gun loving heads! He didn’t offer a reasonable argument and I still meant I would sacrifice my freedom to go to a higher speed limit to limit senseless gun deaths… which we all know it wouldn’t.

 

[chocomorsel]

You are correct, guess it flew over their gun loving heads! He didn’t offer a reasonable argument and I still meant I would sacrifice my freedom to go to a higher speed limit to limit senseless gun deaths… which we all know it wouldn’t.

And which we all see he wouldn’t anyway. The small sacrifices of peoples lives that he doesn’t know are worth his guns.

 

[Matty44]

And which we all see he wouldn’t anyway. The small sacrifices of peoples lives that he doesn’t know are worth his guns.

You guys seem to all be missing my point about the speed limit. *sigh*

 

[Matty44]

You are correct, guess it flew over their gun loving heads! He didn’t offer a reasonable argument and I still meant I would sacrifice my freedom to go to a higher speed limit to limit senseless gun deaths… which we all know it wouldn’t.

Is it only gun deaths that upset you? Why aren’t you as upset about us dumb Americans that wanna drive 75mph and kill innocent kids and adults?

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Is it only gun deaths that upset you? Why aren’t you as upset about us dumb Americans that wanna drive 75mph and kill innocent kids and adults?

I’m upset at drunk drivers who kill innocent people. Good thing we have laws to protect people. We at least have speed limits and rules on how to drive, and cars are not intended to kill multiple people in one setting like an assault rifle. I know that if a person has a DUI, there is a possibility that their license can get suspended or they can go to jail or fined.

Too bad, we’re not as strict in regards to gun laws. We have traffic lights, stop signs, vision tests, speeding cameras, even insurance companies that monitor our driving but gun control… hell nah!

 

[Matty44]

I’m upset at drunk drivers who kill innocent people. Good thing we have laws to protect people. We at least have speed limits and rules on how to drive, and cars are not intended to kill multiple people in one setting like an assault rifle.

Too bad, we’re not as strict in regards to gun laws. We have traffic lights, stop signs, vision tests, speeding cameras, even insurance companies that monitor our driving but gun control… hell nah!

We should probably ban alcohol then, no?

 

[RadOncDoc21]

We should probably ban alcohol then, no?

I don’t drink alcohol, so I wouldn’t mind banning that also. I bet society would be a lot safer, less violence and deaths.

You sound like you want all of your vices without any consequences. Not sure how it relates to guns but definitely shouldn’t be operating a gun while intoxicated.

 

[vector2]

In regard to traffic fatalities, the three main causes are

1. Not wearing a seatbelt
2. Drunk driving
3. Contribution from speeding

Note that speeding is what contributed to traffic fatalities, not current speed limits being necessarily too high..Cars are orders of magnitude more stable and safe than they used to be, and thus most speed limits are perfectly appropriate. Indeed, it's controversial that just arbitrarily lowering the speed limit is effective in isolation at reducing crashes. Furthermore, there is evidence that fatalities still went down when the interstate speed limit went from 55 to 65mph


What the US truly needs is a blanket structural overhaul where we separate true streets (nice, small, pleasant locations filled with business storefronts, sidewalks, pedestrians and very slow speed limits) from true roads (interstates and highways). Instead, what we have in many parts of America are "stroads" ... Aka ugly suburban sprawl hellhole roads on which people barrel down at 50mph from one dangerous one strip mall intersection to the next while tboning each other a billion times a day.

 

[Twiggidy]

What he's getting at, and the same point I made earlier, is that defining a "mass" shooting as any event where 3 or more people get shot is a semantic distinction, one seized upon by media as a manipulative narrative, intended to frighten people. One of our members here is apparently concerned that gangland shenanigans put her at so much risk that she needs to leave the country. I wish her the best in her travels but this is not a rational risk-based decision.

Of course those shootings are tragic. Any injury or death is. But the vast majority of these events don't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as random shootings in which the attacker and victims have no prior relationship.

It's an attempt to conflate two very different risks, for the purpose of advancing an argument. A school shooting like Sandy Hook and a drug deal gone bad aren't the same. When a person pretends they are, they're being disingenuous.

It's similar to the way gun control advocates always quietly lump suicides in with homicides when tallying "gun deaths" - as if guns are crawling out of homes and randomly suiciding strangers at the park. My neighbor's gun, or the guns the ATF trafficked to Mexico, do not increase my risk of suicide.

That's all. It's up to you if you want to be afraid of gun suicides or arguments between meth dealers and their clients, but don't pretend that those acts - tragic as they are - are a risk to you, or that the solutions to that particular societal ill are necessarily the same as for random mass shootings.

For example, mental health and media radicalization are major factors in the recent random school shooting and the racially motivated shooting in Buffalo, but have ZERO bearing on the other "mass" gang related driveby shooting over the weekend.

He’s correct. They’ve defined anything above 3 victims as a “mass shooting” so even gang violence and domestic violence is being used for headlines. The issue is that middle American voter doesn’t get their thong twisted when there’s 5 “mass shooting” in fill in the blank urban area or backwoods meth lab as much as it does when it’s a random shooting in a school. This thread wouldn’t exist if the shooting wasn’t at a school or hospital but if those events didn’t happen there would still be “mass shootings”.

No one REALLY cares about gun control until it gets a little too close to home. When it’s far from home we’re back to arguing about unit values and CRNAs

 

[Gern Blansten]

I don’t drink alcohol, so I wouldn’t mind banning that also. I bet society would be a lot safer, less violence and deaths.

Doubt it. Look up the 18th and 21st amendments. Alcohol was illegal from 1920-1933.
Lots of organized crime surrounding the illegal manufacture, distribution, and sale of illegal liquor. History books suggest there was quite a bit of crime surrounding subversion of the prohibition of alcohol.
You think that might happen with guns if they were made to be illegal?

 

[nimbus]

He’s correct. They’ve defined anything above 3 victims as a “mass shooting” so even gang violence and domestic violence is being used for headlines. The issue is that middle American voter doesn’t get their thong twisted when there’s 5 “mass shooting” in fill in the blank urban area or backwoods meth lab as much as it does when it’s a random shooting in a school. This thread wouldn’t exist if the shooting wasn’t at a school or hospital but if those events didn’t happen there would still be “mass shootings”.

No one REALLY cares about gun control until it gets a little too close to home. When it’s far from home we’re back to arguing about unit values and CRNAs

Speaking of guns, CRNAs, and close to home. This was not too long ago and long forgotten.

Three people killed in apparent double murder-suicide were all nurse anesthetists working at Baltimore-area hospitals

The three people killed in an apparent double murder-suicide Saturday that spanned from Baltimore City to Howard County all worked as nurse anesthetists at area hospitals. Police said Rajaee Sharee…

www.baltimoresun.com

 

[yappy]

I think that the underlying issue that has changed (is changing) is the mental health and stability of our society. Guns just happen to be the tool of destruction that the mentally unstable and angry people are utilizing with great destructive force. Not saying that in defense of guns, but just as an observation. Angry and unstable people will still find ways to cause harm whether by poisoning, bombs, knives, plane crashes into buildings, etc. Guns are just currently the most popular method.
No matter what is done with guns, we need a more mentally healthy society that cares about the welfare of others and does not have so much pent up anger. We are a very divided nation at present. I wish I knew how to get us there.

Why do you think things are different today than in the past? I agree, but I can cannot put my finger on why.

Also, what do you guys think about citizens having weapons to protect against a tyrannical government? Isn't that the whole point of the second amendment?

 

[chessknt]

Why do you think things are different today than in the past? I agree, but I can cannot put my finger on why.

Also, what do you guys think about citizens having weapons to protect against a tyrannical government? Isn't that the whole point of the second amendment?

You mean like 1/6? If the dems think the 2024 election is a fraud because of the inevitable mass voter suppression you think they should try to overthrow the government in an armed uprising? What an amazing fantasy world to live in where you think your handguns and hunting rifles could somehow stop the national guard.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

One person dead, six with life-threatening injuries after car driven into crowd in Berlin | CNN

A 29-year-old man drove a car into a crowd of people in a busy Berlin shopping district on Wednesday, killing a teacher and leaving six others with life-threatening injuries, authorities said.

www.cnn.com

I guess cars are being used now! Tragic that one person has died but much less then if an assault rifle was involved.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Doubt it. Look up the 18th and 21st amendments. Alcohol was illegal from 1920-1933.
Lots of organized crime surrounding the illegal manufacture, distribution, and sale of illegal liquor. History books suggest there was quite a bit of crime surrounding subversion of the prohibition of alcohol.
You think that might happen with guns if they were made to be illegal?

Lol, I’ve heard of prohibition and again someone brought up another example outside of guns and I just said yea, I wouldn’t mind alcohol being banned because I don’t drink. Don’t worry, alcohol isn’t going anywhere. I do stand behind alcohol creating more problems in communities which can be similar to drugs, especially in the setting of substance abuse.

Bottom line: We won’t have any serious gun control laws, until the dems grow some balls. The republicans understand how to use (abuse) power and use it to their advantage. Only way to ban assault rifles would be for a bunch of minorities and Muslims to buy them.

We can argue for eternity about the 2nd amendment, self-defense, blah blah blah… but guns are fun… amirite?

Feels good to be number 1:

Mass Shootings by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Southpaw]

the idea of a 'speed limit' is analogous to instituting laws which limit firearms in one way or another. Whether it's background checks, age limits, or limits on the availability of certain firearms/magazine capacity, the idea is that imposing a limit makes everyone safer.

Cars have gotten safer over time. Traffic accidents and fatalities have generally gone down over the years as car safety has improved. Gun deaths....have not.

Regardless, the point here and my aim in the discussion was focused on school deaths as our threshold for change to ensure the safety of our children at school should be awfully low, and yet it isn't. There appears a number, some random number of school shooting deaths out there, at which it's okay for half of the country to do nothing outside of 'thoughts and prayers' when these events occur. Republican Senators are adamantly opposed to age limits for ARs. Legislation on magazine capacity, at the federal level, isn't going anywhere. Background checks, maybe, but I'm leery here as people always (and we have evidence of this) fall through the cracks in the system and still easily get their hands on guns. It's easier to impose age limits as anyone can check a driver's license along with a background check. It's easy to impose wait periods for gun purchases, but of course our Republican congressmen and Senators don't want that, because the NRA doesn't want that.

Again, when it gets right down to it, beyond 'thoughts and prayers' the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer. They aren't budging on guns. And I'm not surprised. At all. A lot of the money that funds their campaigns comes from guns. And in the end it would mean forcing a human being to do the right thing simply for its own merit, because its right (moral and ethical). And all humans generally have a very difficult time with that, increasingly so when shown the money. After all, it's not their kid getting their face blown off by an AR, it's someone elses kid. It doesn't hit close enough to home.

There's push back when you tell a Republican that they care more about their guns than they do keeping children safe at school. But when you get right down to it they in fact do. The last week has shown the stonewalling of productive conversation, the paucity of ideas from Republicans (aside from Ted Cruz's completely laughable one entry-one exit absolute dunce-cap of an idea), a Republican dropping out of a race because he's an outcast for suggesting gun control, etc. etc. Just nothing productive. Effectively the Republicans are nothing but a 'thoughts and prayers' party. And I'm sorry if that offends anyone reading this. Sometimes the truth hurts.

 

[staple]

I recommend to admins that this thread get closed. It has reached a boiling point. It is going nowhere and is as devicive and argumentative as I've seen.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I recommend to admins that this thread get closed. It has reached a boiling point. It is going nowhere and is as devicive and argumentative as I've seen.

This is far more civil than the “fired due to Covid vax” thread. I think the discussions are mostly civil on both sides. A middle ground has not been agreed upon, but the discourse is mostly civil. I think only a couple of people are truly angry. Most are just presenting their side, with some frustrations.
I have seen far worse on this forum.

 

[Matty44]

He’s correct. They’ve defined anything above 3 victims as a “mass shooting” so even gang violence and domestic violence is being used for headlines. The issue is that middle American voter doesn’t get their thong twisted when there’s 5 “mass shooting” in fill in the blank urban area or backwoods meth lab as much as it does when it’s a random shooting in a school. This thread wouldn’t exist if the shooting wasn’t at a school or hospital but if those events didn’t happen there would still be “mass shootings”.

No one REALLY cares about gun control until it gets a little too close to home. When it’s far from home we’re back to arguing about unit values and CRNAs

Ding ding ding

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Ding ding ding

As in you don’t care about gun control until it’s too close to home?

It’s kind of a sad post to see how we are ok with being the country with the highest number of “mass shootings” every year.

 

[yappy]

You mean like 1/6? If the dems think the 2024 election is a fraud because of the inevitable mass voter suppression you think they should try to overthrow the government in an armed uprising? What an amazing fantasy world to live in where you think your handguns and hunting rifles could somehow stop the national guard.

If recent events have shown us anything, it’s that insurgents with small arms can resist a larger more technologically advanced force. It’s silly to think that an armed citizenry is not a force to be reckoned with. No, nothing like Jan 6th, or rejecting the outcome of a free election. I think the second amendment may exist for the possibility of armed resistance to prevent, or at least resist, a tyrannical state.

I think too often people think of the second amendment in terms of recreation or defense against criminals. I don’t think that’s the correct framing.

 

[chocomorsel]

He’s correct. They’ve defined anything above 3 victims as a “mass shooting” so even gang violence and domestic violence is being used for headlines. The issue is that middle American voter doesn’t get their thong twisted when there’s 5 “mass shooting” in fill in the blank urban area or backwoods meth lab as much as it does when it’s a random shooting in a school. This thread wouldn’t exist if the shooting wasn’t at a school or hospital but if those events didn’t happen there would still be “mass shootings”.

No one REALLY cares about gun control until it gets a little too close to home. When it’s far from home we’re back to arguing about unit values and CRNAs

Considering we are all here arguing about it and many of us are showing care about it, I am not sure what you mean that no one REALLY cares about gun control. That’s a very obtuse statement.
In case you haven’t heard lots of Americans care about gun control. The NRA conference in Houston had a bunch of protesters outside. So please speak for yourself and don’t make such a bold, obviously false statement.
Maybe you think a bunch of us are just faking it then.

 

[Matty44]

I recommend to admins that this thread get closed. It has reached a boiling point. It is going nowhere and is as devicive and argumentative as I've seen.

Why does this always happen that someone who hasn’t ever been involved in a thread will whine and complain about discourse needing to be stopped? Don’t read it if you don’t want to, and as it was already pointed out, this has been a MUCH more civil thread than ones in the past.

Unless theres harassment and excessive vulgarity or stuff like that, just be an adult and don’t worry about other people having a discussion you don’t like.

 

[Matty44]

As in you don’t care about gun control until it’s too close to home?

It’s kind of a sad post to see how we are ok with being the country with the highest number of “mass shootings” every year.

As in, most people on the left, media especially, ignore the gun violence that accounts for the vast majorities of deaths in this country, call to defund the police, want weak sentencing on violent offenders, and generally don’t care until something like Uvalde or sandy hook comes up, and then they use that emotion to push an anti-gun agenda. Despite the very low statistical impact true mass shootings like Uvalde have.

 

[Matty44]

If recent events have shown us anything, it’s that insurgents with small arms can resist a larger more technologically advanced force. It’s silly to think that an armed citizenry is not a force to be reckoned with. No, nothing like Jan 6th, or rejecting the outcome of a free election. Like I said, I think the second amendment may exist for the possibility of armed resistance to prevent, or at least resist, a tyrannical state.

I think too often people think of the second amendment in terms of recreation or defense against criminals. I don’t think that’s the correct framing.

Don’t ya think the Uyghurs in China would like to have an AR or two in the home as they are being rounded up and sent to “reeducation” camps?

 

[Angus Avagadro]

If recent events have shown us anything, it’s that insurgents with small arms can resist a larger more technologically advanced force. It’s silly to think that an armed citizenry is not a force to be reckoned with. No, nothing like Jan 6th, or rejecting the outcome of a free election. Like I said, I think the second amendment may exist for the possibility of armed resistance to prevent, or at least resist, a tyrannical state.

I think too often people think of the second amendment in terms of recreation or defense against criminals. I don’t think that’s the correct framing.

I believe this is generally accurate. If my memory serves me, the 2nd ammendment was added to the constitution about a dozen years after the Declaration of Independence was written following a bloody war to remove ourselves from a tyrannical govt. Our framers wanted a generally weaker central govt with checks and balances so to slow the inevitable growth and power of the central government. I am comforted somewhat by the change in direction toward enhanced public safety by the resounding recall of the San Francisco DA and the call for actually funding the police. Maybe cities will start enforcing laws and reducing crime by putting criminals in jail, re instituting cash bail, and removing owners of illegal guns from the streets. Maybe the Feds will use existing laws and prosecute people who own or attempt to buy guns illegally. See Hunter Biden. We have reduced crime before and can do it again.

 

[Matty44]

Considering we are all here arguing about it and many of us are showing care about it, I am not sure what you mean that no one REALLY cares about gun control. That’s a very obtuse statement.
In case you haven’t heard lots of Americans care about gun control. The NRA conference in Houston had a bunch of protesters outside. So please speak for yourself and don’t make such a bold, obviously false statement.
Maybe you think a bunch of us are just faking it then.

You certainly don’t seem to be faking anything. I disagree with most of what you say, but I could never fault you for being disingenuous.

 

[Twiggidy]

Considering we are all here arguing about it and many of us are showing care about it, I am not sure what you mean that no one REALLY cares about gun control. That’s a very obtuse statement.
In case you haven’t heard lots of Americans care about gun control. The NRA conference in Houston had a bunch of protesters outside. So please speak for yourself and don’t make such a bold, obviously false statement.
Maybe you think a bunch of us are just faking it then.

I don’t think anyone is faking anything but I’m wondering where this thread was when Aaliyah Gayles was shot? As you said in one of your very own post, maybe 1 star recruit getting shot isn’t enough especially one on the other side of the tracks so to speak

 

[Matty44]

I don’t think anyone is faking anything but I’m wondering where this thread was when Aaliyah Gayles was shot? As you said in one of your very own post, maybe 1 star recruit getting shot isn’t enough especially one on the other side of the tracks so to speak

I’ve always found it interesting the level of outrage over certain deaths and not others. That’s largely why I brought up all the driving deaths.

 

[yappy]

edit

 

[CoolDoc1729]

Why does this always happen that someone who hasn’t ever been involved in a thread will whine and complain about discourse needing to be stopped? Don’t read it if you don’t want to, and as it was already pointed out, this has been a MUCH more civil thread than ones in the past.

Unless theres harassment and excessive vulgarity or stuff like that, just be an adult and don’t worry about other people having a discussion you don’t like.

Visiting from EM - I have appreciated reading all the viewpoints on both sides as I (gasp!) don’t have a hardwired view of the topic - I hope the thread is not closed! I’m sure there are others like me who are lurking to learn.

 

[nimbus]

Liberal crazies can get guns too. Any crazy can.

Armed man arrested near Brett Kavanaugh's home charged with attempting to murder a US judge

He told law enforcement he had traveled from California to kill "a specific United States Supreme Court Justice."

www.cnn.com

 

[nimbus]

If you live in a household with a gun, your risk of death by homicide is higher. Especially if you are a woman.

“Results:​

Of 595 448 cohort members who commenced residing with handgun owners, two thirds were women. A total of 737 012 cohort members died; 2293 died by homicide. Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner (adjusted hazard ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female.”

ACP Journals

 

[Onefellswoop87]

I’ve always found it interesting the level of outrage over certain deaths and not others. That’s largely why I brought up all the driving deaths.

It's almost as if this thread was dedicated to one topic. I've commented on this thread a few times but largely held my tongue, and maybe it's that a thread this long will either fade away or devolve and bring in other topics, but your what-about-ism is incredible. Why do people have to focused or outraged about everything equally?

 

[Matty44]

It's almost as if this thread was dedicated to one topic. I've commented on this thread a few times but largely held my tongue, and maybe it's that a thread this long will either fade away or devolve and bring in other topics, but your what-about-ism is incredible. Why do people have to focused or outraged about everything equally?

It’s not what-about-ism at all. You don’t think it’s poignant to discuss the lengths we go as a society to avoid preventable deaths and what loss of life we are willing to accept to continue our current way of life in regards to other activities when we are addressing guns?

As I’ve said before, there are positives of guns (defensive firearm uses - at least 100k+ per year, 2nd amendment rights, sporting/hunting, personal protection) and there are negatives (gun violence, suicides, etc). One must weigh one against the other. And to look at the loss of life we accept with other aspects of life and see what the cost/benefit ratio is can be a useful mental exercise.

 

[IMGASMD]

Click me! https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/954985 BMJ study.

 

[deleted1130227]

Doubt it. Look up the 18th and 21st amendments. Alcohol was illegal from 1920-1933.
Lots of organized crime surrounding the illegal manufacture, distribution, and sale of illegal liquor. History books suggest there was quite a bit of crime surrounding subversion of the prohibition of alcohol.
You think that might happen with guns if they were made to be illegal?

It was illegal. But also impossible to enforce those laws. Alcohol is so easy to manufacture. Agree with your comment about encouraging and organized crime for both a gun ban and an alcohol ban. But if it were possible to wave a magic wand and eliminate alcohol I think that society would be way better off and I would do it. I wouldn't wave that magic wand for guns though. I used to be sympathetic to gun control, but given the world we actually live in, I don't feel that way any more.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Lol, I’ve heard of prohibition and again someone brought up another example outside of guns and I just said yea, I wouldn’t mind alcohol being banned because I don’t drink. Don’t worry, alcohol isn’t going anywhere. I do stand behind alcohol creating more problems in communities which can be similar to drugs, especially in the setting of substance abuse.

Bottom line: We won’t have any serious gun control laws, until the dems grow some balls. The republicans understand how to use (abuse) power and use it to their advantage. Only way to ban assault rifles would be for a bunch of minorities and Muslims to buy them.

We can argue for eternity about the 2nd amendment, self-defense, blah blah blah… but guns are fun… amirite?

Feels good to be number 1:

Mass Shootings by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

Minorities buy guns. In fact, their purchases are up. I agree we have too much violence in the USA but gun ownership is a right for every American especially minorities living in crime ridden communities.

Why more people of color are buying guns

Gun ownership is on the rise.

www.axios.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Minorities buy guns. In fact, their purchases are up. I agree we have too much violence in the USA but gun ownership is a right for every American especially minorities living in crime ridden communities.

Why more people of color are buying guns

Gun ownership is on the rise.

www.axios.com

Ronald Reagan’s moment of massive historical irony: How armed Black men led to gun control - Salon.com

When armed Black Panthers showed up at the California State Capitol in 1967, they probably saved thousands of lives

www.salon.com

 

[chocomorsel]

I don’t think anyone is faking anything but I’m wondering where this thread was when Aaliyah Gayles was shot? As you said in one of your very own post, maybe 1 star recruit getting shot isn’t enough especially one on the other side of the tracks so to speak

Because we started talking mass shootings that’s why. An individual getting shot is an everyday thing in this country. And yes, that is a problem. This thread did not start off as a single person got shot thread. They never do. Any time we have these threads it’s typically because of mass shootings. If we did this for every individual shooting, there would not be enough time or any room for other topics. Come on.
I have never heard of Aaliya. Just like I don’t know the individuals who were shot in Chicago or Philly. Doesn’t mean gun control advocates don’t care, just means that there is an overwhelming number of individual shootings in this country but the headlines only tend to go wild when it’s a mass shooting and the discussions get heated.
Not the same thing. But I assure you, we are fed up with all of it. At least I am. And I am gonna keep trying to vote for people who can possibly pass more restrictions on gun ownership.

 

[chocomorsel]

Lol, I’ve heard of prohibition and again someone brought up another example outside of guns and I just said yea, I wouldn’t mind alcohol being banned because I don’t drink. Don’t worry, alcohol isn’t going anywhere. I do stand behind alcohol creating more problems in communities which can be similar to drugs, especially in the setting of substance abuse.

Bottom line: We won’t have any serious gun control laws, until the dems grow some balls. The republicans understand how to use (abuse) power and use it to their advantage. Only way to ban assault rifles would be for a bunch of minorities and Muslims to buy them.

We can argue for eternity about the 2nd amendment, self-defense, blah blah blah… but guns are fun… amirite?

Feels good to be number 1:

Mass Shootings by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

You think us buying them alone would do the trick? I suspect that wouldn’t be enough. We would need to buy and use them or brandish them in some capacity. And scare off the White people enough. Which would end badly for us.
You are right though.

 

[chocomorsel]

You mean like 1/6? If the dems think the 2024 election is a fraud because of the inevitable mass voter suppression you think they should try to overthrow the government in an armed uprising? What an amazing fantasy world to live in where you think your handguns and hunting rifles could somehow stop the national guard.

And bombs, and grenades, and missiles and hydrogen bombs and biological weapons.
It’s insane how some people really think.
Forget the national guard. They are wimpy compared to the Marines and Army.
People who actually think that they can successfully rise up against a tyrannical government are smoking some ****ing crack.

 

[chocomorsel]

Minorities buy guns. In fact, their purchases are up. I agree we have too much violence in the USA but gun ownership is a right for every American especially minorities living in crime ridden communities.

Why more people of color are buying guns

Gun ownership is on the rise.

www.axios.com

Wild wild inner city. Yup more guns are the answer.

 

[yappy]

And bombs, and grenades, and missiles and hydrogen bombs and biological weapons.
It’s insane how some people really think.
Forget the national guard. They are wimpy compared to the Marines and Army.
People who actually think that they can successfully rise up against a tyrannical government or smoking some ****ing crack.

Soldiers are not supposed to obey unlawful orders. Soldiers, past and present, took oaths to support and defend the constitution.

 

[pgg]

I didn’t start off wanting to take all guns away but if that’s the only path your buddies believe will happen if any regulation is done, then so be it. We have over 15 pages thus far and no closer to a compromise then we were when this post began.

And there you go again with the lie -

I'm one of the more "extreme" pro-2A people here, and I'll just repost (again) a list of a few of the compromises I've said I'd find acceptable in this thread:
1) expanded background checks
2) a waiting period for first gun purchases
3) mandatory training, provided it was not prohibitively expensive or difficult to get
4) minimum age limit of 21 to purchase

And I'll add to that, after reading some recent posts
5) laws restricting marketing in some fashion


And while a couple people in this thread have sorta agreed to the handful of gun-right concessions I mentioned (e.g. removing suppressors from the NFA, national CCW reciprocity) ... it's particularly telling that not a single Democrat lawmaker at either the state or federal level has signaled any willingness to compromise. It's all a discussion of how much they can get, never a word about what they're willing to give.

You don't seem to know what "compromise" means.

I don’t drink alcohol, so I wouldn’t mind banning that also. I bet society would be a lot safer, less violence and deaths.

You sound like you want all of your vices without any consequences. Not sure how it relates to guns but definitely shouldn’t be operating a gun while intoxicated.

I just said yea, I wouldn’t mind alcohol being banned because I don’t drink.

And this really encapsulates, perfectly, everything that is wrong with your side and why my reflex reaction is to resist everything you want to do to "help" ...

You don't mind imposing laws restricting other persons' freedoms, especially if it doesn't affect you personally. This is sociopathic.

You're either absurdly uninformed or simply don't care about historical failures. I mean, you're actually advocating prohibition again! Completely ignorant of how it dramatically made the country less safe and contributed to the birth of organized crime and new levels of violence. How out of touch can you possibly be to suggest that alcohol prohibition would be a good thing?

This is typical of gun control advocates - wring the hands, make an emotional argument to do something please just do something won't someone pleeeeeease think of the chiiiiiildren without regard for whether or not the ideas will work in any practical sense, or pass Constitutional muster.

Essentially, you can't be bothered to understand a subject; you can't be bothered to think through your ideas; and you can't be bothered to care about the unintended consequences of your ideas. The irony is thick, because this is your chief accusation against us - that we're selfish, callous, and ignorant.

 

[pgg]

He’s correct. They’ve defined anything above 3 victims as a “mass shooting” so even gang violence and domestic violence is being used for headlines. The issue is that middle American voter doesn’t get their thong twisted when there’s 5 “mass shooting” in fill in the blank urban area or backwoods meth lab as much as it does when it’s a random shooting in a school. This thread wouldn’t exist if the shooting wasn’t at a school or hospital but if those events didn’t happen there would still be “mass shootings”.

Well, yeah. That's my point. I care about criminals shooting criminals in an abstract detached sense, but I don't get worked up over it. It's just one kind of tragedy in a world full of tragedies ranging from kids dying of malaria in Africa, to China holocaust'ing away ethnic minorities, to whatever terrible thing is happening in Yemen this week, to Columbian soccer players forging birth certificates and f'ing over Ecuador. The solution I favor for the crime-on-crime killings is the cultural and economic one that diverts hopeless kids away from the path that leads to being hopeless adults. There's no sense pretending that we can magically disarm the bangers and methbillies, and they'll somehow turn into happy productive good citizens.

 

[pgg]

You mean like 1/6? If the dems think the 2024 election is a fraud because of the inevitable mass voter suppression you think they should try to overthrow the government in an armed uprising? What an amazing fantasy world to live in where you think your handguns and hunting rifles could somehow stop the national guard.

The point of an armed citizenry in the modern (ie post-1850ish) era isn't to overthrow the federal government. Obviously didn't work out for the Confederacy.

For some reason people like to bring up the absurdity and futility of resisting Apache helicopters or tanks (or hydrogen bombs and biological weapons 🙄 🙄 🙄 if one is particularly obtuse), but it's completely missing the point.

In countries where the people don't have a right to keep and bear arms, the risk isn't artillery or jet fighters - it is thugs arriving in the night to threaten, intimidate, or disappear dissenters. Pick any despotic country today, ranging from Russia to North Korea. Or pick any country that was part of the so-called Arab Spring. If you're interested, read about some of the neighborhoods in Cairo where even one or two people had illegal firearms, and how many of those protesters or organizers were beaten/killed vs those who lived a few streets over.

 

[pgg]

If you live in a household with a gun, your risk of death by homicide is higher. Especially if you are a woman.

I bet if you live in a household with a swimming pool, your risk of death by drowning is higher, too.

I know you understand the whole correlation & causation thing.