wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

In 2017...over 10k people died from drunk driving accidents...

Yay?

Well...since it's better than 20k+ from 1982.

Should probably add distraction based accidents as well (texting, nowadays I'd be curious where that falls into play)...

Anyways...

I think a better question would be to ask people who have actually come from countries where gun control was strict - and possibly to the point of no one was able to hold them since the arbitrary "clearance" went something like..."oh, you don't support our party - what a coincidence, you didn't pass the background check." I'm pretty sure the people of Venezuela would've LOVED to owned some of their own firearms at this point. Because generally......the people outnumber those who are sworn to protect them. The irony is that we're on this path of like..."cops are racist, and trigger happy pigs. and trump is even more racist than all of them combined..." ALSO saying..."the government and cops are the only ones that should have guns."

Throws me for a loop. Most of these aren't even military grade (correct me if I'm wrong). The only thing military about them is that they're black, and look cool. Overall, they're just an overglorified handgun with a long barrel, shoulder rest, and hopefully a place for your second hand. But a pistol...10 bullets? carry 10 of them at one time? bam...100 bullets without ever needing to reload?

I'd say the elephant in the room is that no one wants to figure out what the source is. Why? $$$? Probably. These types of guns have been around for... a while. And... it's only been an issue more recently...past 20 decades. WHAT HAS CHANGED. We've outlawed suicide bombings... yet they still occur. We don't blame the Quran do we? Some do, sure - but are we actively passing legislation to topple it down? Why do the actions a "few" white people, umbrella all whites? Then we should make sure to make bombings umbrella all muslims, gang shootings umbrella all mexicans and blacks, accidents to umbrella all asians, etc etc etc. But we don't...because IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE.

Edit: to touch on a previous point... I would like to make it a little more involved than getting a driver's license.. it seems TOO easy to get one of those these days. But the vetting/test process needs to be ironed out. The last thing I'd want is to have these background checks being run by Google or Facebook.

Schroedinger

... and you missed mine. Your point is that the government mandates safety equipment/standards to protect us from vehicle accidents, rather than regulating behaviors that lead to vehicle accidents. My point is that they do indeed regulate behaviors that lead to vehicle accidents, and it's a successful approach.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'm not sure if you were intending to be ironic there, but quite a lot people do make precisely the broad umbrella generalizations you're referring to there. Braineack, for instance, is one such person. This is why trying to argue with him seems futile and annoying, if you're proceeding from the premise that he thinks logically and rationally about people who are different from him and don't worship God-Emperor Trump.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

And if you really want to spew bullshit statistics, you cherry-pick data from a very specific timeframe and location, and ignore data from other time-periods or places and come up with some weak-*** bullshit footnote to justify it that you hope nobody ever reads.
The most recent article you linked was from 2015, from data that was 5yrs old at the time and is almost 10 years old now.

I can't see it at work, and yes the data is 5yrsold+, but is this chart generated from CDC data worth anything?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

In the past few days, I've seen the "250 mass shootings in 2019" numbers. That figure comes from a single anti-gun propaganda site that has a very broad definition, and includes people shot, not merely killed. This chart (please excuse the Mother Jones link utilizes the more widely accepted definition of "3 or more killed" as a definition: 7 so far this year. https://www.motherjones.com/politics...nes-full-data/

You'll see "school shootings" include events held off-campus, gang drive-by's near a school, police shootings near a school, accidental discharges within a home near a school... ANYTHING to get the numbers up as long as they can attach the word "school" to it.

Most people are somewhere between "cold dead hands" and "ban all the things"... the bullshit propaganda sites and misleading regurgitation by the media and celebrities of manipulated data force a lot of people to take sides depending on how much of what side they're exposed to.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

As an example of what I'm describing above (eg: trying to have a rational argument with someone who is irrational), consider the following:





I mean, that's insane, right? Well, yeah. But it's also a real thing which someone who is sufficiently not insane to have gotten themselves elected to public office believes. Try imagine having a conversation with her about violence in America if you didn't know that she holds cross-dressers responsible for mass-shooters.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

Not disagreeing with you there. But I do think there's fine line between believing such statements, vs demanding that legislation be made so that everyone must believe the same thing-or live with its consequences. And I do fully agree, that many people...on both sides - LOVE to make umbrella statements. They love it to death it seems. "The entirety of the left believes...xyz" "Faux news viewers think xyz" - and it doesn't help us get anywhere. But when, what seems to be the entirety, of main stream media takes one side - and becomes the "cited" source since 2 other news stations say the same story (without source evidence, or evidence at all), that demonizes an opinion and any person that shares a fraction of that opinion... we get to where we are today.

The unrepresented scream loudly because all the voices are at-a-normal-volume-but-seemingly-louder-since-there-are-more-of-them are speaking against them. Deplorables, am I right?

Like...bullies have an infinite power stream now since their voice is amplified by their millions of followers. I had bullies growing up - but their voice was only as powerful as their "posse" - which was...3-6 people at best? But nowadays, you get a gal with the other ~10k followers calling a girl fat, and she offs herself. It's a brave new world and frankly it's scary when all but one channel can spew the same unverified junk and come off as fact.

Flip the scenario - IMAGINE if the media was 100% regurgitating what the oval office is saying word for word. The media has a very powerful influence.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

Damn. That's one hell of an umbrella. But she won't be a "big deal" because it won't ever be poised as a positive thing by the media. IF she were being poised as a positive thing in the media (by a majority) - I'd definitely be seeing it as a more pressing problem. You've got idiots every day spewing their crap - but as long as their being taken as face value...the cream rises to the top, and the crap settles downward, no? That was the idea of the 1st amendment - but no one wants to have any type of discussion these days before having the "**** or racist" card being thrown up.

Granted.........I DO love it here - because as idiotic as the points may come out (mine included) - THEY COME OUT - and we're talking. We won't always agree on everything...never was supposed to.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

I think you're talking about gun licenses or background checks... yes?

CURRENT WISH-LIST OF ANTI-GUN GROUPS:
background checks
magazine limits
AWB
waiting periods
permitting/licensing of all guns
banning gunshows
banning concealed carry
eliminating SYG laws
ammo purchase limits
caliber restrictions
red-flag laws
elimination of preemption
safe-storage laws
mandatory training
and a few more...

BUT, they will also say quite freely "THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING".

PHASE II (how all your socialist/communist/monarchy countries roll unless you are uber-elite. In addition to the above this is the model for the bulk of the world):
ban on sale all semi-auto firearms of all types
confiscation of any prior grand-fathered anything (because of the licensing, they know who you are)
expanded licensing/purchasing schemes
elimination of any family/inheritance transfer
more caliber restrictions
ammo possession maximums
expanded transportation requirements
civilians illegal to ship firearms
random police inspections to ensure compliance
mandatory periodic training

PHASE3 (where some of Europe is):
mandatory participation/membership in a shooting club
firearm use completely prohibited outside an authorized shooting range or hunting location
ban on many kinds of repeating firearms
total ban on storing of firearms in the home (guns stay at the shooting club)
extreme caliber restrictions
ammo quantity maximums
required medical/psych screenings with broad denial discretion
huge swatch of "prohibited" person mechanisms

The anti-gun types will not stop there. There will be step-by-step incremental restrictions on all aspects of gun ownership until the only thing you can own is a single-shot rifle in a barely-adequate caliber, and since your hunting license only has one deer on it, you only get to check out one bullet from the gov't run bullet store every year. You all watched socialist convention video of the "sensory overload / gender pronoun" crew where she called the guy "comrade"... if those people being in charge of the country doesn't scare the **** outa you, and make you want go buy a bunch of guns for when their "cultural compliance enforcement squad" comes to your door, then you haven't watched V For Vendetta lately. It won't be the Army rolling down your street when you say something mean on Facebook, it'll be goon/gestappo/thug/SS/secret-police/whatever... the current scapegoats are straight, Christian, middle-age, middle-class, white males. Tomorrow the Democrats might flip completely on brown people or the rich or the poor or whoever they don't think they need to win elections (******* unbelievably, the Jews appear to be in line next)... We are one generation away from every nightmare in that movie playing out, and the bulk of the DNC is in a dead-sprint take us there.

Also: "If you're not cop, you're little people"... just to keep it real.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

Correct. Your list is correct. I'd rather see the government be competent at delivering driver's licenses to properly vetted people before dealing with something constitutional - as owning a right to arms. I'd like to see the government deal with veterans, homelessness before importing another whole subset of people that it cannot manage with our current tax dollars.

Aren't half the things on the wish-list already the case for many states? Or are you saying that's the wishlist they wished the federal government would do? But yeah, They've been unable to show that they can vet things in an unbiased way with small things - I'd rather them not have the power to do something like this.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

Saw an argument earlier suggesting that higher gun ownership rates = higher homicides with an implication for causation -> if more people own guns, then more people get murdered. This is a logical fallacy, as it ignores the fact that if murder rates are higher, then more people buy guns for the law abiding purpose of personal protection.

Also, it's worth reiterating - driving on public roads is a privilege; owning firearms is a right.

If we want to get down to the root of the problem, we have to focus on our youth. Specifically, physical safety and security, reinforcing the idea of the two-parent household with mentoring and leadership programs to build trust in others, ensuring children have adequate crisis resolution skills - and practicing those skills in safe environments, and by exercising concepts that provide rewards based on selflessness through community engagement.

The biggest problem is that it's extremely hard for a politician to justify to themselves the idea of spending money on an issue which is going to take more than 2, 4, or 6 years to come to fruition. In this case, we would need ~10-15 years to even start seeing results.

I passionately hate most of what teachers unions stand for, but doubling the number of teachers in classrooms would be a good start. I'd like to see a student:teacher ratio somewhere around 12:1, not including non-teaching staff - this creates the safe space for young children to learn, which is especially critical in homes and communities where those children don't otherwise feel safe.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Wants background checks for legal citizens but not illegal aliens? Gotcha.

Mexico outlawed the private ownership of guns in 1968 for the sake of public safety.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

In general, only a few of the items on the wish-list have been enacted in a few clustered states. Anti-gunners also know that in states where there are only one or two major population centers that control the entire rest of the state (ie, Washington and Oregon), the only way to pass "major" anti-gun legislation is to get a referendum and let the city-folk pass it on the ballot. Then there's the states with an overwhelming liberal legislature, but manage to elect a conservative Governor (or vice-versa). The Governor power of veto keeps a lot of pro and anti-gun bills off the books... at least for awhile.

And I say this as often as I can... as soon as we have a blue legislative and executive branch at the Federal level, they will pass every single anti-gun bill they can in the first few months of being in office. The landscape of gun ownership will change overnight. They won't give any grace periods or "will be enacted the following year"... it'll be immediate and sweeping. It'll be agenda #1 the first day Congress is in session. They'll create and pass in record time an omnibus that makes prior omnibus' look like line-items. They've probably already got it written, and you won't have to "pass it to see what's in it".

I've mentioned before, Virginia is poised to be the test-case at the state level. The Republican majority in both state houses is one seat, and Republicans lost 15 seats in the House during the 2017 elections. Their first priority will be background checks, mag limits, waiting limits, a California-style AWB with registration, and making suppressors (if not full Class-3 ban) illegal. I wouldn't be surprised to see a North Carolina-type licensing system, red-flag laws (if Trump doesn't beat them to it), and some onerous requirements for a carry permit. We could see this happen in Jan 2020.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I think it should be at least as hard to vote as it is to get a driver's license. There should be a basic test of comprehension for how our government is designed and operates as well as basic knowledge of the Constitution that established it.

But alas, that is considered unconstitutional.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Ah, background checks. They sound good. Of course, they don't work...

How many times have we heard friends and family members say "How could this have happened? He'd never been in any trouble, never hurt anyone." And that, of course, is why he passed the background check as part of Form 4473, which everyone has had to so since 1993. Disproportionately, the angry suburban white kids who go and shoot up a mall or a Garlic festival are people like Connor Betts, Patrick Crusius and Santino Legan. Sure, in retrospect we find out that they were into weird **** and wrote some mean stuff about brown people, but the narrative always includes "...had no prior police record."

So, what does an effective background check consist of if you're not going to rely on Facebook and Google?



Then you've got the more mundane hood rats who cruise around the west side of Chicago spraying bullets into traffic or mowing down rival gang members in a park at night. Pretty much none of them would pass a Form 4473 background investigation, which of course doesn't matter because they're not buying their firearms at Wal-Mart. Those guns are principally stolen; maybe by the shooter, maybe by someone else who then illegally sold it to the shooter. They were breaking the law just by carrying it around in the first place, much less employing the point-n-click feature.

What additional laws would have stopped them?



Trying to use laws to prevent murderers from obtaining firearms is like trying to use laws to prevent tweakers from buying meth. The only difference is that meth has virtually no redeeming qualities no matter who is buying it, whereas firearms have many legitimate uses in the hands of non-criminals.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

Get out of here with your logic. Unfortunately in my state... you can get a license without documentation, and it automatically registers you to vote once the license is obtained. Quite a system they have set up.

chiefmg

iTrader: (5)

Regarding gun laws. A few months ago I purchased an AR-15 (in parts) to assemble. The lower had to be shipped to a FFL dealer. Once it was there and I went to pick it up, I filled in a form and the dealer then called the ATF. He was told to place a five day hold on it. In talking to him he said there were several reason that could have happened. When I mentioned I had been fingerprinted for a security clearance he said that could be it (apparently when the police do that they record that an individual was fingerprinted but not the reason). In the end it only took two days before I could pick the lower up. My point is that the laws in place are being used as intended so I don't really see how more laws will change anything.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

In almost all cases for a temp hold, it's because you have the exact same name and very close (as in perhaps one number off) of a social security number, or very similar address. Ideally, the ATF investigator should call the FFL to verify that all the info on the 4473 was either repeated over the phone correctly, or entered into the computer correctly. If the ATF can't do that in a couple days, then **** them, give the man his gun. Some people with common names never get flagged... ie, John Mark Smith at 125 Elm Drive, Springfield, IL... never gets flagged. But, Balthizar Ignacious Geronimo at 28455 Regulators Mount Up Drive, Comeatmebro, Texas... always gets flagged because there's a guy with the same name who lives at 28455 Regulation Mount Drive in the same town, and he's a pedofile.

List of prohibited persons... if none of this applies to you, then there's somebody out there who's almost you on paper:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• who is a fugitive from justice;
• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
• who is an illegal alien;
• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

dont drink the water koolaid.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I don't support gun restrictions, because that's a white supremacist racist patriarchal mindset of the alt-right.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

That's it folks! This highly inaccurate graphic has changed my mind: