Post New

You may have seen the update provided by the Nashville police chief. He was proud about how well his first reponders performed, arriving and killing the perp in 14 minutes after receiving the call. I agree and am not being critical. His responders did not hesitate to go inside, confront and kill the perp, no doubt saving many more lives. Contrast with Uvalde.

However, 14 minutes is an eternity for the victims. Imagine being on your own, defenseless, as you are being attacked, getting beaten or raped or worse by an assailant or group of assailants for 14 minutes. You are your own first responder and have an inherent right to defend yourself and your family but that right is meaningless unless you also have a right to possess the means to do so.

First Response in 5 seconds or 14 minutes. Which do you prefer? Fine if you choose 14 minutes for yourself but you shouldn't force your decision on others who decide differently.

Fine if you choose 14 minutes for yourself but you shouldn't force your decision on others who decide differently.

Perhaps I'm missing something - but didn't this shooting take place in Tennessee? A state with extremely permissive gun regulations - allowing permitless carry, IIRC? And in a private school - which in Tennessee is allowed to authorize guns on campus?

No one was prohibiting the school from arming, if they wanted. The reason that they weren't armed to the teeth isn't because someone "forced" their decision on them. It's almost certainly because it doesn't make any sense to have large numbers of loaded guns in elementary school classrooms.

Sadly, Americans of all stripes - are dug into their viewpoints.

Hence as usual - all sides will make sure that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Sadly, this is now normal in America.

Normal.

Will be so for about a generation.

At which time, todays kids, who grew up with "lockdown drills" as part of their package of great modern culture....will be less sympathetic to gun rights and more sympathetic to gun responsibilities and limits.


Everyone from the "You can't take my gun cause I got a beard, a tattoo, and this is all I have left of my identity!" crowd, to the Yoga Moms on Facebook reply to any proposal with "it's not comprehensive!!!" "that won't help!"

Well it didn't help yesterday.

For starters.....

LIMITED entrances to schools- guarded.

METAL detectors. They seem to help in airports.

In the meantime, less high fructose corn syrup. More angry music, video games, smartphones, texting, all things robbing them of ability to be patient, to reason, to see actual humanity in another. ANY dialogue speaking against cultural trends - must be batted down as not relevant.

Result: More vigils. Memorials. People who never even made eye contact with each other all of a sudden hugging and praying.

First Response in 5 seconds or 14 minutes. Which do you prefer? Fine if you choose 14 minutes for yourself

Not sure I understand. Are you recommending there be a gun in every classroom? A 5 second decision means it can't even be down the hall, it has to be right there, right? Or are you saying that even the students should be carrying a firearm?

What do you suppose the longer term implications would be of having a gun in every classroom? Would you guess there would be more violence, or less? Why?.

but you shouldn't force your decision on others who decide differently.

But 'deciding differently' means one choice over the other. Should everyone decide for themself what speed limit they should follow? Whether to make explosives in their garage? Where does this 'I have to choose for myself and your facts don't matter' end?

No one was prohibiting the school from arming, if they wanted. The reason that they weren't armed to the teeth isn't because someone "forced" their decision on them. It's almost certainly because it doesn't make any sense to have large numbers of loaded guns in elementary school classrooms. - Albaby

----------------------------

I think you knew I was referring to the general movement of many gun grabbers to eliminate the private ownership of guns. My reason for mentioning Nashville at all was to establish that under the best of circumstances you are on your own for at least 14 minutes.

your facts don't matter' end? goofy

---------------

One fact that doesn't matter to gun grabbers is the estimated 2.5 million DGU's that occur each year. Don't like that 2.5 Million number. OK, the CDC did their own study and came up with One Million. This was on their web site for a while in 2022 before somebody got to them about supporting the narrative and it was removed.

Interesting thread. The responses you've gotten have included the maximalist logic that says "Wait, you're advocating for guns in every classroom. If we have guns in every classroom, because there are more guns, there will be more accidents and more violence!"

...which is a number of logical fallacies baked into 1 post.

But what can we examine? How about this: let's look at the safety records in school districts that bowed to the progressive left's wishes and #cancelled their school police presence. Surely there must be some information out there about how that went, right?

Turns out there is. Spoiler alert: like all schemes favored by progressive democrats, it's not working:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2023/03/2...

Denver: In a statement posted to social media, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock admitted the decision to do away with SROs was "a mistake" and that "we must move swiftly to correct it."

Virginia: Before the reversal, the 2021 academic year was marred by a wave of violent incidents, including the triggering of an ACHS lockdown when a student was found in possession of a handgun, an all-out brawl inside the ACHS cafeteria

Maryland: Less than a year after Montgomery County Public Schools became the first jurisdiction in Maryland to get rid of cops from its school buildings, the county backtracked in April 2022 when MCPS signed a new Memorandum of Understanding with Montgomery County's Police Department.

Proponents of progressive ideology shouldn't worry: there will *always* be cities like Seattle where parents are more concerned with publicly signaling their virtue (while privately pulling their kids from public schools) so you will always have a place where bad policy is forever enshrined.

Other such districts - with parents virtue signaling while of course innoculating and segregating them and their kids from the situation..... lost their districts to RedHats.

I think you knew I was referring to the general movement of many gun grabbers to eliminate the private ownership of guns.

Honestly. I don't know of a single person who wants to eliminate the private ownership of guns. I'm sure there are a couple, but it's an insignificant number politically. Assault weapons? Yes, I'm sure there are many more, but 'guns'? No. This is the kind of hysterical nonsense put out by the NRA, and it just isn't true.

One fact that doesn't matter to gun grabbers is the estimated 2.5 million DGU's that occur each year. Don't like that 2.5 Million number. OK, the CDC did their own study and came up with One Million.

Any statistics on how many of those were with an assault rifle?

Denver
Virginia
Maryland

Aren't you the guys complaining about the costs of schools? There are 130,000 public schools in the US. Another 40,000 private schools. Should we include day-care centers? Colleges & universities which have dozens and dozens of buildings each?

This is a staggering price you want to pay to keep assault weapons handy, when a rifle will do nicely for hunting or a hand-gun for protection. And, of course, once you have defended every single school building in the country, the nuts will just move on to churches, bingo parlors, shopping centers, work places, restaurants, nail salons, public squares, libraries, and anywhere else groups of people congregate. So plan on spending more on 'cops standing around, and metal detectors' than on health-care for the entire country.

Or, you know, take machine guns out of the hands of children. And adults. Except the military. Crazy idea, I know. Imagine having a 'well regulated militia.' Why didn't they think of that when they started up the country, anyway?

Honestly. I don't know of a single person who wants to eliminate the private ownership of guns. I'm sure there are a couple, but it's an insignificant number politically. Assault weapons? Yes, I'm sure there are many more, but 'guns'? No. This is the kind of hysterical nonsense put out by the NRA, and it just isn't true. - goofy

-------------------

Hysterical Nonsense??? If we magically eliminated all scary looking modern sporting rifles, you think the gun grabbers appetite would be sated. I find that hysterical.

Hysterical Nonsense??? If we magically eliminated all scary looking modern sporting rifles, you think the gun grabbers appetite would be sated. I find that hysterical.

Joe Biden - and, hilariously, Donald Trump - have both called for bans on "ASSAULT WEAPONS". Don't know about Trump but it's a core position of the democrat progressive class to restrict and/or eliminate as much gun ownership in the US as much as they can get away with. They've made no bones about passing laws that restrict gun sales or add burdens to gun ownership in blue areas.

Later on he returned to the logical fallacies used upthread; no need to revisit those.

like all schemes favored by progressive democrats, it's not working:

That smugly stated generalization reflects....not the truth, as reality presents a complex spectrum....but your unfortunate belittling biases.

And your source.....that Townhall piece of dross....says it all.

"I think you knew I was referring to the general movement of many gun grabbers to eliminate the private ownership of guns."

There you go again falling for the propaganda your political masters feed you.

"If we magically eliminated all scary looking modern sporting rifles, you think the gun grabbers appetite would be sated. I find that hysterical."

You find that hysterical because you get your information from poor sources that take advantage of your ignorance.

So you say

but your unfortunate belittling biases.

And then turn around and say
And your source.....that Townhall piece of dross....says it all.

REALLY says it all. Thanks.

"You find that hysterical because you get your information from poor sources that take advantage of your ignorance. - Umm"

So you are willing to argue for stopping the gun control movement as soon as the 2A crowd agrees to a ban on MSR's. If you are, I don't think your progressive friends would agree. If not, where would you stop?

So you are willing to argue for stopping the gun control movement as soon as the 2A crowd agrees to a ban on MSR's. If you are, I don't think your progressive friends would agree.

You're right, I wouldn't. I also think regulations of some things can be very complicated. If I argued for 'Stop Lights', does that mean I shouldn't also argue for speed limits?

Assault rifles should be banned, as they were in the 90's (when mass shootings took place half as often), but there are other 'gun safety' issues that ought to be addressed. Every gun owner should have to take a gun safety course at least once, just as you have to pass a driver's test to get a driver's license. Is that unreasonable for a potentially deadly instrument?

I also believe the gun show exemption on sales should be eliminated. If you want a gun, buy it from a store, period. I'm also happy to say I would advocate for harsher penalties for indiscriminate use of guns among gangs and other miscreants, for possession by felons, etc. I'm generally against 'cop killer' bullets, too.

You see? You're right. Just not that I want to 'take away your guns', which is the lie you've been fed - and swallowed - all this time. (PS: Which of those rules I propose do you find objectionable? And why?)

You see? You're right. Just not that I want to 'take away your guns', which is the lie you've been fed - and swallowed - all this time. - goofy

===================

So as long as gun nuts such as myself are permitted to own one revolver and one bolt action rifle, then you can remain true to your claim. And I believe many in the gun grabbing crowd would not even allow that.


(PS: Which of those rules I propose do you find objectionable? And why?) - more goofy

Why? Because criminals won't comply with them. Don't agree? How is that War on Drugs going?

So as long as gun nuts such as myself are permitted to own one revolver and one bolt action rifle, then you can remain true to your claim. And I believe many in the gun grabbing crowd would not even allow that.

Nah, not even that. You can have one flintlock squirrel rifle.

The left makes a lot of claims about guns and gun violence that don't hold up. For example, the one about "the assault weapons ban prevented mass shootings". No it didn't:


https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pd...

Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on
the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity
limit) without reloading

One of many studies that shrugged at the ban. So their signature thing didn't work then and won't work now.

If the left wants to change the way Americans keep and bear arms, then the left needs to call a Constitutional convention and change the 2nd Amendment.

Guns aren't the problem. Mentally unstable people and gangs having guns are the problem. The left never wants to have a real convo about either.

Guns aren't the problem. Mentally unstable people and gangs having guns are the problem.

I find that hard to believe. I'm pretty sure there are people with mental illness in every country, but the gun violence in the USA is much higher than anywhere else.

I find that hard to believe. I'm pretty sure there are people with mental illness in every country, but the gun violence in the USA is much higher than anywhere else.

Triggers don't pull themselves. People pull triggers.
Shooting into crowds isn't a rational act; ergo people who do so aren't rational.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-....

Triggers don't pull themselves. People pull triggers.
Shooting into crowds isn't a rational act; ergo people who do so aren't rational.

My question is, why does it happen so frequently in the USA? Do you think you have more mental illness than other countries? Or are citizens of the USA less rational than the rest of the world?

My question is, why does it happen so frequently in the USA? Do you think you have more mental illness than other countries? Or are citizens of the USA less rational than the rest of the world?
**********

Culture Decay

Traditional Family units decaying.

Old anchors of work, family, traditions, respect, worship - - is waning. The Right to guns was always there....but one wonders, a house with gainful employment, a Mom and Dad, discipline, spirituality and standards....where they could afford to send the kid to state college and the yearly trip to lake-whatever......are THEY hating life? Or is the fella making $15 an hour with his tattoo, his baby mommy, his government check who is a $50 co-pay away from making it more prone to problems?

This - along with great socioeconomic policies create economic strife.

So now they are desperate - stressed - look at them as they drive or walk on by. Not at the Whole Foods- but in the 75% of America.'

Toss in a new sort of pop culture. A certain genre. Certain dress. Mode of walking. Talking and looking aggressively. Wagging fingers, bobbing heads over simple conflicts. Look all over and you can see it -- in Americans of all stripes now.

Then they got social media, texting, phones. Their already limited powers of reasoning were shot - they are impatient, and they don't see humanity in each other.

Their new American dream is "I paid my bills this week". No, you don't meet them at the H.R office or the 401K meeting or the Yoga Class. One has to venture out, look and listen, heck - surf YouTube for these examples.

The old anchors - are gone.

Replaced, with "run run run !!! He's got a gun!"

And then, yes, these socially inferior people - with their even more inferior culture - have guns....difference is that now, they want to USE them. And post it on their social media of course.

Hence their freedoms -will eventually be taken.

The Trailer Park and Ghetto took over people's mentalities and lifestyles.

Some like to blame our 'gun culture' and there's some validity to that. However - the days of John Wayne -- - are long over. The days of certain music saying the b-word, the f word, and all sorts of violent attitudes and themes are hot and live now. Decide which causes more mayhem.

Background checks - I support.

Assault weapons ban - I support.

But all the laws. All the "programs" - - will not solve the social cultural ills.

The train has left the station, and only decline awaits for 75% of Americans.

And many of them know it.

Hence they cling to demagogues - be it black ones or orange ones.

Culture Decay

Traditional Family units decaying.

Old anchors of work, family, traditions, respect, worship - - is waning. The Right to guns was always there....but one wonders, a house with gainful employment, a Mom and Dad, discipline, spirituality and standards....where they could afford to send the kid to state college and the yearly trip to lake-whatever......are THEY hating life?

This x100. Other countries have more cohesive cultures, stronger family units, and higher indexes of happiness than we do.

Any one ever wonder why Switerzerland doesn't have the highest rate of mass shootings in the world? They have the 4th highest amount of guns/capita and every military conscript takes his/her weapon home to be stored there. So what's the difference?

TheDope1: Any one ever wonder why Switerzerland [sic] doesn't have the highest rate of mass shootings in the world? They have the 4th highest amount of guns/capita and every military conscript takes his/her weapon home to be stored there. So what's the difference?

1. Mandatory military service for men (providing extensive weapons training).

2. Swiss civilians must demonstrate that they are physically, intellectually, and mentally capable prior to conscription (gun owners are rigorously screened).

3. Switzerland has a different regulatory environment and culture (The Swiss pride themselves on armed neutrality, and Switzerland hasn't taken part in any international armed conflict since 1815).

4. Swiss private gun ownership has been falling for years.

5. Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region (with exceptions for hunting rifles). And potential gun owners are heavily vetted.

6. People who've been convicted of a crime, have an alcohol or drug addiction, or express a violent or dangerous attitude aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland.

7. Switzerland ranks high on the factors that lead to happiness: caring, freedom, generosity, honesty, health, income, and good governance.

8. When the country's crime rate rose in the 1990s, Switzerland implemented federal regulations on guns.

9. In Switzerland, it is illegal to carry a gun in the street. The Swiss keep their guns at home unless they're hunting or competing in shooting contests (and guns must be transported unloaded).

10. Extremely hard to get a concealed carry permit in Switzerland.

You are your own first responder

That thought occurred to me around 8-9 years ago while I was poking around my damp basement, trying to figure out why the circuit breaker down there kept tripping.

So as a precaution I went out and spent $800 on a device I keep easily accessible in an emergency, yet out of reach of children.

All my family members know where it is and have been trained in how to use it.

It's a reconditioned AED.

--sutton
(every three years it's ~$150 to have batteries, software etc checked back at the factory, and pads replaced)

"So you are willing to argue for stopping the gun control movement as soon as the 2A crowd agrees to a ban on MSR's. If you are, I don't think your progressive friends would agree. If not, where would you stop?"

One, you have never been able to accurately describe your opponent's views so your opinion on what is acceptable to them is hilarious.

Two, your logic is terrible. Just because there are a small minority of extreme hardcore liberals who won't stop until every single weapon is banned, you should never give an inch to even logical gun control measures?

There are a lot of crazy people who hold extreme views on both sides about many topics, rational logical people ignore them knowing that the weight of the majority in the middle will insure that their extreme views are never enacted.

"And I believe many in the gun grabbing crowd would not even allow that."

Yes. You believe lots of silly things. Too many years of your news sources taking advantage of you.

"Triggers don't pull themselves. People pull triggers.

Way to dodge his point.

Every other 1st world nation has less shootings per capita then the U.S.A. Each of those countries has mentally unstable people as well.

What you are trying hard to ignore is that guns make it easy for mentally unstable people to do lots of damage to many others.

"Any one ever wonder why Switerzerland doesn't have the highest rate of mass shootings in the world? They have the 4th highest amount of guns/capita and every military conscript takes his/her weapon home to be stored there. So what's the difference?"

You do a great job of articulating why the U.S.A. needs better gun restrictions like Switzerland has.

Yet you are one of the first people to support politicians who would vote against those restrictions.

What you are trying hard to ignore is that guns make it easy for mentally unstable people to do lots of damage to many others. - Umm

--------------------

And what you are trying hard to do is to apply your remedies to all non criminal legal gun owners instead of focusing on those you say are the problem, "mentally unstable people to do lots of damage to many others."

Any one ever wonder why Switerzerland doesn't have the highest rate of mass shootings in the world? They have the 4th highest amount of guns/capita and every military conscript takes his/her weapon home to be stored there.

No, not true. Used to be, but it's not any more, changed in 2007. It's true for people in the military, but that is a small fraction of the population at any given time. And if you want your weapon upon leaving you have to buy it. Everyone is required for military service, so there is an automatic gun safety and use course, and if you have a private weapon it must be registered with the government.

More to the point, the US has twice as many guns per capita in private ownership, but Switzerland is not far behind in deaths from guns. But unlike the US, where we lead in homicides (Mexico is 1st! Yay!), Switzerland leads most of Europe in domestic homicides, accidental and suicide deaths by gun.

Switzerland does not have open carry or even concealed carry with only minor exceptions.

The NRA likes to point to Switzerland, but they only tell part of the story, when the whole story is more interesting and argues against a lot of what they're telling you.u

Not the best example, but an easy one I found.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Any one ever wonder why Switerzerland doesn't....blah blah blah.

TROLL ALERT!!! Asked and answered a thousand times and the troll knows it.

Triggers don't pull themselves. People pull triggers.
Shooting into crowds isn't a rational act; ergo people who do so aren't rational.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-....

You state that the people who shoot innocent victims aren't rational, and support your assertion by citing a study that found 22.8% of people in the U.S. were diagnosed with some type of mental illness (covering all types, all degrees...including the most mild)in 2021. So you're equating not being rational with being mentally ill, and show that close to 25% of people in the US have a very mild, or more, mental illness diagnosis.

Although mentally ill people may have areas of irrational thought to one degree or another, thinking irrationally isn't synonomous with mental illness. Not at all. Many people think irrationally from time to time.

But I do agree with you that these shooters are not rational people. I disgree with your premise that it's the presence of irrational people that's the problem, and that it has nothing to do with the availability.....and I'll add adoration.....of guns in our society.

So anyone who shoots a group of people is by definition, crazy. You still need to explain why Americans are crazier than nearly everyone else on earth.

'The NRA likes to point to Switzerland,''

I came to understand some time ago that the NRA's ideology is not about defending the right to a rifle, it's about defending the right to armed insurrection. I'm so far as it is claiming to defend the 2nd Amendment, it's defending an insurrectionist interpretation.

My question is, why does it happen so frequently in the USA? Do you think you have more mental illness than other countries? Or are citizens of the USA less rational than the rest of the world?

It isn't higher than the rest of the world. The US is 87th in homicides per capita per Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

We do seem too have more school shootings. If you look at gun deaths we have a high gun suicide rate (see Suicide Belt out West). The interesting thing is that Japan had the same murders per capita rate as the US prior to WW2, but now has .3 per 100,000. Gun folk like to claim that if you remove blacks and Latinos, the US has the same rate as Europe.

"And what you are trying hard to do is to apply your remedies to all non criminal legal gun owners"

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

"focusing on those you say are the problem, "mentally unstable people to do lots of damage to many others."
"

Wrong again. 0 for 2.

I would love to increase spending on mental health.

Which party do you think prevents that?

We live in a society which marginalizes the mentally ill and leaves them unsupported, but then we also live in a society where the mentally ill have easy access to weapons that can do lots of damage in a very short amount of time. A double whammy.

That is why we lead the 1st world in mass shootings. Other countries have figured it out. Unfortunately we have a minority in this country with a gun fetish, they have been able to successfully block any rational reform.

That is why we lead the 1st world in mass shootings. Other countries have figured it out. Unfortunately we have a minority in this country with a gun fetish, they have been able to successfully block any rational reform.

------------------------

You contradict yourself. First you rightly say the mass shooting issue is mental health.

But then you close by blaming the gun fetish for blocking rational reform. What about mental health are they blocking?

You contradict yourself. First you rightly say the mass shooting issue is mental health.

But then you close by blaming the gun fetish for blocking rational reform. What about mental health are they blocking?

He didn't say that mass shooting is an issue of mental health.

He said that mass shootings are an issue of the combination of mental health and easy access to certain types of guns.

The practical upshot of that is that you can reduce mass shootings somewhat by improving access to mental health resources. But you can't reduce them to anywhere near the level that other countries experience, because you won't be able to eliminate mental health problems, so if people with mental health problems continue to have easy access to those certain types of guns, you will still have mass shootings that vastly exceed levels in most other nations.

Note - there is no possible framework under our current legal system that would allow you to differentially prevent people with mental health issues from easily accessing any given type of gun while still allowing other people to easily access those types of gun. You can't legally (or practically) implement a mental health diagnostic session as part of gun purchasing, and nearly all mental health diagnosis and treatment (save for those with judicial intervention) is confidential and not reportable. Nor would such prohibitions likely meet the new SCOTUS test for firearms regulation.

It isn't higher than the rest of the world. The US is 87th in homicides per capita per Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

Granted, the USA has a large population and that list make it seem as if it's not that bad. But when I look at countries where it's worse than the USA, I don't see many that are considered heaven on Earth. And when I see Iran doing better, I really question if being in the middle of the field should be considered good...

Here's another list, also from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

This one is a "List of countries by firearm-related death rate", which seems to be a bit more related to our discussion. The USA is at position #9, a bit worse than Mexico!

So you are not the worst place in the world, but compared to other countries like France, Australia, Canada, etc, it's not looking good.

Note - there is no possible framework under our current legal system that would allow you to differentially prevent people with mental health issues from easily accessing any given type of gun while still allowing other people to easily access those types of gun.

_________________

Exactly, but aren't we talking about changes to legislation? Or is the only change that is permissible is change that falls on the entirety of all gun owners (except criminals of course who don't obey laws)

<<It isn't higher than the rest of the world. The US is 87th in homicides per capita per Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...;

Well, just taking this chart at face value, you'd be safer from gun violence if you lived in Somalia, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Cambodia, etc. etc...Yikes!

Then there's this...
This Wikipage states clearly...
"This article needs to be updated." (June 2022)
"This article does not cite any sources." (June 2022)
Does not include gun death by suicide, or accidental gun related death, only "intentional homicide rate."

Here's a closer, more accurate look at gun deaths in the United States, based on analysis of data from the CDC, the FBI and other sources...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/w...

All the best!
I hope I don't get shot today!

Exactly, but aren't we talking about changes to legislation? Or is the only change that is permissible is change that falls on the entirety of all gun owners (except criminals of course who don't obey laws)

Yes. Well, sort of. Legislative changes would be subject to Constitutional limitations. There's no way that a requirement that you had to submit to a mental health assessment as a condition of owning a firearm would pass constitutional muster under the current 2A jurisprudence.

But even if you amended the 2A, practically speaking any such proposal would be DOA politically for the reason you implicitly raise in your second question. If you're going to try to keep guns away from people who have mental health issues, that change would fall on the entirety of all gun owners. You don't know in advance who has mental health issues and who doesn't. So if you're going to check to see who has mental health issues as a condition of gun purchase or ownership, you're going to have to test everyone who wants to buy a gun (or owns a gun, in the more extreme version of that).

Scouring government records to see if people have been adjudicated with a mental health problem (ie. a public record of involuntary commitment) isn't going to have much impact at all. You have to make people submit for some kind of psychological examination. And I'm pretty sure that that would be even more unpopular among gun owners than any other gun regulation that's been proposed.

Albaby

This one is a "List of countries by firearm-related death rate", which seems to be a bit more related to our discussion. The USA is at position #9, a bit worse than Mexico!

Sandiwched between major cocaine & heroine producing countries, and the largest market to which Cartels sell drugs and buy guns, Mexico is a unique situation.

My grandmother moved to Jalisco in the 1950's, so trips to Grandma's were frequent, as were our surf junkets down the west coast. The crime and violence grew in tandem with the illegal drug market in the US. Cartels were an obvious solution to impoverished cops and Mexican soldiers. Drug money is a huge corrupter of Mexican politicians. This I saw with my own eyes.

You have to make people submit for some kind of psychological examination. - albaby

--------------------

Not necessarily. Carefully crafted Red Flag laws may be good starting place. Many (perhaps almost all) of these mass shooters were well known to law enforcement and/or had a reputation at whatever school they attended. Students know who the volatile ones are and should be encouraged to speak up. Authorities should be more aggressive following up on leads. Then there is this concerning the Nashville shooter,

The office told her to call a nonemergency number. What's up with that?



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nashville-sch...

The Nashville school shooter warned that something bad was about to happen in messages to a former middle school basketball teammate before opening fire Monday at The Covenant School.

Averianna Patton said she saw the Instagram messages at 9:57 a.m. Monday, less than 20 minutes before police said they received calls about a shooter at the private Christian school.

In the messages, Audrey Hale, the person police identified as the shooter, talked about not wanting to live anymore and said that their family did not know what they were about to do.

The first call she (Patton) made was to the suicide prevention hotline, she said, which instructed her to contact the Davidson County Sheriff's Office. The office told her to call a nonemergency number.

Not necessarily. Carefully crafted Red Flag laws may be good starting place.

We live in an era of weaponized government. In saner times, red flag laws might work. In today's times, where we see the Lois Lerners and others out there using the tools of the federal government to punish political enemies of the democrat party? Absolutely not.

Not necessarily.

Yes, if you want owning a firearm to remain a right.

We don't decide whether to approve any governmental actions based on rumor or who has a "rep" at a school. But you'll never be able to condition permission to exercise a constitutional right on such things. We're not going to take away someone's ability to buy a firearm based on whether people think someone's a little unhinged. If a "red flag" law is going to be implemented, it will have to be much more formal than that - an actual investigation that culminates in a formal decision-making process that the individual is notified of and has an opportunity to participate in, and very likely some kind of judicially-overseen hearing with medical testimony.

There's almost zero chance that we'll set up that kind of system just to have a "no gun" list - it would be an enormous amount of bureaucracy, and unless that bureaucracy was really well funded and really aggressive in investigating people, would be mostly useless. Audrey Hale didn't do anything that was so significant that any such system would bar a firearm purchase before they bought the weapons - quite some time before the hotline calls. It would take weeks to get someone stripped of their ability to buy a firearm in even expedited cases - months and months, in ordinary cases.

Again, unless you want to switch to treating firearm ownership as a privilege, not a right.

"This one is a "List of countries by firearm-related death rate", which seems to be a bit more related to our discussion. The USA is at position #9, a bit worse than Mexico!"

I pointed out to you the suicide rate in the US is higher in the gun area, especially in the Suicide Belt. I remove suicides by gun by looking at homicides. If you think about it, I think you will understand why your comparison s not apt.

I never said they were the greatest places in the world, but there are also stats showing mass shootings are higher in Europe you should look at - results of first search: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings...

"You contradict yourself."

No. I am pointing out that there are two problems.

1. Support for mentally ill people in this country is terrible.
2. We have gun problem that allows mentally ill people to have easy access to weapons that can cause massive harm in a very short period of time.

"First you rightly say the mass shooting issue is mental health."

No. It is both a mental health problem as well as a gun problem.

"But then you close by blaming the gun fetish for blocking rational reform."

Yes, the minority with a gun fetish blocks any type of rational reform to deal with the gun problem.

"What about mental health are they blocking?"

Seriously? Which party to you think makes it harder for a people to have access to any type of healthcare?

"In today's times, where we see the Lois Lerners and others out there using the tools of the federal government to punish political enemies of the democrat party? Absolutely not."

Wow! almost a decade of the event and you choose to remain ignorant of what happened around that. Fox does know it's audience quite well. It knows it cannot tell them the truth because they will leave and seek to have their misinformed views validated elsewhere.

you choose to remain ignorant

Personal attacks as a form of argument. You do you. The rest of us argue with facts, logic and reason, and not lash-outs towards other. Good luck.

"Personal attacks as a form of argument. You do you. The rest of us argue with facts, logic and reason, and not lash-outs towards other. Good luck."<?I>

Of course to get to that point, you would have to literally ignore everything else that was said. Willful ignorance (while unsurprising) isn't a very good form of argument. You would have to ignore of the facts, logic, and reason that were presented to you and instead whine and play the victim.

I will do what I do. You do what you do. You will continue to have the reputation you have. There is a reason you are generally thought to be an intellectually dishonest person.

Good luck with that.

The subject of this thread "You are your own first responder" sounds like vigilantism. There have been 3 shootings this week for honest mistakes: ringing the wrong doorbell, getting lost, and getting into the wrong car. Madness. Fear, guns, and stand your ground laws are a deadly mix. It is crucial for individuals and institutions to prioritize peaceful and lawful means of addressing grievances and resolving conflicts, rather than resorting to vigilantism, which can lead to further violence and chaos. Safe use of guns requires training. Encouraging everyone to carry guns and be trigger-happy will only lead to more violence. People often make poor decisions, and it a better world when small mistakes are not made fatal.

Trigger Happy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSD3brpn2nE

The second amendment starts with a well regulated Militia:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some seem to think the second amendment is only about guns, and interpret the second amendment as saying:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

So why are there all those extra words? The actual wording puts the focus on a well regulated Militia. The concept of a well regulated Militia has changed. Are the Proud Boys really necessary to the security of the U.S. in this age of tanks and fighter planes? January 6, 2021 demonstrated the dangers of militia. What is a recent example of a U.S. militia adding to the security of the U.S.?

I think guns should be regulated the same as any other modern tool such as cars or computers, with common sense and without a sense of entitlement. Repeal is a trigger word for some entitled nuts.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/repealing-the-second-...

The subject of this thread "You are your own first responder" sounds like vigilantism.

So in the absence of effective policing of an area, what is a citizen supposed to do when in the process of being victimized?

what is a citizen supposed to do when in the process of being victimized?

So true. For instance, when someone rolls a basketball into your yard, shoot a 6-year-old and both parents, too. That'll show 'em.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/6-year-parents-neighbor-...

The NRA keeps telling us we'll be safer when we have more guns. When is that going to be?

So true. For instance, when someone rolls a basketball into your yard, shoot a 6-year-old and both parents, too. That'll show 'em.

Hmm. I asked a question; I didn't advocate a position.
Are you saying that shooting first is a god policy?

>>what is a citizen supposed to do when in the process of being victimized?<<

So true. For instance, when someone rolls a basketball into your yard, shoot a 6-year-old and both parents, too. That'll show 'em. - Goofy

-------------------

So your argument equates a six year old rolling a basketball into your yard as equal threatening as four gangbangers kicking down your front door are 3 AM? Or a thug beating the hell out of your daughter as she waits for a bus. What is wrong with you people?

Anyone who believes that an armed society is a polite society knows practically nothing about human nature.

fd

Freedom without obligation or responsibility is the dream of a 13 year old.

So true. For instance, when someone rolls a basketball into your yard, shoot a 6-year-old and both parents, too. That'll show 'em. - Goofy

-------------------

So your argument equates a six year old rolling a basketball into your yard as equal threatening as four gangbangers kicking down your front door are 3 AM? Or a thug beating the hell out of your daughter as she waits for a bus. What is wrong with you people?

And as equal to a 14-year-old picking up his younger sibs who made a mistake on the street name, and as equal to a car that accidentally drove up the wrong driveway in a rural poorly marked area, and as equal to cheerleaders picking up their cars after late night practice and making a mistake and then rolling down their window to apologize to the guy exiting the "mistaken" car. And there are so many more like that. Doesn't make those violent incidents ok. Doesn't solve the problem. But the deaths of so many innocents because guns are so easy to acquire and are so relied on by so many as a first response when they don't take the moment to think......

So your argument equates a six year old rolling a basketball into your yard as equal threatening as four gangbangers kicking down your front door are 3 AM? Or a thug beating the hell out of your daughter as she waits for a bus. What is wrong with you people? v

In the past two days we have had a cheerleader shot because she accidentally got into the wrong car after practice, a six year old and parents shot because a basketball rolled into someone's yard, and a kid shot because he knocked on the wrong door when picking up his brother.

So far this year there have been more mass shootings (4 or more dead) than there have been days. We lead the world, by a multiple of a multiple of a multiple.

And you keep promising us that if there were just more guns we'd be safer. What is that number, and when do we get there? Or, to quote someone hereabouts: 'What is wrong with you people?'

The subject of this thread "You are your own first responder" sounds like vigilantism.....
The second amendment starts with a well regulated Militia:....
Some seem to think the second amendment is only about guns, and interpret the second amendment as saying: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.....
I think guns should be regulated the same as any other modern tool such as cars or computers, with common sense and without a sense of entitlement.....

Wish I could rec your post.....your focus and clarity.....many many times over.

In the past two days we have had a cheerleader shot because she accidentally got into the wrong car after practice, a six year old and parents shot because a basketball rolled into someone's yard, and a kid shot because he knocked on the wrong door when picking up his brother.

And a young woman shot and killed because the car she was riding in with friends....all locals in the area.....entered the wrong driveway, realized it, and were turning around to return to the road. The armed occupant of the house shot into the turning car multiple times, fatally wounding the young woman.

Anyone who believes that an armed society is a polite society knows practically nothing about human nature.

Interesting. I'd argue that those who believe in the liberal tenants of zero policing and a disarmed citizenry are the ones with no clue about human nature.

Freedom without obligation or responsibility is the dream of a 13 year old.

Double interesting, as no one argues that.

And you keep promising us that if there were just more guns we'd be safer. - goofy

-----------------

I didn't promise that and you know it. But your phrasing implies a falsehood that fewer guns would make us safer. I admit that literally zero guns would but we can't get there. If you naively say we can, then I ask, how is that war on drugs going?

Despite the recent tragic examples, the 50 millions or so or responsible law abiding gun owners are not the problem, and also not a problem. There are more people killed by criminals in a long weekend in Chicago by real criminals and all the tragic examples you cite. The problem is with crime and criminals, not law abiding gun owners

In the past two days we have had a cheerleader shot because she accidentally got into the wrong car after practice, a six year old and parents shot because a basketball rolled into someone's yard, and a kid shot because he knocked on the wrong door when picking up his brother.

Neither of which has anything to do with the issue you insist on not talking about.

In liberal cities, there is no police response.
No 911.
Nothing.

So what is an average citizen to do?

liberals are the luckiest among us. They and only they are able to live their lives completely free of the consequences of the policies they espouse.

The problem is with crime and criminals AND with the large number of non-law abiding gun owners, irresponsible gun owners, vicious gun owners, senile gun owners, intoxicated gun owners, gun owners on legal drugs that affect their judgement, careless gun owners.....

The problem is with crime and criminals AND with the large number of non-law abiding gun owners, irresponsible gun owners, vicious gun owners, senile gun owners, intoxicated gun owners, gun owners on legal drugs that affect their judgement, careless gun owners..... - sano

------------------

Odd phrasing...non-law abiding should be included with the criminals.

There are 75,000,000 or so gun owners in the USA. Of these, how many would you estimate fall into the categories of "irresponsible gun owners, vicious gun owners, senile gun owners, intoxicated gun owners, gun owners on legal drugs that affect their judgement, careless gun owners"?

There are 75,000,000 or so gun owners in the USA. Of these, how many would you estimate fall into the categories of "irresponsible gun owners, vicious gun owners, senile gun owners, intoxicated gun owners, gun owners on legal drugs that affect their judgement, careless gun owners"?

In their view? All of them.
In their minds, no one "needs" a firearm of any type. The obvious rebuttal to that is that your rights and my rights aren't based on what some 3rd party believes - oftentimes just based on their overwrought feelings.

In liberal cities criminals have more rights than citizens. In liberal cities left wing governments also want to make sure that citizens are unable to protect themselves from the consequences of left wing policies. There's no rational explanation for that.

" The problem is with crime and criminals, not law abiding gun owners".

So, when comparing per capita shootings with other developed countries, I guess the US must have lot more criminals.
Why is that do you suppose?

So, when comparing per capita shootings with other developed countries, I guess the US must have lot more criminals.

Why is that do you suppose? - neuromancer

-----------------------

I think this starts with too many children growing up with a sense of entitlement as well as hopelessness. They have always received a trophy, have learned that achievement doesn't really matter, that they are not accountable for their own decisions or actions, they have failed to learn how to accept disappointment, that they are helpless victims, the deck is stacked against them, and generally live with no pride, self esteem or hope. It is largely a consequence of broken homes, poverty, poor parenting, and poor education.

So, when comparing per capita shootings with other developed countries, I guess the US must have lot more criminals.
Why is that do you suppose?

A much more diverse population demographic, wide income disparity, and general cultural degradation.

Dope1: In their view? All of them.
In their minds, no one "needs" a firearm of any type.

As usual, complete BS.

Should you have a right to own weapons of war? No. But since a handful of justices decided that "A well regulated Militia" is a non-functional secondary clause, you can own just about anything short of a tank or missile launcher today. But personally, I don't care what you own as long as you keep it on your property. You want 100 AR-15s? No problem. Just keep them in your house. Or locked up if you take them to a shooting range. Or until you're hunting. But no civil society needs their citizens armed to the teeth.

BUT THE SCARY BAD GUYS HAVE GUNS!!! Simple: you get caught with a gun in public, you go directly to jail. And if you're caught using a gun in the commission of a crime, you to straight to jail and stay there a lot longer. Yes, you get a trial but no, there are no excuses (like you're afraid of scary black people).

I even be fine with gun safety measures in place in Canada.

But in reality, America is too far gone down the 'anything goes' when it comes to guns Crazy Lane that it's only going to get worse. So what if a Black kid got shot for ringing a doorbell, or a cheerleader who tried to get into the wrong car, or a father and son who had the nerve to lose a ball in the neighbor's yard.

Collateral damage.

Dope1: In liberal cities criminals have more rights than citizens.

More BS.

Dope1: In liberal cities left wing governments also want to make sure that citizens are unable to protect themselves from the consequences of left wing policies.

Still more, endless BS.

Let the dishonesty begin!

Should you have a right to own weapons of war? No.
Muskets are weapons of war also. Right off the bat you're showing your bias.

But since a handful of justices decided that "A well regulated Militia" is a non-functional secondary clause, you can own just about anything short of a tank or missile launcher today.

That's not what was decided. And it's further clear you're wholly unfamiliar with either the Federalist Papers, the word "regulated", and the concept of "militia". Hint: they don't mean what you think they mean.

I didn't realize there was a handheld SAM market someplace. Where can I get one?????

But no civil society needs their citizens armed to the teeth.

When you live in a blue city, you don't live in civil society any longer.

Simple: you get caught with a gun in public, you go directly to jail.

Again, it's obvious you don't know anything about living in a blue area. Laws are made to make life EASIER on criminals, not harder. Why don't liberals pass laws to escalate penalties to criminals who use guns?

More BS.

Nope. Stone cold truth. Sorry you can't deal.

Still more, endless BS.

Nope. WA state just banned a ton of firearms while REFUSING to meaningfully undo the horrendous legislation they passed that makes life easier for crooks.

Again, you live someplace nice and safe. You're free to spout off left wing platitudes from your keyboard because you're not governed by abject morons.

I think this starts with too many children growing up with a sense of entitlement as well as hopelessness. They have always received a trophy, have learned that achievement doesn't really matter, that they are not accountable for their own decisions or actions, they have failed to learn how to accept disappointment, that they are helpless victims, the deck is stacked against them, and generally live with no pride, self esteem or hope. It is largely a consequence of broken homes, poverty, poor parenting, and poor education.----

but unlike their peers in other countries who go nuts with a knife and are subdued without too much difficulty, the American deviants have relatively easy access to high capacity/rapid fire weaponry that makes them feel important, powerful, in control for once.

Imagine if the Uvalde deviant only had access to a blade instead of a rifle with a 30, 50 or 100 round magazine. A teacher or two could easily clobber him with a chair without fearing a hail of lead as they came through the door.

The intransigence of gun fetishists are the bane of the USA.

In liberal cities, there is no police response.
No 911.
Nothing.

What fantasy world do you live in? This does not describe reality. It's a ludicrous fiction designed to support your rigid prejudices.


liberals are the luckiest among us. They and only they are able to live their lives completely free of the consequences of the policies they espouse.

Aside from the how ridiculous that statement is, whether you're serious or simply sarcastic..... Makes me think of all those red state Republicans who have removed abortion as an option in their state.....completely free of the consequences of the policies they're pushing through.

Let the dishonesty begin!

You've been dishonest and/or disingenuous for as you've been here, and getting dropped into the dunk tank constantly.

Muskets are weapons of war also.

No, they are not weapons of war anywhere anymore. Nor are femur bone, slings, war hammers, battle axes...
What muskets are is you being disingenuous/dishonest.

As for the rest of your scree: more flooding the field with shit.

Here's to Bannon, the author of that utilitarian phrase who deserves a long sentence in a field of shit for his contribution to the dumbing down and division of America. His trial starts May 25.

"It is largely a consequence of broken homes, poverty, poor parenting, and poor education."

There's a certain amount of truth in that. I guess we should start relieving poverty, providing services to help parents and improve our education system.
Sounds pretty liberal to me.

"I think this starts with too many children"
Absolutely the root cause of most of the world's problems.

"growing up with a sense of entitlement as well as hopelessness. They have always received a trophy, have learned that achievement doesn't really matter, that they are not accountable for their own decisions or actions, they have failed to learn how to accept disappointment, that they are helpless victims, the deck is stacked against them, and generally live with no pride, self esteem or hope"
Not sure how entitlement leads to hopelessness and all that other stuff but maybe...

At the risk of introducing politics, the 'not accountable', 'fail to accept disappointment', 'victims' etc. seems to be what the MAGA wing is feeling.

Just saw on the news......data from a study on gun deaths in the U.S. by state.

States with permissive gun regulations have 3 times more gun deaths than states with stricter regulations.

I fear that some of those reading this will say that it simply reflects the ability to strike down criminals before they harm you, and that the 3 times higher death rate actually points to a safer environment. But I hope they will remember that this includes the spiraling number of children who die from guns, which has become the #1 killer of children in the U.S......topping disease. And remember the great many other innocents who are shot.

Interesting. I'd argue that those who believe in the liberal tenants of zero policing and a disarmed citizenry

This is why so many consider you dishonest.

No one believes in 'zero policing.' In fact you'll find almost no one who believes in a disarmed citizenry.

And you know it. Those are both lies, making you a '.

Despite the recent tragic examples, the 50 millions or so or responsible law abiding gun owners are not the problem, and also not a problem.

I agree. But have such a wide availability of guns makes accidents and incidents (like short term temper flare ups) much more prevalent. And *that's* a problem.

Do we require a safety course for gun owners? No. Alec Baldwin should have taken one, you think? (First rule: never point at anything you don't intend to shoot.) Do we require guns to be registered so they can be tracked in the event of use in a crime? Sort of, but with loopholes big enough to drive a bullet train through. Do we allow almost any kind of gun, no matter how lethal, to be sold as commonly as toothpaste? Well no, but it feels like it.

There is no right that is absolute. Famously said (*not) 'You can't yell fire in an auditorium if there's no fire'. You can't have a religion which condones beating women and children. The police can't randomly search - unless they can because of exigent circumstances. And so on.

I have no problem with people owning guns. I have a serious problem with them owning assault rifles, bazookas, and claymore mines. I would require a safety course before the 1st gun purchase. I would require that they be locked up, or at least trigger locked* with severe penalties for accidents in which that turns out not to have been done.

While I think 'certain guns' are the problem, I really believe it's the casual attitude of some owners towards guns that is a more serious problem, and that could be dealt with easily.

There are more people killed by criminals in a long weekend in Chicago by real criminals and in all the examples you cite.

That's probably true. That means the others that could have been easily prevented don't count? That we have made non-traceable guns so common that criminals can pick them up on any street corner? That we shouldn't true to do anything?

[* for the argument 'if they're locked then I can't use them when an intruder assaults me' I merely point to those now equipped with circuitry to prevent an unauthorized user from pulling the trigger.' This seems a small issue to stop children from play with/bringing to school, and makes a lot of guns useless in the stolen/secondary market. ]

There are 75,000,000 or so gun owners in the USA. Of these, how many would you estimate fall into the categories of "irresponsible gun owners, vicious gun owners, senile gun owners, intoxicated gun owners, gun owners on legal drugs that affect their judgement, careless gun owners"?

Enough that over 320 people are shot every day, of which 90 are shot unintentionally. That seems like a lot. (The remainder are intentional, either by criminals or law enforcement or simple murders (which obviously makes them criminal, but are of the 'husband/wife' or 'business dispute' type shooting as opposed to organized criminals and gangs.)

https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics

bighairymike: Despite the recent tragic examples, the 50 millions or so or responsible law abiding gun owners are not the problem, and also not a problem. There are more people killed by criminals in a long weekend in Chicago...

Goofyhoofy: That's probably true.


Well, sure... if you cherry-pick the long weekend.

Brookings looked at misconceptions with respect to gun violence and found that murders rose across America irrespective of the size of the city:

For instance, the national murder rate increased by nearly 30% between 2019 and 2020, driven predominantly by gun murders. Cities and towns of all sizes saw their murder rates increase as well, rising over 35% in cities with populations over 250,000; 40% percent in cities with populations of 100,000 to 250,000; and around 25% in cities with populations under 25,000.


In Chicago, gun homicides are mostly confined to a handful of neighborhoods: Humboldt Park, Austin, West and East Garfield Park, and North Lawndale, and on the South and Southwest Sides.

So, do those neighborhoods have anything in common?

Well, in fact they do: they are all areas of the city with histories of segregation and disinvestment as well as significant contemporary socioeconomic inequities.

Brookings found that there was a clear disparity between the perception of crime and the reality of crime by people and offered several ways to promote safety tailored for higher-crime neighborhoods, such as alternative crisis response models for mental and behavioral health emergencies, investment in the built environment, improvement in transit safety, and others detailed here: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-geography-o...

This is why so many consider you dishonest.
No one believes in 'zero policing.' In fact you'll find almost no one who believes in a disarmed citizenry.
And you know it. Those are both lies, making you a '.

I'm believe I've told this one before, but what the heck... 17 more days until they fix my back, and I'm bored shitless, not being able to surf, go hiking daily through this superbloom that is so magnificent it can be seen from space.

A couple with whom we are good friends were editors; one with USA Today, the other with WAPO (yes, during the Watergate days too). On one of our mid 2017 daily dog walks I asked the guys 'why do the papers use so many euphemisms for Trump's lies. Why not just save barrels of ink, tons of paper, and simply write 'lie/lying/lied/lies?' They responded with the expected professional burbles about maintaining civil discourse.

I digress. I congratulate you for the brevity of your latest response. 3 lines. 3 softballs for a quarter to dunk the '.

'if they're locked then I can't use them when an intruder assaults me'

Minor quibble: biometric release safes allows instant access to one's trusty old gov issue 1911 ACP, or an expensive modern version.

Unless one carries 24/7, a metal gun safe thru-bolted to the studs is the only responsible way to keep the kid from finding it while searching for XMAS presents, stashed in a shoe box on the top shelf of Dad's closet. That safe bolted to the studs, makes your favorite zombie zapper MORE accessible than the shoebox on the top shelf of the bedroom closet.
Unless kiddo chops off Dad's finger while he's in a drunken stupor, the kid isn't sneaking out the Glock to shoot Mrs. Murphy as she passes out apple juice and graham crackers after nap-time.

Safe, well-regulated, opens at the tap of a fingerprint, ready for the zombie apocalypse.

This is why so many consider you dishonest.

Thanks. When the bottom dislikes you and all.
Loads of left wingers believe in abolishing the police. They run for office on the west coast.

Why do you and so many here deny this very simple fact?

We know who the a' is.

Well, sure... if you cherry-pick the long weekend.

So in other words'it's true.

Safe, well-regulated, opens at the tap of a fingerprint, ready for the zombie apocalypse. - sano

-----------------

Still slower than rolling over and grabbing the Ruger I keep on the bedside table next bed where I also keep my cell phone, a flashlight and a couple of spare magazines. Before you get your panties in a twist, I live alone.

Dope1: Loads of left wingers believe in abolishing the police.

No, 'loads' do not believe in 'abolishing the police'. If they did, you could list them.

I can only think of a few, mainly those who were outraged by a string of deaths of people of color at the hands of police, culminating with the murder of George Floyd: AOC, Omar, Tlaib and Pressley.

And AOC, when asked what abolishing police would look like, said:

It looks like a suburb. Affluent white communities already live in a world where they choose to fund youth, health, housing more than they fund police. These communities have lower crime rates not because they have more police, but because they have more resources to support healthy society in a way that reduces crime.

When a teenager or preteen does something harmful in a suburb (I say teen because this is often where lifelong carceral cycles begin for Black and Brown communities), White communities bend over backwards to find alternatives to incarceration for their loved ones to "protect their future," like community service or rehab or restorative measures. Why don't we treat Black and Brown people the same way? Why doesn't the criminal system care about Black teens' futures the way they care for White teens' futures? Why doesn't the news use Black people's graduation or family photos in stories the way they do when they cover White people (eg Brock Turner) who commit harmful crimes? Affluent White suburbs also design their own lives so that they walk through the world without having much interruption or interaction with police at all aside from community events and speeding tickets (and many of these communities try to reduce those, too!)

Just starting THERE would be a dramatically and radically different world than what we are experiencing now.


https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/in-the-news/...

bighairymike: Still slower than rolling over and grabbing the Ruger I keep on the bedside table...

And do you wear an army helmet while in your home like Franz Liebkind in 'The Producers'?

Still slower than rolling over and grabbing the Ruger I keep on the bedside table next bed where I also keep my cell phone, a flashlight and a couple of spare magazines. Before you get your panties in a twist, I live alone.

---------------
The safe is also to help prevent theft, and maybe gives you a little time to talk yourself out of suicide. I advocate tax credits for gun safes in cars.

Still slower than rolling over and grabbing the Ruger I keep on the bedside table next bed where I also keep my cell phone, a flashlight and a couple of spare magazines.

Fine by me. That's about the same as carrying it since you have the weapon "well regulated."(caveats apply)

If, however, you leave your firearms unsecured when you are not home, you are part of the problem. Burglars love people who leave loaded firearms bedside.

More than 1 million guns were stolen from private citizens from 2017 to 2021....And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a stolen gun, either ' so the number of gun thefts could be much higher....."It shows that we really have a serious problem with guns that are not being stored safely in order to prevent this,"

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/10/1153977949/major-ta...

Stolen guns can be diverted to the illegal gun market, where they are used to fuel crime across the country.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-are....

"This is why so many consider you dishonest.

"Thanks," he replies, as he climbs out of the water onto the dunk tank bench to resume his absurd heckling.

bighairymike: Still slower than rolling over and grabbing the Ruger I keep on the bedside table...

And do you wear an army helmet while in your home like Franz Liebkind in 'The Producers'? - commonone

________________________

No, I find my tinfoil hat is a suitable proxy.

Loads of left wingers believe in abolishing the police. They run for office on the west coast.

Why do you and so many here deny this very simple fact?

-------------------
Because there aren't loads?

BHM

When are you going to step up and do the responsible thing? What solution to America's shooting problem, as you are a responsible gun owner, do you propose. What can you get on board with to begin to address this problem?

More of the same won't work. We are spiraling down an abyss of gun death. Responsible gun owners are needed to step up. You should be spearheading a solution.

Come on!

fd

When are you going to step up and do the responsible thing? What solution to America's shooting problem, as you are a responsible gun owner, do you propose. What can you get on board with to begin to address this problem? - FD

----------------------

Disarming law abiding gun owners, all 80 million of them, is not a solution. The grabbers will say nobody wants that, just a little more regulation, and a ban a few things is what they want. Yep, for now, once achieved the next step on the slippery slope can and will begin. Rinse and repeat until all legal gun owners are left with is a flint lock squirrel rifle and a maybe 22 revolver. Being a little absurd here but where exactly would it stop?

Now with that rant over with, I think the problem and hence the solution lies in the realm of mental health and anxiety ridden disaffected youth. I hate to suggest this, being a freedom loving anti government abuse guy, but I think there is a place for well crafted red flag flaws. Stricter law enforcement, backed up by DA's who will actually prosecute petty crime would hopefully cut down of youthful offenders of petty crimes steadily escalating into more dangerous and deadly forms of criminal behavior. Bail reform was badly needed but has run amuck and itself needs to be reformed to deny bail to felons with lengthy criminal records.

Loads of left wingers believe in abolishing the police. They run for office on the west coast.

Why do you and so many here deny this very simple fact?


Because it isn't a fact, simple or otherwise. And it isn't happening. Looking at facts rather than yellow journalism makes that quite clear.

"Despite 'defunding' claims, police funding has increased in many U.S. cities
Leaders across the country have blamed the rise in crime on the "defund the police" movement. In most places, it never happened.....
ABC Owned Television Stations examined the budgets of more than 100 cities and counties and found 83% are spending at least 2% more on police in 2022 than in 2019."
https://abc7ny.com/where-police-departments-defund...

"Busting the 'Defund the Police' Myth
Despite Republican claims, police in the largest Democrat-run cities have not been defunded.....
Republicans have spent the past two years accusing Democrats of trying to defund police departments. But the facts show that the police have not been defunded. In fact, not only have Democrats put more money into policing since fiscal year 2019, but they also spend more on policing than Republican-run cities. Here are the facts that disprove this myth:....
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/def...

Oh, San Francisco?

Let's see what liberal policies have wroth:

https://nypost.com/2023/04/25/san-francisco-drops-...

The district attorney's office dropped the case against Don Carmignani's alleged assailant, Garrett Doty, after deciding the homeless man was acting in 'self-defense,' sources close to Carmignani told The Post Tuesday night.

Prosecutors heeded Doty's arguments and ruled that the attack was not senseless ' they said Carmignani instead instigated the vicious assault after deploying pepper spray on the homeless man, who lived outside his mother's property in the city's affluent Marina District.

When they say the homeless guy lived outside his mother's property, they mean he was blocking her driveway and threatening passers-by. The fire commissioner went out, talked to them, and when they threatened him he used pepper spray. That's when one of the drug bums bashed a hole in his skull.

This is liberalism, good and hard. This is what it looks like.

As to your links. liberals mayors announced drastic budget cuts and sent a signal, loud and clear, that the police were The Enemy. So officers in blue cities left in droves. That these blue places are shuffling money around in a scramble to find officers now just tells you the level of damage done.

https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/RevenueSpending/nypd.html

New York City's police budget.

2021 - $5.27B
2020 - $5.78B

The number in 2021 is about $500 million smaller than the one in 2020. That's called a budget cut. Their capital expenditures? Was $251M in 2020, went down to $143M in 2021. That's called a CUT.

Again, blue cities told the police "Police bad!" and then watched them retire or just leave. Now we're reaping the whirlwind.

New York City's police budget.

2021 - $5.27B
2020 - $5.78B

Going to the source gives me this:

Mar 18, 2022: "As updated in February 2022, the NYPD budget, including both the department's operating and central expenses for fringe benefits, pensions, and debt service, is $10.9 billion in fiscal year 2022, a $13 million decrease from the November 2021 financial plan.

Fiscal year 2023 spending is projected to be $10.8 billion, $83 million lower than fiscal year 2022. The agency's fiscal year 2023 operating budget is $216 million lower due mainly to federal security grants that likely will be received but have not been recognized yet.

https://cbcny.org/research/six-fast-facts-about-ny....

And any decreases that are not temporary, simply waiting for federal security grants to be received, have nothing to do with defund the police demands. There are unavoidable budget constraints, as NYC is experiencing some significant losses in income due to the huge decrease in people working on-site in the city, with empty real estate, and people not spending for food and supplies in town.

And I recently heard Mayor Adams talk about plans to add funds for the police.

We are not an anti-police city. We are an anti-bad-police city. And anti- people who insist on such a falsely negative view of who we are and what our values are.

Law abiding gun owners should have no issue with every form of regulation and management of ownership that ensures that all owners rise to their level of curatorship.

"you can own anything just short of a tank"



https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D4psn3CrvhY

Law abiding gun owners should have no issue with every form of regulation and management of ownership that ensures that all owners rise to their level of curatorship.

And law abiding citizens should have no issue with de-encrypting their hard drives and providing the government with all your internet passwords. Innocent men have nothing to hide, right?

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.