It’s being reported that President Trump will not support the dems UBC bill.
Color me shocked. Did not see that coming.
He’s still working hard on that health care bill. Priorities.
A guy killed three masked teenagers who attacked him and two others outside his house. He killed them with what a witness described (from hearing gunfire) as “Then I heard somebody have an assault rifle,”
This will be meatfor both sides of the argument.
Ok, this phrase bothered me.
Are you planning a ‘drive-by’ shooting? Are you looking to upgrade your road rage antics to murder? Do you hunt your deer from your car window (that’s illegal in all 50 states I believe)?
Please do tell me the scenario where you expect to legally and regularly shoot people from your vehicle? (Wouldn’t it be better to dial 911 and show the other road rage Asshat your phone? Most will fuck right off at that point. )
Does your style of driving lead other cars to regularly try to force you off the road so they can try to get out and attack you? Are you some big-wig/politician/celebrity/multimillionaire? Do you drive a car that is so expensive that it is often carjacked?
Seriously… Inquiring minds want to know what a responsible gun owner is doing even thinking of shooting a weapon out of a car window.
You never know when you’ll get your chance to live your dream.
Yep, I know, four scholarly cites, but you ignore them.
“My mind is already made up so I ignore the facts!”- pretty big problem from the climate change deniers, and now more science denying.
Comparative pennies from the Russians- and the gun lobby is small potatoes compared to the healthcare, Big Pharma and tobacco lobbies. In fact it doesnt even come in the top 100, iirc.
I ignore them because:
even if they do contain any truth to them, which I doubt due to the fact that we all watch the news but it still only happens (largely) in USA, not reporting the news in full is not a viable option for a non-facist state.
Well, we’ve had decades of variants on:
- “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
- “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
- “An armed society is a polite society.”
- “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”
The difference between those one-liners and “They’re paranoid about losing their guns. We’re paranoid about people losing their lives.” is that that one is accurate and on point.
You know what? We know enough. We know that people are being massacred on an all-too-frequent basis with weapons that can kill a shitload of people before a ‘good guy with a gun’ has a chance to react. (In the Dayton mass shooting, the cops shot the perpetrator within 30 seconds of when he began shooting, and he was still able to kill 9 people.)
Those weapons that can kill a shitload of people in a hurry - we want them gone. When the time comes that actual legislation has even a remote chance to get through Congress, we can hire experts to sort out the necessary specifics. In the meantime, inside-baseball stuff like the difference between a clip and a magazine is superfluous: we know more than enough for right now.
Yeah, it’s sanctimonious to compare the right to own particular kinds of guns with the right to continue being alive, and imply that the latter is considerably more important.
This is such an idiotic argument. No one is arguing you don’t have “the right to continue being alive”. I want people free to own things, even somewhat dangerous things like cars, knives, baseball bats, and yes, guns. Some tiny percentage of those items will be misused and cost people their lives. It’s unfortunate, but it happens. The solution is not to take away everyone’s knives, baseball bats, cars, or guns.
No, I didn’t ignore them. Unlike you, apparently, I read them. They don’t say what you think they said.
And you’ve responded with the idiotic “cars” argument.
We restrict ownership of lots of things where the danger to society is considered to outweigh the benefit - in some cases, restrict them to an extreme degree - even where actual usage and harm done has been minimal. You haven’t actually made the argument that guns shouldn’t be one of them.
What exactly is wrong with this one? There have been plenty of occasions where a gun owner stopped criminals in instances where the police were indeed still a long ways off, yes.
No one is suggesting to not report the news. Just leave the names off.
We dont name the victims now in rapes, etc. Are we a facist state due to that?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002764217730854
Don’t Name Them, Don’t Show Them, But Report Everything Else: A Pragmatic Proposal for Denying Mass Killers the Attention They Seek and Deterring Future Offenders
*And a consensus is building. Many government and law enforcement officials have already expressed their desire to deny mass shooters fame. As former Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey explained after the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting,
You will notice that I’m not using the killer’s name and I will try not to do that. Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory. And I don’t want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families. And so that other twisted minds don’t think that this is a path to fame and recognition. (Gurman, 2016)
Former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch shared a similar view:
we don’t want to glorify people who are so clearly seeking attention, because we don’t want to let others who may be thinking about this think, “Oh, gee, even if I’m killed in a hail of bullets, my name will live forever.” (Gurman, 2016)…Many other leaders have taken a similar approach. The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Police Association have both endorsed a “No Notoriety” approach. In turn, Colorado governor John Hickenlooper refused to name the Aurora, Colorado shooter, and Oregon Sheriff John Hanlin refused to name the Umpqua Community College shooter. As Hanlin explained, “I will not name the shooter. I will not give him the credit he probably sought. You will never hear me mention his name” (“Oregon Sheriff,” 2015). An online convenience poll found that more than 92% of respondents agreed with his decision (“Oregon Sheriff,” 2015).
There are also a growing number of media members who support this approach as well. They include CNN television anchor Anderson Cooper, MSNBC television host Lawrence O’Donnell, former Fox News television host (now with NBC News) Megyn Kelly, and former governor and Fox News television host Mike Huckabee. For instance, after the Orlando shooting, Cooper stated on air that “There’s one name you will not hear in the broadcast, one picture of a person you won’t see. We will not say the gunman’s name or show his photograph” (Wilstein, 2016). Similarly, O’Donnell tweeted, “Last night @TheLastWord I never mentioned the shooter’s name or showed his picture. It can be done. No viewer complained” (O’Donnell, 2016). Back in 2013, Kelly explained “I really think I’m at the point where I no longer want to utter the names of these people at all. I think we should all do it”—and then she subsequently implemented this approach (Wilstein, 2013). …*
They don’t argue. They just actively terminate that right.
So do I. Just not guns that can kill a shitload of people in a hurry. For approximately the same reason I don’t want people to own hand grenades, since we’re getting into interesting analogy territory.
In order to do so, did they need a gun that can kill 30-50 feral hogs in 3-5 minutes, or what?
Most guns that are reasonably-suited and popular for self defense (you might choose to read this as “those in common use for lawful purposes”) “can kill a shitload of people in a hurry”.