It hasn’t come up yet. Even when Marjorie Taylor Greene takes off her shoes to count, she only gets to eight.
Digressing from the debate with our resident ammosexual, to the actual topic of Stupid Gun News of the Day,
Who do you call when there’s a shooting at a 911 dispatch center?
Set security?
And what does this say about the people who are so scared of god-knows-what they won’t leave their house without a gun? They’re apparently “stupid little rabbits and you’ll never know what they’ll do next” and they’re “willing to take dangerous steps to solve their fear”. And they have loaded firearms that they carry around in public. Seems quite rational to be afraid of them.
But I do admire the “Gun-fearers are being irrational when they worry about gun owners shooting them, and it will be their fault if and when gun owners shoot them” argument you’ve just put forward.
God, you’re a stupid little fuck. How do you feed yourself? I came no where near saying the scared little rabbits should be shot for doing irrational things like voting in the gun grabbing version of Trump.
Aside from your inability to read, I’ve said repeatedly that time and place restrictions are totally ok when it comes to guns. I have no idea how you move from that to me thinking that gun owners should be able to carry 24/7. There are people who live, work, or visit in places where there is no police response or it is too far away to be practical. Are they supposed to allow themselves to be rapped, murdered or robbed? Personally, I avoided those places but that is my privilege not everyone has that luxury.
Someone on the boards recently told a story about living two blocks from a police station and calling into 911 because they heard gun shots in downtown Chicago. They said it took the cops 15 minutes to respond. That is crazy considering that the mugging or whatever had occurred probably ended with those shots not started with them. There are 3 police officers for my entire town on shift at any one time. Their response time can be over 30 minutes. Their primary duties are to catch speeders and write reports after things happen.
There are lots of good, and valid reasons to carry a gun (and lots of stupid ones too) but just a person owning a gun is not a rational reason to fear them. Even a person carrying a weapons should not cause fear but at least I can see how a rational mind could get to fear from being around a person carrying a loaded weapon, most of the time it would be ridiculous stupid though. There was a poster that said recently they felt fear every time they walked by an armed policemen but were ok walking by unarmed cops, the meer presence of the side arm was enough to make them scared. That isn’t rational and that irrationality can lead to poor decisions.
Do I worry about gun nuts who have to carry everywhere? Of course, those people aren’t rational either and they are one of the reasons we’re probably going to get trump a second time. When they are ranting a raving about their second amendment rights in front of a private business who has refused to do business with them (gun carrier shouldn’t be a protected class) they should trigger red flag laws on the spot and have their weapons taken away.
This one is difficult for me
The shooter claims that the Jeep was going too fast and almost hit him. Asshole drivers need to learn a lesson, but getting shot might not be the right lesson. Also, the Jeep was sitting not far from the shooter’s house, so this story has an odd fragrance to it.
According to the article, the only witness who claims that Ramos was almost hit by a speeder was Ramos. That smells fabricated to me. How could a speeder almost hit him and also be parked in front of his apartment?
Damn. That’s local to me.
I do not know either of these people, though.
For the record, it’s pretty foolish to presume that reasonable people would read past the first line of your post.
And if you’re looking to shoot me dead over my opinion… well I guess I’d better flap my arms… because I sold all of my guns.
In my shed, I have an axe handle. If you want to beat me down, Home Depot will sell you one too.
You’re correct I shouldn’t post like that when I care if people are going to read what I write. Good thing I don’t care.
If I’m going to beat you down. I’ll use my fists much more fun.
I didn’t accuse you of saying anything like that. But tell me again how I’m a “stupid little fuck” with an “inability to read”.
What I was accusing you of is being more focused on people of being irrationally afraid of people openly carrying loaded weapons in a country where mass shootings are a frequent occurrence (which suggests that the fear is quite rational) than on the genuinely irrational fear held by the people carrying the guns in the first place. And if they’re not frightened for their own safety, they’re nurturing the “good guy with a gun” narrative in their head where they save the day against some faceless strawman of a bad guy and are hailed as a hero, when the reality is that they are just as likely to make matters worse (as Rittenhouse’s case demonstrates).
The irony here is that, fundamentally, we agree here. Where we differ is in both where the line of “rational/irrational fear” should be drawn and the relative risks posed by the irrational fringe on both sides.
Yes, 9999 out of 10,000 people carrying guns are perfectly safe, rational and responsible people - but the other one may murder you and your children on the spot. And you may know that you’re one of the safe, rational and responsible ones, but to everyone who can’t read your mind you’re indistinguishable from the rest (the “bowl of M&Ms” meme may apply here). And so being afraid of you is not as “irrational” as you may think, and certainly not “ridiculous[ly] stupid”.
And the effect of the “irrationality” that can “lead to poor decisions” by people afraid of guns is actually pretty minimal - you would need thousands and thousands of them voting in enough of a concerted effort to overcome gun lobby resistance to make even the slightest dent in things. But it only takes ONE irrational person with a gun making poor decisions to end up with multiple casualties. And while red flag laws should mitigate this issue somewhat, the fact remains that there is still a very powerful gun lobby - and literally millions of supporters - pushing for any restrictions on gun ownership at all to be removed or completely defanged.
So maybe when you’re rationally willing to assess the actual risk levels here, we can have a constructive conversation. Oh wait - you said you don’t care. As long as you get to maintain the view that you’re the reasonable one here, why should you consider views to the contrary?
I don’t know why we’re supposed to trust gun owners to be responsible when we have gun owners like the Crumbleys, plus people who can’t even pick up or clean or hand someone else a gun without accidentally firing it.
And there seems to be no appetite in the US for at least instituting universal background checks and requiring training.
Not to mention the whole “gun owners are law-abiding unless they don’t like the law in which case there are going to be a lot of ‘boating accidents’” thing.
Spoken like someone who should never, ever, ever be trusted with a gun.
But go ahead… threaten me more…!
To be perfectly fair to Oredigger77, you started that one with the “axe handle” comment.
I never once said I’d beat him. I said I sold my guns. I said that in my shed was an axe handle. I told him where he could buy one. “If you want to beat me down…” was the quote.
He couldn’t control the rage of his hatred… and for that alone he shouldn’t have access to a trigger that deals death in a split second. I’m not even confident that he could control his rage now… but that’s just my opinion.
Eh. I just put it down to trashtalking. YMMV.
And that’s fine… and if he thinks trashtalking makes points for gun ownership, he has the floor. The Beauty of Democracy is that allows us all to make up our own minds and to have our own opinions based on what we share and learn.