Yes, this.
That’s not how anybody interpreted it except Czarcasm, who is trying on his shithead hat.
Why the fuck not?
The gun control part I am really skeptical and pessimistic about, as I have always been. Not just about whether we could pass something, but whether it would really make a huge difference with all the guns already out there.
The first part, though, is what I see as the real issue here. We have someone worse than George Wallace in the White House, and the blood is definitely on his hands and those of his enablers. And we should not hesitate to point this out again and again. :mad:
Reading the comments on the Fox new article about this, there are a number of people who argued that if only the Latinos weren’t invading, then people wouldn’t get so angry they had to shoot them. So it’s all the Democrats fault.
Like how it’s the woman’s fault if the man beats her, because she went and made him so mad.
ETA: I don’t think the China thing is working in Trump’ favor. Today’s news is very bad for Midwestern farmers.
Even if you somehow got rid of all privately-owned guns in the US (snapping your fingers like Thanos in Avengers), that cat’s out of the bag. Sten guns are submachine guns that can be made pretty much in a person’s basement and have been used by various insurgency groups since WWII. So it’s practically impossible for you to eliminate all of them forever given modern levels of technology. Your paranoid apocalyptic Freemen types will figure out a way to make them.
That being said, making them illegal will certainly reduce the number of guns dramatically. It won’t prevent the occurrence of mass shootings but they’d become something rare rather than something that happens so often that you can’t even keep track of them anymore.
You do??
Which country do you live in?
So, would gang shootings in New York or Chicago be lessened if instead of the media ignoring them like now, the talking heads yammered on for hours about them first, and THEN ignored them, like they do for white mass shootings now?
I would dearly love to see someone (major news outlet, for instance) do an analysis of all the mass shootings, and identify which ones might have been prevented by background checks; or by “red alert” actions. And which ones involved assault-style weapons.
It’s ironic that Trump, and Lindsey Graham, endorsed red alert laws today, the same day that Trump’s Florida Panhandle rally video is getting major air play. A Trump supporter standing up and yelling “Shoot 'em!” only triggers laughs and a joke from the Prez…not a red alert.
I understand where you’re coming from, but the fact is that you are far more likely to kill yourself with your gun than to kill some invader of your house. Are you sure that nothing will ever happen to make you depressed enough to consider suicide? Not having a gun makes suicide more difficult - and less likely to succeed - than having a gun. Even a locked one. Even a registered one.
If you are living in a dangerous area I can understand it. But if you are, move.
Midwestern farmers will simply blame immigrants for the low crop prices and farm bankruptcies. Either that or Obama.
I don’t know, but I espouse what I expect is a pretty radical anti-gun position even by the standards of this board, and I’m perfectly OK with where you are. While I agree with Voyager that a gun in one’s home is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, if you want a handgun to defend yourself and your loved ones against a hypothetical intruder, I don’t think I should have the right to stand in your way.
Ditto hunting rifles. Venison is yummy. 
Guns are a lot like water pollution. The reason I can’t swim in Baltimore harbor is because there’s too much raw sewage in the water. That sewage isn’t historic sewage, it’s fresh sewage. If we stopped allowing sewage to go into the harbor untreated, we could swim in the harbor in a month.
All the guns currently out there are a problem, sure, but the bigger problem is new guns. These mass shooters are not typically using guns that they’ve owned for decades, they are using guns that the purchased recently. Stop selling new guns and the problem dries up pretty quickly.
Stop allowing the transfer of guns between individuals, and we would see a dramatic decline in the flow of weapons from US gun stores to insurgencies and criminals around the world.
If the prepper wants to keep his arsenal to fight off zombies or whatever, fine. If he violates any gun law, then he should lose all his guns. Destroy them. Every year there would be fewer guns in private hands.
Sure, some hobbyist might make a gun, and even ammunition. Some people make their own cars too. I never see them, but I’ve heard it’s true.
There are “antiques” dealers who handle guns (it does not need to be ancient ones), and the Mounties may either be willing to take them away or able to recommend someone who can. My mother’s neighbor sold some of his husband’s weapons to the first after a recommendation from the Spanish version of the second (the cops were happy to auction the rest for her).
I have a gun with the hopes I never have to ever shoot anyone with it.
I also find it fun to fire at the range. So that’s another reason to have it. (Though I never seem to have the time to do that anymore.)
Believe it or not, the idea that I’m more likely to shoot myself with it than someone else is a comfort. Because I don’t want to shoot another person, and the odds of shooting myself via suicide is pretty much zero.
I don’t live in a dangerous area, exactly, but there seems to be an increasing number of transients nearby (it’s becoming a chronic thing in this part of the country) and dangerous things happen. A serial arsonist was caught a few houses down from me. My car was broken into once in my garage. I don’t live in fear or anything, and in general it’s a nice place, I don’t know if I could really move anywhere better without being wealthy. But having a way to defend myself and/or my family if the worst thing happened is something I feel is a responsible precaution.
De Blasio’s reversal demonstrates the very awkward place political correctness puts politicians and media outlets in when it comes to the 75% of mass shootings in which (per the NY Times) the shooters are black. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. I started a GD thread about this a couple weeks back.
That’s an interesting statistic–care to link?
Now, using Mother Jones’s methodology, one gets an entirely different percentage–17%.
And in Emma Fridel’s paper “A Multivariate Comparison of Family, Felony, and Public Mass Murders in the United States” in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, she includes gang related murders and familicides that Mother Jones leaves out of their analysis and comes up with a figure of 37% of mass shootings have black shooters.
If you don’t have access to the pdf of the paper, screenshots of the table in question can be found on this blog post.
People do not murder because they are black. Saying such is a horrible sick racism.