Can confirm, good guys with bows can carry taint of mass murder.
Oh come now. The Dukes may have been white supremacist criminals but they hardly ever murdered more than one person at a time.
11 Likes
It makes no real difference to the overall horror, but I’ve read that the white supremacist terrorist group leader has now said he was mistaken in saying Nikolas Cruz trained with and participated in the group.
If you can’t take a racist bigot and anti-semite at his word, who can you trust? /s
3 Likes
I’m using it. I have no need of it. I feel my fellow citizens generally incapable of the level of responsibility for us to have that right as it stands. Gun collecting needs to be a privilege (while ownership of a firearm remains a right).
You can help see it done rationally, or fight tooth and nail until your voice isn’t around to influence the change - but this is a matter of when and not if.
LET THEM RUST
6 Likes
Just heard a news person speaking about the NRA and semiotic rifles.
Truer words…
4 Likes
The dumpster didn’t even wait a few minutes - Trump Suggests Florida Students Could Have Done More To Prevent Deadly Shooting | HuffPost Latest News
3 Likes
Remember folks, see something, say something.
3 Likes
That 30MM military parade fund would make great seed money for a high-capacity-magazine buyback program, when we’ve banned those from civilian (including civilian law enforcement) use.
4 Likes
See I disagree. If people were willing to give up cannabis to stop other people from getting shot, then why has a black market for cannabis that is connected to violent organized crime flourished? Obviously people were willing to set that aside in their minds to get their weed.
Of course in the case of cannabis, the people-getting-shot problem stems from the illegality, so legalizing it is actually the solution.
People need something in their lives to make them feel better. Some assholes people seem to be able to enjoy life by staying in shape and spending time with their kids, but even most of them probably have a hobby. If an object or an activity or a substance is satisfying an emotional need then you are going to resist giving it up. And if other people point out it’s harmful then users will find a way to rationalize why it’s probably not harmful.
I’d have a lot of compassion for someone who said, “The idea of giving up my guns is painful to me.” I actually do wonder how effective a gun ban would be in America because many American’s seem to be emotionally attached to firearms. Maybe it would hugely expand the black market for guns and thereby fund organized crime and cause more violence than it would stop.
That’s a difficult policy question. It’s a question I never see anyone grappling with because there’s no engagement. Maybe most people who are attached to guns would be just as happy if they kept their guns at a range. Maybe registration and insurance (similar to cars) would be something people could live with. Maybe the people who are so busy telling us that an AR-15 is not an assault weapon/machine gun/whatever could use their expertise to help make workable rules instead of dismissing every option as unworkable.
But “you can’t infringe on my liberties to save other people’s lives” is bullshit. Of course we can. Check out the criminal law against murder. The pressure to do something is building up like a earthquake, and people who like guns are really, really not going to like it when the quake happens.
10 Likes
It’s not overbroad in this case, since almost all mass shooters are men.
2 Likes
Yep, that’s why I said it was otherwise-overbroad. 
2 Likes
Whoops. Misunderstood you there!
2 Likes
Or vaccinations, to pick another salient example. And the gun nuts are culpable for mass shootings in much the same way that anti-vaxxers are culpable for outbreaks of preventable disease.
8 Likes
I think suggesting a prohibition on guns is foolishness, and running with that to a drug prohibition analogy is dangerously close to derail territory.
If we all get to have one or two guns, this problem would be vastly vastly reduced - and the constitution not violated. Plus, if you only get one or two, you’re a lot less likely to misplace them.
I don’t think I wrote anything in bad faith. The idea that restricting firearms would lead to an increased black market on firearms isn’t an absurdity. To me that’s a legitimate concern for someone who is against gun restrictions to raise. In public policy I think if you plan to restrict anything you should consider how many people will comply and what people who don’t comply will do.
3 Likes
But I think that the second amendment was not so much about overthrowing a tyrannical government as it was to make sure that a militia could be formed to put down ungrateful slaves, to dispossess Native Americans, or to confront hostile British, French, or Spaniards. At that time, the United States did not have a big, permanent Army or Navy, or a big central government. Now we are not supposed to have slaves, Native Americans are not a threat anymore and are also US citizens, our former enemies are our NATO partners, and we have what could be the most powerful Armed Forces in the world. There is no need for this amendment anymore.
9 Likes
(I’m not sure, am I missing your /s tag or are you serious on gun attachment?)
Also, your mixing proximate and ultimate causes re: Cannabis, and you haven’t been listening to my "I don’t want to discuss Cannabis. Missing my point, thus.
Breaks down to liberals want to legalise a mostly non-lethal thing currently illegal in many countries (and partly succeed, in several states of the US), illiberals want to keep a lethal thing legal which is currently mostly illegal in most civilised countries. I’ll trade. And even someone with a variety of calibers in their possession can’t argue I’m not willing to make a sacrifice.
If you find traces of cynicism in my statements, rest assured that this debate has already gone to the dogs.
Do you know what would make me feel safer? A 25 mph (40 km/h) speed limit across the board. What, am I crazy or something? Motor vehicle related fatalities number around 100 per day. A 25 mph speed limit on all roads would certainly reduce fatalities, and I would feel safer on my walk to work each day.
Guns? I don’t own one and would just love to see them banished from the planet! However this is about as likely as my proposed 25 mph speed limit. Drive safe kids!
2 Likes
i don’t either! Just that prohibition is a reaction, and thus inherently irresponsible
Cant react and respond at the same time, and we have to respond to these mass murders, not react.
To me that’s a legitimate concern for someone who is against gun restrictions to raise.
restrictions != prohibition is my biggest point. The nuance there really matters. the former is a response, the latter a reaction.
I don’t see the drug analogy as all that useful, and especially not splitting hairs between weed and other drugs, as I was trying to say seemed to stretch an already stretched analogy into a derail. Weapons and drugs are very different public health issues.
