Volvo, right? As in station wagons, for driving children around in the suburbs?
4 Likes
Right! Only Arugula Latte drinkers would let their women drive those things.
5 Likes
[quote=āAcerPlatanoides, post:194, topic:71595, full:trueā]
[quote=āACE, post:134, topic:71595ā]
Meanwhile, the states have been slowly making the means of effective self-defense more available to the law-abiding,[/quote]
And in that same tiime frame the number of school shootiongs has risen from 10/year to 50/year - and mass casualty shootings are now a daily event. Blinders on, much?[/quote]
Too bad both of your claims are lies. If your cause is so righteous, you shouldnāt have to invent factoids to support your position.
The claim āmass casualty shootings are now a daily eventā is another one of those lies that sounds good on twitter, but falls apart when you dig into the details.
I am not suggesting he doesnāt care.
Just that I donāt buy the sponteneity of the water works. And I voted for the guy!
He is a politician, and a good one at that. Of course he does it all the time. This is the same guy that ordered the drone assassination of a teenage U.S. Citizen on foreign soil, in case you forgot.
Laughing with a sense of irony and futility, I quickly realized youāre correct. Trying to delete my comment now.
The reason it gets people caught up is that we end up weaving a very intricate and difficult to navigate system of regulations which are then strictly or overly enforced. More tools for the government to take away guns at their whim without due process.
It may not seem that way to you, but it is what happens. Firearm dealers are pushed out of business for having a handful of paperwork errors in tens of thousands of transactions. People plead out and lose their rights to own firearms rather than payings tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from a felony prosecution.
Same way people get screwed in the war on drugs, the war on computing, the war on privacy. Increasing the govt oversight scope and scrutiny opens up more areas for abuse.
1 Like
Where is anyone advocating for the allowance or encouragement of irresponsible behavior?
Owning a gun doesnāt give you some get out of responsiblity free card.
Who advocates the 2A as a right to fewer responsibilities? As always, each person is responsible for their own actions.
People choose to use firearms to protect themselves, because they know that when criminal encounters usually place the intended victims at a disadvantage (due to factors like surprise, disparity in strength) and that firearms, as force multipliers, are effective tools for defending oneās self from a physical attacker.
Iām pretty sure you know that. You can disagree, but to throw out the 007 trope seems pretty trollish.
Yeah, who cries when thinking about the futility of the deaths of dozens of children that couldāve been prevented if not for partisan politics? Not me, Iām a stone cold mothafucka! Thatās what I want in my president, a complete lack of emotion under all circumstances.
7 Likes
The fruits of a mass protest movement over the violent death of childrenā¦ whimsical?
What color is the sky in your world?
Answer: the color of the sand, in which your head seems stuck. Vaguely sepia toned, like the past, when such laws made sense. Back when it made sense to whip horse thieves and form posseās to find them, surely such unlimited carry was at least arguably sensible.
But that time is gone now. Romanticize it. Remember it. Mourn it if you must.
Civilization has moved on. Your kind will pass.
3 Likes
lol - time will tell.
When our civilization doesnāt need armed police and military then we will have truly moved on.
Yeehaw.
#FTFY
8 Likes
Well, I think weāre both pointed in a similar direction.
Can that be done effectively without the dreaded registry of who-owns-what-guns?
Waitā¦ how does that link disprove anything @AcerPlatanoides said? That link doesnt disprove anything. ā¦ there are mass shootings nearly every day and people die. The only quibble is what constitutes a āmass shootingā - some happen where people are āonlyā injured and some dispute that the shooter should not be included in the victim countā¦ but the number of events remains the same.
9 Likes
Telling me I have to be as afraid as you, despite my refusal to be, is far far more trolley.
The 007 was to stand in for āpeople putting themselves in harms way as agents of the stateā - as they are the only people I can think of who, as you put it " know that when criminal encounters usually place the intended victims at a disadvantage (due to factors like surprise, disparity in strength) and that firearms, as force multipliers, are effective tools for defending oneās self from a physical attacker."
A hidden gun is a cowards, or an operatives, tool.
3 Likes
Do the new regulations actually make people safer, or is just more ātake your shoes off and empty all liquids over 4 ozā regulations? Because those donāt make anybody safer. Not all regulations make people safer, or make sense. Some aviation regulations make people safer.
Do these new regulations ā which come with costs that will be borne by all ā actually make people safer? Do they actually have an impact on the problem? Do they actually impact anybody? Are we going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to stop 1 person from buying 4 guns every 5 years, and run out of money to stop the thousands of people who buy tens of thousands of guns every month (or some other made-up set of numbers) ? Do these new regulations solve a significant problem, and not distract/prohibit us from solving other significant problems?
Plutonium regulations make people safer, but one side effect of those regulations is that they also make Harrison Fordās hobby (buying and operating vintage reactors) more expensive and complicated. Sometimes itās a necessary tradeoff.
I, for one, welcome new pillow regulations, since they will make everyone safer. Sometimes itās a necessary tradeoff. I really wish you would stop talking about fixing highways when there are unregulated pillows smothering people. This is a fact! Never mind the numbers.
[the below is not to Brainspore]
The scare information about āmentally illā is problematic ā under existing regulation, somebody who has suffered from (as in ānot currentlyā) post-partum depression can not get a gun permit.
Thatās hearsay, and I cannot find back a citation. But I am not comfortable with the mental-illness bogey-man. And given how pointless it would have been for stopping Sandy Hook (mentally ill person had his mom buy the guns) itās pointless.
We need a cultural shift.
However, as has been said before (and maybe even in here ā itās hard to see), new laws can be a sign of a cultural shift.
4 Likes
You can disagree as to whether you think carrying a gun would be effective.
What makes preparedness=cowardliness?
There is no 007 about it. Common people recognize this. It is the ācommon senseā that gun banners like to ignore when making all their other common sense statements. You donāt need to be a coward or operator to make use of effective tools.
Iām not telling you to be afraid, or to be anything. You are free to be you.
1 Like
I didnāt forget that, but I also must have forgotten, in your words, that, āā¦he does it all the time.ā āItā being shedding tears in front of an audience. Cite, please.
Further, that he has signed documents enabling the US military to kill/murder someone outside of the US is immaterial here. In making such decisions, heās presented with information supporting the use of deadly force, he makes that decision in his office and away from family members holding up images of their now-dead relatives, and at the very least he can (potentially) find some solace in whatever information supports his final decision. Theyāre not polar opposites, but the two situations are most definitely apples to oranges.
Everything is an opportunity cost.
So, we spend that random number on adding regulations to guns purchased as gun-shows.
Either we get more money to spend on other things, or we stop spending on other things.
EPA? Food Stamps? Highway Repair? FDA oversight of over-the-counter medications? Surely none of these would impact any childās life, right?
More kids are killed by swimming pools than by guns ā are you concerned enough to spend as much (or more ā remember, itās more kids) money regulating swimming pool shows as you are gun shows?
Ah, now weāve got to cut even more. Fetal heart monitors? Nobody needs thoseā¦
What if it doesnāt? What if youāre spending that money to make people take off their shoes and put their water bottles into a bin at the airport? Instead of spending it on other areas, like gun education, or crisis counselling, or urban de-stressing or some other thing I just made up?
1 Like
If it doesnāt ā and yes, I know this sounds mushy and bleeding-heart ā at least we tried something, however meager. If the alternative is to shrug shoulders and say āwelpā every time thereās another school shooting or loony with an assault rifle, or even better, to send prayers towards the victims, Iād rather we as a country spent some money towards trying to stop guns getting into the wrong hands and find ways to fix the issue. Iām sincerely hoping that closing some known loopholes is more effective than walking thru TSA security in my socks.
2 Likes
I was talking specifically about the quite reasonable aviation regulations that cover the purchase and operation of vintage aircraft, which is a āhobbyā at least somewhat analogous to collecting and using vintage firearms. As a few examples:
- Not everyone is allowed to fly a plane. If you want to do so you need to pass stringent training and licensing requirements and renew that license regularly.
- Not every plane is available for civilian ownership (Harrison Ford couldnāt buy a fully armed F-16, for example).
- Use of planes is highly regulated.
- Planes are generally subject to annual FAA inspections.
- Lots of paperwork is involved in selling or transferring ownership of an aircraft, even in a private sale between individuals.
And that doesnāt even begin to include the list of things you need to do if you want to actually fly the thing over public airspace.
All those rules are examples of how government regulations make someoneās hobby more expensive and complicated. But responsible aviators follow the rules anyway, and pilot advocacy groups like AOPA generally support them because they know the alternative would impact public safety.
Once upon a time the NRA used to support similar rules to promote gun safety. In 1934 NRA President Karl Frederick testified before congress: āI have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ā¦ I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.ā
Unfortunately over the last couple of generations the NRA morphed from a group that advocated gun safety to one that advocates unrestricted gun rights, even at the expense of safety.
6 Likes
