Yes, I do think there is a fundamental difference between people who argue “this human refugee is too dangerous to allow into our country even though they’ve successfully passed extensive background checks” and “this weapon is too dangerous to allow into the hands of anyone who hasn’t passed an extensive background check.”
12 Likes
Mostly politicians are useless self-serving shits, but they had one great moment when Australia introduced strict gun control laws weapons after the Port Arthur Massacre.
1 Like
IKR? And God bless you! with an exclamation point.
Toodle-pip.
3 Likes
I thought we were going to refer to these guys as “some asshole” from now on.
6 Likes
16 Likes
19 Likes
Yes, that William Gibson.
10 Likes
1 Like
16 Likes
10 Likes
Yep, that’s about 90% of that other, much longer bbs thread.
Even anti-gun dudes usually devolve to “boys and their toys.”
13 Likes
Myself included, on occasion.
2 Likes
Holy groupthink, do you even hear yourself? I’m not a Republican, and I’m against gun “control”. There are plenty of liberals who are “for guns”.
There will never be consensus on this issue if attitudes like this persist.
Edit: groupthink, or just false dichotomy? I’m a bit tired.
3 Likes
Makes me wonder if he had been given a cancer diagnosis and decided to finish it quickly.
I wonder if he has had that conversation with Neal Stephenson?
How long, I wonder, until a person aggrieved by the death of someone in one of these mass shootings does the same thing to a congregation of politicians?
It’s an awful thought. But violence trends to outcomes.
And then, how long until gun laws are enacted?
10 Likes
Motivations have been mixed, but there have been quite a few shootings of US politicians over the last decade. Some quite recent.
Thankfully, most people realise that shooting politicians is not the answer. The problem is bigger than just dodgy Congressfolk.
1 Like
9 Likes
9 Likes
