Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

United States Gun Control Megathread

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Ouch ^^


Though to be fair, while overconfidence was one of the reason we lost they were number of other factors, prime reason being that nobody (among the top brass at least) had seen the movement warfare coming (or didn't though hard enough about how to do it properly) , British and American only being safe thanks to large body of waters in the path and Russia being saved by it's strategical depth and it's weather once again.


Your stance on this is also kind of weird, considering the Yanks had to airdrop you a loaner 2nd Amendment the last time a tyrant took over France.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 985
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas return to class after spring break next week, they'll be required to carry clear backpacks. The move is meant to ramp up security measures after last mon

We may (very soon) get Constitutional carry in Kentucky. Keeping my fingers crossed.   ETA- IT PASSED.  Kentucky has Constitutional carry.   60 "yes" , while 37 found freedom "scar

Pictured, the Union being awesome:

5 hours ago, Alzoc said:


Obviously we have the right to defend ourselves, we simply don't want for everybody and his mother to carry lethal tools around all the time.

If you can't carry a gun, you don't have the right or ability to defend yourself. Guns make people equal, without them only the strong can defend themselves. How is an elderly person or some little 5'0" 100 lb woman supposed to defend themselves from an attack without a gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sturgeon said:


Your stance on this is also kind of weird, considering the Yanks had to airdrop you a loaner 2nd Amendment the last time a tyrant took over France.


And we are thankful for it.

But IMO armed resistance didn't helped much, in the sense that even if it didn't existed, the allies would have liberated the country on more or less the same schedule.

Armed resistance didn't drained much military resources from the German.


I think that the true added value of resistance movement was in providing intelligence and punctual sabotage actions prior to major operations.


Providing intelligence and delaying enemy re enforcement by targeting enemy communication network, roads, railways.

Those thing may have saved the lives of a number of allied soldiers (But how to quantify it?).


Finally there is also the moral value of resisting fascism and not accept it, which is at least as important than the military gains if not more.

For example hiding Jews or allied pilots, running an opposition press clandestinely or any kind of political opposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If National Review is to be believed (and that is a big IF considering how fail that publication has been for the past two years) the Parkland shooter only used 10 round magazines, and not "high" capacity 30 round mags (or higher).




And there is chatter that the weapon used in the shooting jammed (didn't he use a Smith&Wesson m&p-15 sport?)


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Your language is regulated, pour l'amour de la baise!






Yeah basically we have regulations on everything^^

We are an extremely jacobinist country:


In France, Jacobin now generally indicates a supporter of a centralized republican state and strong central government powers[3] and/or supporters of extensive government intervention to transform society.


Just for the fun of it here are the official journals (where all of the various new applicable regulations, laws, decree and official reports are published) for the past few days:


02/03 (today)





Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Donward said:

If National Review is to be believed (and that is a big IF considering how fail that publication has been for the past two years) the Parkland shooter only used 10 round magazines, and not "high" capacity 30 round mags (or higher).




And there is chatter that the weapon used in the shooting jammed (didn't he use a Smith&Wesson m&p-15 sport?)




The author is cute, but she can't write worth a damn.


Either way, it's irrelevant to write about what magazines he used. If he didn't use magazines larger than 10 rounds, they left will still claim that we need to ban "high capacity" magazines because "the carnage could have been much worse" is he had, so they have to go. I would say that the only way to make these people happy is to outright ban all guns, but we know that their world view doesn't allow for happiness. It's hard to be when you can only see the what you consider to be problems in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:




They'll just kill it and slap up another, til they get the numbers they want.

They (and a few other groups) have done this already. Put up a poll, then vanish it when it does not produce the numbers they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big disconnect that I've been noticing lately. 


Many of my liberal-leaning friends are up in arms (hehe) about how "Conservatives want to arm teachers!"


This is shouted from rooftops and into keyboards, and the thought is that to deter school shootings, we would be giving teachers guns. That's the idea and that's all these people think of. 


When I or anyone else have attempted to correct the statement, clarifying that it would simply be allowing those individuals with concealed carry permits to carry with them at school just like they would anywhere else, it is usually met with disbelief or another argument. 


And then they go back to thinking that we are forcing people to do something against their will. 


It kind of reveals an interesting thought process for these individuals. They cannot fathom that someone would willingly carry a gun. And that they only think and see in terms of forcing people to do things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Misunderstood an earlier comment re: arming teachers.....On a voluntary basis it seems sensible to allowed concealed carry, assuming the teacher in question is certified capable of handling their weapon in a high stress environment.


Still think you need a more rugged plan though, this is a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An oldie but a goodie from the late @Hognose, regarding the "success" that is Australia's gun control program:



"Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since [the 1996 ban and confiscation].


"Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five years.

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.


"Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners."


As Hognose points out:


"Australia is a nation with no land borders anywhere, and no significant domestic firearms industry. If gun control was going to work anywhere, it would work here."


I see this trend a lot:


"Why hasn't gun control worked in Chicago?"


"Because criminals get their guns from elsewhere in Illinois!"


"Why hasn't gun control worked in New York?"


"Because criminals get their guns from other states!"


"Why hasn't gun control worked in the UK?"


"Because criminals get their guns from other countries!"


"Why hasn't gun control worked in Australia?"


"Because criminals get their guns from Asia!"


"So gun control doesn't really work, then?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

A laugh-a-minute take on guns from the other side. Here's an excerpt:




One thought that occurred to me yesterday is this: A majority of American citizens have been asking, demanding, begging for improvements to our gun safety laws for a long time. The asks have been reasonable and accommodating. The asks have been small changes and simple fixes — like closing the gun show loopholes, or universal background checks. That same majority of Americans who want better gun regulations have listened to opposing views and acknowledged how unique and important our constitutional amendments are. But still, despite the patience, and small asks, and focus on common sense, and wide bi-partisan support for change, no action has been taken.

Have people reached the point where the majority of Americans are no longer willing to be accommodating about this? Are people feeling like: Hey, we tried to do this in small ways that wouldn’t freak you out, but you wouldn’t compromise even an inch. And now we’re done talking about small ways. We want all guns gone. Our patience is officially exhausted. You had your chance, but you weren’t willing to work with us, and now you’re going to lose your gun privileges.

I don’t know if that’s really how people are feeling right now, but if it is, I get it. And like I said, I’ve been seeing lots of comments similar to yours in the last few days.



Gee whiz, lady, maybe the reason gun owners don't want to deal with you is because you treat them like insubordinate children and their rights like that trip to Disney World you promised them if they'd be good.


Another thing I find funny about this is that "Design Mom" (I'm sure she knows a lot about crime and firearms regulations!) claims that the "majority of Americans want better gun regulations" - by which she later explicitly outlines as "gun control". To which I respond: Really? Where? I could buy that most people in the Bay Area and in the Devil's Triangle will blindly support anything their corrupt oligarchs want them to, but in the rest of the country - you know, the part of the country that would be subject to these "better gun regulations" that the bluest areas already have - do they support these measures? An honest take suggests the answer is not "no" but "hell no".


But of course "Design Mom" doesn't know any of these tens of millions of people, because, as she says, "My social feeds were absolutely overflowing with calls for outright gun bans." I wonder if she ever thinks why that might be. Why is it that all of her friends think exactly the same way she does? I wonder if she's ever unfriended someone because they didn't have the "right views".



And the biggest shock is that the calls were coming from lifelong gun-rights supporters.


Wait, how can someone be a lifelong gun rights supporter and, currently, while they are alive, call for a total gun ban? You know, I've worked in the firearms industry my whole life - I've met THOUSANDS of true blue lifelong gun rights supporters, I've walked the halls of the SHOT Show, the wastelands of Wyoming, the streets of Dallas, and the swamps of Southern Maryland, and I've likewise had thousands of conversations with these people, and I have never, ever, not once in my whole life met one of these mythical people that anti-gunners describe. Nobody, who has spent their whole life supporting the NRA, buying, owning, and using guns, and proselytizing about the Second Amendment, has ever told me they thought it was time for a total gun ban. I have, however, met loads of people who grew up hillbilly, fired a shotgun once when they were fourteen, and then converted to being anti-gun when subjected to Leftist Conversion Therapy in college. Maybe those are the people she means. In support of this theory, I want to point out this particular bit:




I was honestly a bit stunned at the bold demands and am so curious to know if you were seeing the same thing. I’m becoming convinced some sort of tipping point has been reached on the gun situation in our country. This is a quote I read from a friend in Michigan. He’s a middle-aged white man; a lawyer who I’ve always known to be pro-gun rights, and who lives in a county where there are a lot of hunters, so he’s surrounded by gun-owning friends, co-workers and family members:

“Until now, we were never coming for your guns. Those of us who have no real interest in guns simply wanted commonsense regulations. But now, we are coming for your guns. And we’re going to use our vote to take them.”



So in other words, this guy isn't really pro-gun, he just lives in rural Pennsylvania or wherever. See what I mean?



You want a full ban on guns? That’s impossible. It could never happen here.

I have never thought it was possible either. Do you remember the 90’s? At that time, no one could imagine we would have openly gay teachers in our schools. Or that gay marriage would be legal. People predicted it would take several generations for anything like that to happen. But that wasn’t the case (thankfully!).

So many times, the things we thought could never happen did. If gun advocates continue to respond to these tragedies with the answer, “do nothing,” then I would not be surprised if in a very short time, guns are seen differently than they are today, and making them all illegal becomes a possibility. The NRA is strong, but even the NRA can not spin these massacres and buy-off enough politicians, when we’re dealing with an endless pile of dead children.

People think guns will never be taken away. But there is a tipping point and I think we’ve reached it. The time for half measures is long gone. And now guns will be banned.


I don't think she really groks what we mean when we say it's impossible, because I doubt she's familiar with the numbers: There are over 300 million guns in the US - that number comes from a 2009 study. Since then, at least 100 million guns have been added, according to ATF records. Both of those numbers are likely highly conservative. So, this total ban on guns, it would need to confiscate, what? 400-600 million firearms from US citizens, many - if not most - of whom are willing to fight the government to protect their rights. Even if most lie down and show their bellies, what about those that don't? Will the massive, unprecedented civil unrest that will almost certainly result in the deaths of hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of people (in the worst case) - including children - be worth it?


The problem with the comparison to gay rights is that it hardly affected anyone. Nobody really had skin in the game. Only the religious far right thought it was unacceptable, and, frankly, they didn't care very much either. The reason a gun ban will never happen is because it would beget the biggest period of civil unrest in the US since the Civil War. 



Making heroin and meth illegal hasn’t worked, why would it work with guns?

That feels like a silly talking point. Are guns addictive? Can high-speed, high capacity assault rifles be grown in backyards and fields like drugs? With no high level machining, manufacturing knowledge, and capital?


I just wanted to emphasize those last two sentences. The answer is "yes, fully automatic weapons can be made in a closet with a drill press and some scrap metal." This answer would not have taken Design Mom very long to find had she bothered to google that very question.



Comparing guns and drugs doesn’t work. It seems like this kind of “logic” is why gun owners have lost the high ground. We know that guns can be eradicated, because it’s been done before. Many countries have drastically reduced the amount of guns in the possession of both citizens and criminals, bringing death rates from gun violence to almost nothing.


Here is a homemade silenced machine gun that was confiscated in Australia:




Perhaps the reason this woman does not think these arguments are logical is because she has no bloody idea what she's talking about.




But it would take strict laws and time. Perhaps five to ten years. And then we would rarely if ever see piles of dead kids. So for me, even though I’ve always been pro-gun rights, I would support a full ban at this point. Personally, I believe it is actually inevitable.

It’s a question of time and a few more thousand children being killed, because gun owners refuse to step up and do the simplest things.



I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that countries with fewer guns experience fewer shootings. That's well-supported by data. But these countries aren't necessarily less violent, and this logical pathway between "fewer guns" and "fewer deaths" distracts from the real question: If there are 600,000,000 guns in the United States, what happens to them after they get banned? Because at best, the Australian government was only able to confiscate a fifth of their subjects' guns, and the country has more guns now than they did before the ban. Australia has at least 600,000 illegal guns - almost 15 guns per incarcerated criminal, and more than 1.3 guns per crime committed per year. Demonstrably, those who want guns in Australia can get them. They will be sold to criminals and become part of a gigantic black market. The availability of guns won't go down, the availability of legal guns will. There are lots of countries with a high ratio of illegal guns to legal guns. I tell you what, I don't want to live in any of them.

To get all the guns, to stop all crime, to really deliver on your promises of a safer world, you'd need a central government that knows just about everything about everyone at all times. You'd need a gigantic bureaucracy whose job is to spy on, track, and attack if necessary all of its citizens. To the extent that we don't already have that, few Americans want it realized fully. Is Design Mom ready for her country to go full police state? What exact number of children saved would make it worth what comes next?


If there was a gun ban, only law-abiding citizens would obey. Criminals would hoard guns and ammunition.

I agree it will take some time to get the illegal guns out of play. But that is just a question of time. In the meantime, gun deaths will be drastically reduced. And only a national ban would have an impact in a country like this one, where everyone can travel anywhere.




I can't seriously address this. Her head isn't in the real world it's in some other place, where smuggling doesn't exist and criminals will willingly surrender their guns within "5-10 years" or so. Remember Australia? That country now has more illegal guns than it ever did. How could Design Mom's plan stand a chance in a country with 150-200 times as many guns?



Why would we deny the rights of 99% of law-abiding gun owners because 1% are bad guys? I am a responsible gun owner.

Is it the 1% who are the bad guys? Gun owners in this country refuse to allow, or fight for, even the simplest most obvious regulations. Just because someone doesn’t pull the trigger doesn’t make them blameless.


The power of "Design Mom Logic", ladies and gentlemen. So because gun owners disagree with you on policy, they are culpable in the death of children? I doubt this woman has ever in her miserable life reflected on how her own actions may have made people unwilling to deal with her. Why would any gun owner want to change their mind to a new view, when the person who holds it considers them culpable in crimes of murder which they had nothing to do with, just because of their opinion.


There's also a little bit of doublethink going on here. Design Mom says that loads of pro-gun people, she promises, are ready for a total gun ban - yet all gun owners refuse to allow for more regulations. So... Is this an admission that none of the "pro-gun" people she's talking about, y'know, actually own guns?




And I think we have to ask: What is a responsible gun owner? It’s a term gun owners like to throw around, but it’s ultimately meaningless. I wish we would define it and then legally make that definition the minimum.

Is the father of two who keeps a gun under the driver’s seat a responsible gun owner? Is the grandmother who sleeps with a gun under her pillow, and also gets unexpected visits from the grandkids from time to time, a responsible gun owner? If your guns are stored with the ammunition, are you a responsible gun owner? If their kids know the code to the gun safe, are they responsible gun owners? If he’s never had gun training is he a responsible gun owner? If your kid shoots a neighbor kid with your gun, then should you as the “responsible gun owner” go to jail? If your gun is stolen because you didn’t store it safely, are you as the “responsible gun owner” at fault for any crimes committed with the stolen gun?

It’s not useful to claim you’re a responsible gun owner unless that term is defined and people are required to conform to it.



She may be surprised to find that the largest gun safety education program in the United States is run by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which holds the SHOT Show every year in Las Vegas. Other gun safety programs are run by the NRA (which has one of the nation's largest), the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and Project Appleseed.

Meanwhile, it's likely that neither Design Mom nor any 5 of her closest friends have any idea what "Four Rules" means without googling it.



If small regulations haven’t passed, why would a full ban pass?

Good question. Gun owners have had their chance — over and over again for many, many years — to embrace simple regulations that would curb gun violence and protect our children. Instead they’ve elected officials — both democrats and republicans — who are bought by the NRA. Politicians like Trump who eliminate regulations designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

No one thinks mentally ill people and criminals should be able to have a gun. But right now, there is literally nothing in place to stop it because of the gun show and private sale loophole, and the lack of any resources to make the national database useful.

Instead of embracing real change, gun owners have proposed ridiculous ideas like minimum wage armed guards at every school entrance, and laws to force teachers to be armed. 

It is up to responsible gun owners to stand up to the NRA and get the most obvious stuff accomplished. But they haven’t done it. Unless gun owners start taking solutions seriously then people like me are simply going to say fine, it’s over, no more guns. So while I have always supported the right to own guns even though I have no interest in them, my support is hereby withdrawn.

The time for half measures has passed. A full ban is inevitable. There are other ways to interpret the second amendment. It can be argued that activist courts tortured the plain ‘militia’ language of the amendment into some basic human right. That interpretation could be trumped by a constitutional amendment banning guns.


Catch that? While she was getting the reader riled up about how victory is inevitable, she avoided actually answering the question. Because it's a great question, and there is no answer except "it wouldn't".


Also, do note she repeats that bit of idiocy about gun owners wanting to pass laws to "force teachers to be armed." @Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect.



You keep talking about simple regulations. Like what? What are you talking about? What laws would prevent gun violence?

No solution will be perfect, and one idea does not necessarily preclude another. We can try many different things. Here are 12 smart regulations I’ve seen suggested. None have been taken seriously or advocated for by gun owners. (There are dozens and dozens more on this thread.)


Oh boy, I can't wait to see what tired and failed ideas she trots out! Let's get into it!



– A true national background check for all gun sales with a fully funded complete database.


Actually, most gun owners do advocate for reform of the background check system, which desperately needs it (as both Sutherland Springs and Parkland prove). Few want private sales to require a background check, but the vast majority want the ability to access NICS (does Design Mom know what NICS is? I've got money on "not") to run background checks for private sales if they so desire. The problem most have is that private sales to prohibited persons, as well as straw purchases (someone who is not prohibited who buys a gun for someone who is) are already illegal, so making private sales illegal would do exactly diddly squat.



– Defining what responsible gun ownership looks like. Are there mandates there?


Maybe you should actually ask the big bad NRA about that? But you won't, because you've already sorted everyone into "Good People", and "Bad People", and anyone who actually knows anything about safe gun use is Bad by default.



– Making gun owners responsible for whatever happens with their gun.


I agree, so long as that is extended to every other item in existence. It'll have a one year sunset. I bet you $10,000,000 it won't get renewed!



– Making high-capacity weapons illegal.


We tried that from 1994-2004, it did nothing. Here's a hint: On what date did the Columbine massacre occur?



– Requiring a mandatory 2-month waiting period.


Wouldn't have stopped Parkland, Sutherland, Las Vegas, Columbine, nor any other premeditated mass shooting.



– Requiring fire arm insurance.


Wow, firearms insurance will save the children. That is a new one.

Design Mom seems to be unaware that this is required already in most rental agreements, anyway.



– Requiring firearm registration.


Here it is! Finally, the only real regulation that we can meaningfully discuss with any more than a zippy one-liner. But since Andrew Tuohy already pretty much covered it, I'll direct us to him.


Andrew points out that the purpose of registration is confiscation, which most gun control people pinkie swear isn't the point, but at least Design Mom is pretty honest about it.



– Requiring annual mental health checkups for gun owners.

So that if their girlfriend breaks up with them, we can take their guns!


This is probably a new concept to Design Mom, but that's not how we treat Constitutional Rights in this country. Does she want it to become how?



– Banning bump stocks.


Lots of gun owners are open to this - so how are you going to incentivize them to come to the table? Would you, say, offer them something in exchange that both you and they can agree is a sensible reform (such as a law enforcement reform bill)? Or would you even offer them something you don't quite agree with but that they really want (such as removing SBRs from the NFA registry)?

No? Then who's really unwilling to compromise here?



– A lifetime ban from any gun ownership for domestic violence convictions (which funding to enforce). If you are being investigated for any domestic violence crime you lose all guns until it has been settled.


See this is why gun owners get a bit frustrated with gun control advocates. Even a second of googling would have revealed to her that not only are domestic abusers already banned from owning guns. The problem with the second bit is that it compromises due process - and since the US judicial system is based on precedent, do we really want to go there?



– Allow the CDC to study firearms as a matter of public health.


No law is preventing the CDC from doing so - it's just been defunded in that regard and it's scared to. Having said that, I am quite sure that you could come to an amicable compromise with the vast majority of gun owners on this issue. Gun owners aren't really worried about studying firearms, most welcome it. But when it comes to gun control, "compromises" never involve any real bargain - it's just "give us what we want, or else". No wonder gun owners won't deal with you on even the simplest things.



Gun owners need to step up and more vigorously support the debate and the solutions. Gun owners are in the best position to separate themselves from the NRA baloney. And should be leading the front line of solutions, rather than repeating the old clichés and baseless statistics.

Gun owners, after all, have the most to lose — excepting victims, all the families of those killed, and the communities trampled by these events of course.


Gee maybe the reason gun owners don't want to talk to you is because you treat them like spoiled children instead of fellow citizens, say they are culpable for the deaths of children, imply they are irresponsible with their guns, say they should be subject to yearly mental health evaluations, are unwilling to trade for anything, and, perhaps worst of all, know absofuckinglutely nothing about the subject at hand.



More laws won’t work. There are already gun laws.

Where are you going with this? I mean, since laws are totally ineffective, we might as well pass one, right?


Design Mom Logic™



The reality is there are no meaningful gun laws. It’s a charade. There are no meaningful background checks. You don’t have to have any background checks to buy from private sellers or from gun shows. The loopholes completely undermine the gun laws that exist. There is no funding to keep the databases complete. There is no process which allows checks to occur.

That’s all on gun owners. There is no such thing as a responsible gun owner, because it is undefined. And there are no laws mandating it.

Actually, the state of the NICS system is all on the government. Specifically in these last few cases, the Broward Country PD, the FBI, and the US Air Force.



The NRA and gun manufacturers would never let a ban happen.

Surely you can see the NRA is the worst advocate of gun owners. These kids who are seeing their classmates being slaughtered are going to grow up and vote and push much, much stronger gun laws than the modest changes that have been suggested for years. Modest changes which the NRA refuses to agree to in any way.


Yeah, why do you think that is? See it turns out, in the NRA has a long history of working with gun control advocates, but then the Democrats threw all that goodwill away by giving nothing back, pushing the attack, and using underhanded tactics to get regulations passed. And consistently, every time the issue arises again, that side never tries to find common ground or make any kind of deal - they just trot out the same old regulations that don't work. Like you did. So now, gun control is radioactive to the NRA. Pat yourself on the back.



Gun manufacturers love these shootings. As does the NRA. They make tens of millions more every time massacres occur.


Incorrect. They love it every time a Democrat gets elected. Nobody loves these shootings.



The truth is no one was ever coming for your guns. But that is probably changing now that gun owners have offered up nothing but bullsh*t in the face of dead children. It’s just a question of time before voters (including many gun owners) do come for your guns. But you can believe otherwise. Support the NRA. Oppose all gun regulations of any kind. The more people defend the current framework, the quicker we get to the tipping point which I believe is coming (or has already arrived). And sooner than you think.





I have lots of friends who hunt.


I bet you can guess what the next word will be!



But I figure they lost their chance to be responsible, to define responsible and to regulate responsible. The NRA sold your rights down the drain with a lot of propaganda and fear mongering that any regulation was going to result in taking all the guns. You should have stepped up much earlier.


Now, the days of gun ownership are numbered. We are going to vote to take your guns. All of them. Gun owners just don’t know it yet because they are swimming in the cesspool of NRA bullsh*t.


I want to stop right here and do some critical reading. Look at the language she's using. The blame she's trying to paint on her own friends who hunt. Look at how imperious she's being. It's clear that she's not confident, she's sad, she's angry, she's tired of death and seeing terrible tragedies happen on the news. And she has no other outlet but to get on her little blog and pound out about how we are strong and we're coming for your guns - but it's all puff. It's all exhausted desperation. She wants to do something, anything, that will let her feel like she helped make it stop. She expresses it with the tyrannical fits of an angry toddler. But what she really needs to stare into the eyes of the beast and realize there is nothing, at least not in this way, that she can do.



And since gun owners and the NRA have literally no other solutions that don’t sound idiotic to normal people (like armed minimum wage security guards at every door at every school), then I have no sympathy for what is coming some day soon, and probably sooner than those in the NRA bubble expect.


I appreciate that the footmen of the Left have fully absorbed the narrative that "armed guards don't work!" Yeah, OK. Keep telling yourself that.



The NRA is not defending your gun rights. They are undermining them.


"Kneel or die". Yet she wields a rattle, not a sword.



Guns aren’t the problem. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

It is pure fantasy and utterly baseless to argue that the prevalence of ever-cheaper, ever-faster and more effective high capacity weapons don’t play a big role in the gun problem. Just like if we allowed flame-throwers and chemical weapons to be widely sold to the public for a relatively low price, we’d have more problems with burning and gassing killings. (Duh.)


I'm glad she brought this point up. I wonder, though, what would kill people if not guns? Nah, I'm sure it'll be fine.



But what about other bad/hard things happening in our country? Last year, we had more than 63,000 deaths from opioid overdoses in the U.S.. More people die from automobiles, alcohol, drugs, cancer, non gun violent crimes, etc.. I don’t see you trying to ban all of those.

I always love these circular arguments of “what about ..” This is exactly why I support a ban. Of course we can’t solve this when there is no logic or intellectual component to the debate. So there is only one possible solution: take all the guns. I’m pretty much done listening to endless excuses for “sh*t happens.”


That's... That's not what circular reasoning is. People are trying to establish how big of a problem these high profile rampage killings really are by measuring them against a different scale. You may not agree with it (I don't - not 100% anyway), but it really doesn't fit the definition of circular reasoning or even a fallacy. And, frankly, the last people to just shrug and say "shit happens" are the ones who carry a gun on their hip.



But what about a corrupt government? As soon as you remove guns, you remove every single protection we have from a corrupt government taking everything from us.

Sorry. Your gun isn’t big enough, even combined with all the other ones, to protect yourself from our military. Plus, it is a silly argument pushed by NRA bumper stickers. You have your vote. If you don’t like the way our democracy works, then that’s unfortunate. But rising up against the government, like is proposed by so many marginalized crack-pot militia groups and white supremacist groups, is an illusion. Of all the different really thoughtless arguments, this one always makes me laugh the hardest. And it’s time we stopped pretending it’s a legitimate argument.

Attempting to acknowledge “both sides” when one side has a crackpot argument is dangerous to our country.





It’s not guns. Our society is totally immoral. In the last twenty or so years a lot has changed. But guns have not. So the only variable that has changed is our culture and societal views/norms. We no longer value human life, there is violence in music and movies…

I’m old enough to remember when switchblade knives, zipguns and 6 shooters were the dangerous weapons of choice. Tools matter. And we’ve allowed ever-cheaper, ever-better, ever-faster, ever-higher capacity guns to be readily available.

It is a complete fiction to argue that “nothing has changed except society.” Actually, the widespread availability of cheap, effective, high speed, high capacity weapons mass marketed to the general public is a new thing since the mid-1980’s. Neither criminals nor the police had these high-capacity weapons readily available in the 1970’s-1980’s. And as you would expect, the rise of these mass shootings correlates with the mass marketing phenomena.

Meanwhile, society and culture has improved with dramatically less violence. Except for mass shootings, which are the direct result of mass marketing the tools for that type of crime.

Obviously, evil, hate, insanity and other bad things are factors too. Of course they are. But those things exist in every country inhabited by people. The variable is that we have quite recently (in the last 25-30 years) allowed a mass marketing of tools that essentially every other country has outlawed. We bear the consequences of that mass marketing decision.

And by the way our movies and music are all consumed voraciously in other countries that do not have mass shootings.





It's really, really not.



Guns have always been available. Machine guns have been available since before the 1950s. But mass shootings are increasing. That’s proof society is more evil now.

Every country with humans in it has anger, hate, evil and crazy people. The reason we have wildly higher levels of gun violence is our widespread gun culture and wide availability of assault weapons. Not because Americans are uniquely evil, angry, hateful or mentally ill. Those problems exist everywhere.

You’re being insincere if you argue that because machine guns “existed” by the first half of the 20th century that their “existence” is the same thing as “cheap and readily available to a mass market.”

Cheap, high speed, high capacity weaponry marketed to the general populace is a new thing in my lifetime,. Neither the police or general populace were carrying these types of weapons in the 1970’s and 1980’s; that trend really started in the 1990’s and took off thereafter.

The mass shooting trend in the U.S, absolutely tracks the trend of the mass marketing of these gun products.


If "assault weapons" are the reason we have higher levels of "gun violence" (no word on actual violence violence), then why are rifles (of all types) used in so few murders, despite being so much more lethal?



Let’s stop pretending that things are great and no changes are needed or possible! And that a separate “criminal or insane” class of people (who somehow don’t exist in other countries, for some reason) commit all these terrible crimes in the U.S.!


Lots of professional criminals exist. I would say, most criminals are professional criminals or will become professional criminals in the future. Ask your local police officer whether he recognizes the faces of the criminals he interacts with, or if it's a fresh face every time.



I think the day of gun owners saying nothing will completely fix the problems, so let’s simply allow the slaughter of our children, is over. We’re done listening to gun owners repeat bumper sticker slogans propagated by the NRA instead of demanding common sense action. 

My belief is that it is just a question of time before there are enough votes for a constitutional amendment eliminating guns. I think gun owners are too blind to see it coming.

We were not coming for your guns. But at this point many of us are. And we are going to take them with our votes.


This sort of babbling is definitely a sign that she's emotionally reaching out for any comfort. And I do understand, empathize, and feel the same way, I just wish her methods didn't involve word vomiting all over the Internet.



Maybe as a gun owner you can get your act together fast, ditch the NRA, and make all gun sales go through a background check, fully fund all government agencies to ensure the database is complete, enact laws which make gun owners 100% responsible for what happens with their gun, and other obvious things most gun owners support. But I think it’s too late for these smaller reforms.


100 years of compromises never got the anti-gun side to back off, so why should we expect it will now?



How would a gun ban even work?

As a lawyer, my take is there are at least two possible routes. Neither of them easy. Constitutional Amendment, or Court Ruling acknowledging that the word ‘militia’ is limiting and does not grant the broad rights now claimed.

I think the amendment is not as out of reach as many think, if enough pieces fall in place such as:

– Endless continued massacres — especially of children, when ‘do nothing’ is the only thing offered by the gun lobby, and gun owners don’t work to make those regulations that are supported by a majority of Americans happen.

– A reversal legislatively or otherwise of Citizens United, and legislation largely neutering all lobbyists such as the NRA, who buy off politicians of both parties.

– A backlash of bumper sticker level response to all American’s problems, and movement towards a ‘we can’ from current ‘do nothing’ approach to policy.

– The inevitable pendulum swing.

– The continued technological advances in security and crime prevention.

– A big bang event.

It’s amazing to look at the absolutely unbelievable things that have happened in the last 20 years, things no one could have predicted or expected. Civil rights. Gay rights. New technology. A black president. Innovation. The thought that giving things away for free would somehow become the function of much of capitalism (as occurred and continues to occur on the internet, including on this blog), would have seemed stupid and socialistic.

I think people assume that guns are here to stay forever. And they will wake up one day and freak out and wonder what happened.


Again, no actual nuts and bolts here. Just "I feel that this will happen and it will totally work out". Nothing about how to get support for a Constitutional Amendment, nothing about how to claim the judicial branch, nothing about how to confiscate 400-600 million guns. Just feels.



What happened is gun owners failed to take any responsibility for safety and reason. Instead, they wrapped themselves in stupid slogans and a ‘do nothing’ approach. Once you start slaughtering what will eventually be thousands of kids, which is inevitable given the current lack of any reasonable regulations over guns, rational people realize that the impossible is indeed likely.


I can't off the top of my head think of a clearer example of scapegoating than what she's doing here. She doesn't even really know any gun owners (indeed she has probably curated her circle to that end), so she doesn't have a clue what gun owners will or will not take responsibility for. But she's right that gun owners are unwilling to take the responsibility that she wants them to - considering she wants to hold them culpable for literally all gun crime in the US.



I could be wrong. But I predict America will simply remove guns from society like so many other civilized countries have successfully done. And gun owners will have no one to blame but themselves. They have followed the NRA right off the cliff.

Here’s the thing. Those of us without a horse in the race are pretty fed up with the weak excuses against the most basic regulations. And we are growing in number. And we know one solution that will absolutely reduce gun violence: A complete gun ban.

So if gun owners can’t come up with something, and they continue to legitimize the NRA, then don’t be surprised when the right to bear arms is lost all together. Stranger things have happened in my lifetime, and yours.


Well, you're growing from "politically insignificant" to "temporarily loud". The NRA, meanwhile has maintained millions of members for decades now. So I doubt it's time for gun owners to break ranks, exactly.


After this very emotional, and not terribly well thought out or researched, diatribe, she ends on a classy note:



And those of us who don’t have any use for guns will have no sympathy when you lose them. (We’ll be sure to send thoughts and prayers.)


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, [gun owners] basically have had two options: slowly and incrementally give up our rights over the course of several decades, or give them all up at once. According to this fruit loop, we blew our chance at the first one, because we weren't willing to "compromise" (surrender) on "reasonable" (by the metrics of the zealots proposing them) gun "reforms" (registration, limitations, and ultimately confiscations). So now we have to capitulate to their ultimate goal, or else what?


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ulric said:

So, [gun owners] basically have had two options: slowly and incrementally give up our rights over the course of several decades, or give them all up at once. According to this fruit loop, we blew our chance at the first one, because we weren't willing to "compromise" (surrender) on "reasonable" (by the metrics of the zealots proposing them) gun "reforms" (registration, limitations, and ultimately confiscations). So now we have to capitulate to their ultimate goal, or else what?


My firearms will never become "Illegal". They'll simply be "Undocumented"..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...