ICE NUT
The last i heard it's the liberals and women doing most of the gun buying us so called Magas and conservatives already have them.

MyWar

But the ideas expressed in this post are straight up bonkers.

DarDys

DeadGator401
It's wild at this point. Scumbags in KC had Assault Rifles. Literally hundreds of Armed police officers. "Good guys with guns will stop it!"

What we see here, anecdotal stores of "We took our hunting guns to school!" & "Everyone had guns back then!" 

Your hobbies aren't more important than children's lives. It's as simple as that. 

First off, if you want to be taken seriously in the least little bit by those who are pro gun, you simply cannot be completely wrong in your initial premise, because if you are, then your argument, no matter how good it might be, is dismissed out of hand because you don’t even know the basics.

“Scumbags in KC had assault rifles” is just straight up false. They did not. The had semi-auto rifles. If you frame your argument based on assault equals semi, that is akin to Mack Truck equals SmartCar. It is simply not true, in either case. By doing so, you are debating with emotions, but facts.

That aside,


Serious question — Did the law against juveniles buying ANY gun stop, because they cannot, the two involved in the KC shooting? If it did not, which, it did not, what new law would?

Porktown
Navalny’s wife says she is now going to lead the fight against Putin. How long until she is given the E Jean Caroll treatment then disappear? I wouldn’t doubt that Trump is offered sloppy seconds, while Vlad is balls deep in his mouth.

DarDys
So, I got the expected responses to a factual statement and a simple question — a personal attack; a cognitive bias stereotype; and a dismissal of a basic definition based on emotion. This is typical of people who say they want to have a conversation, but instead want to lecture, without factual basis, and when confronted with an argument that they have no persuasive counterpoints to, resort to these tactics.

My occupation has nothing to do with the subject at hand any more than a response of “your Momma, poopy head, or go back to slicing cold cuts because you are full of bologna,” yet that was a personal attack because of not being able to construct a sensible retort.

The NRA comment is a projection of media driven stereotyping often used by those that need to paint an entire demographic rather than address a specific discussion point, quite often because no valid counterpoint is to be had. For the record, I am not currently, never have been, nor ever will be a NRA member, namely because of their stance on actual assault rifles, not the lookalikes. I do realize that those types of firearms appeal to some, just not me (full disclosure I have never fired even a semi lookalike and have no intention to do so, let alone the real deal), but I see no reason for the general public to own fully automatic firearms. If they want to go through the arduous process to get the tax stamp, because that is what it is, a tax stamp, not a license or permit, and can pass the criteria, then bully for them.

Please post when someone holding this level of tax stamp is involved in a shooting because it will be the first time.

The third response, which at least had some semblance of having a debate point solution, was at once the best response and the worst response. It was the best response in the sense that it went beyond the superficial to actually propose something (debated later), but that was far outweighed by the worst part of the response which was dismissing out of hand settling on a basic definition under the logic of “I don’t care” followed by childish writing meant to demean the original statement.

If one truly wants to have a debate, discussion, conversation on any subject — gun control, immigration, fossil fuels, sports — that needs to start with defining the basic terms. When one party refuses to acknowledge a simple definition, then there can be no back and forth because it is a one way telling, not a fact based exchange.

But, to look at the proposal, it can be characterized as “feel good” legislation on one hand and “a solution looking for a problem” on the other.

To state the obvious, no juvenile can purchase a gun legally now, yet the KC shooting involved two juveniles. In other words, they broke the law already on the books, yet the answer is to put another similar law on the books so that maybe those intent on doing harm might follow the new law?

Adding mental health checks in order to buy a gun, the having those checks be reapplied on an annual or semi-annual basis falls on four fronts — 1) criminals won’t be lining up to see the mental health specialist; 2) there are approximately 83 million legal gun owners in the US making this logistically impossible; 3) several of the latest mass shootings were conducted by those that already had a negative mental health diagnosis, yet illegally acquired a gun, so ineffectual as well, and 4) opens the door to a complete nanny state control. As an example, if annual or bi-annual mental health checks would be required for gun ownership, based on the number of deaths in mass shooting (75 by 12/6 in 2023), then would it not be reasonable to require breathalyzer ignition interlocks on all vehicles in the US because there were over 13,000 drunk driving deaths in the same time period?

With regard to no-questions-asked gun buy backs, this has been around for years in several cities, so the data is available. Please post when one functional AR platform has been bought back and taken off the street because it will be the first time. Pro gun people will not sell their firearms to these programs because, aside from wanting to keep their guns, the programs pay nowhere near the value of the gun. Criminals will not sell their firearms to these programs because they are the tools if their trade — can’t rob, gang bang for territory, protect the drug money, or, as in KC, settle “a personal dispute” (that’s what the MSM called it).

What is turned in are broken, old, no longer wanted (often by someone related to a now deceased owner) guns that are not involved in any criminal activity. Because there is an actual track record for the cities that have engaged in these programs it is fairly easy to ascertain that they have been ineffective in reducing violent crime in said same cities.

To end, because I expect nothing in the way of counterpoints, just more of the usual retorts, I have no answer either other than to start with the component other than the inanimate object that can do nothing without the shooter. Use a gun in any crime, 50 years, no plea bargaining down to a lesser crime, no possibility of parole, second offense automatic life sentence. There has to be a human disincentive and not applying the 20,000 gun laws on the books already doesn’t accomplish that. Neither will a new one.

crappiefisher
 Any of you guys ever go to a Turkey shoot?