What is your source on this?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

So now the problem is that librulz don't want to take your guns?

What is the liberal's fault?

Gun violence and mass shootings are the fault of the people who commit them.

"Gun control" is a buzzword being used by liberals after notorious incidents, but I'm just saying that we already have plenty of gun control laws. What they actually seem to want is no more guns. Well, say that. Don't dance around the issue. Have THAT discussion instead of blaming the "lack of gun control" which clearly means very different things to different people.

Obviously the right wingers want all the guns all the time and to fight against mass shooters by shooting them first. Gun control in the mind of those people means jumping through more hoops or having to order the gun they really want off some website instead of buying it at Walmart.

I think by now it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that the lefties want no guns, period. But they seem unwilling to put that notion out there for wide public debate, probably because they know it's a non-starter in MURICA.

So we continue to sit here talking about nothing, and just using these incidents to fling feces at each other because Red team vs Blue team is the prism through which we now view every issue in life. Super standard.

Having fun yet?

Nope. I understand the need to, on one hand, treat gun violence as some intractable problem that nothing can solve and on the other think that only the most craziest and obscene solutions are the only way because the more extreme the less likely they are to be implemented. That's the premise behind McConnell's "there's no way to full proof prevent tragedies like this" because the insulation is that either nothing can be done so something so crazy has to be done as to be impossible.

But of course empirically this isn't the case. There are measures that can be put into place that will make gun violence go down, that will save thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives, and a boat load of children while letting people hunt or protect against tyranny, etc.

I want no more semi autos. Melt em.

Inso,

Legislating the number of rounds a gun can have and how quickly you can fire the gun would cut down the number of people killed in some, but not all, of these spree shootings. And it would barely affect most gun users. Waiting periods and background checks would prevent some impulse shootings (suicides - murder/suicides) and it would barely affect most gun users.

What's your problem with any of that?

You're ****ign killing me, Smalls! Spit it out then.

What, exactly, are you suggesting that will make gun violence go down, save hundreds of thousands of lives, and still let people keep their guns?

Anything you offer in response is going to probably be the most specific example I've ever seen, so I'm genuinely curious.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ould-help.html

The point of me posting the article is that there is literally over a dozen ideas for reducing gun violence. That article is just about reducing mass gun violence, a small portion of overall gun violence. There's even more ideas out there like having to have a positive reason to own a gun for purchase like Japan does. Requiring all guns be kept in a safe at all times unless hunting or for immediate home security, etc. The point is there's been a lot of literature that's been specific on what to do. The only reason there's been a kind of lack of specificity isn't because no one's afraid to say anything, but, if anything, it's because there's too many options too choose from.

There's also the problem of lax enforcement or purposefully making laws difficult to enforce. I posted in the gun thread a long time ago that Congress had mandated that the gun registry can't be computerized so when a gun is used they have to go hunt down microfiche to try and trace the sale of the gun. It's painstaking and time consuming, and affects law and order, all for the sake of sanctifying the commercial access to an item. That could be computerized, etc. There's lots and lots of things that could be done to improve the system.

LOL it's peak inso

Its pretty standard conservative "thought" actually. Liberals claim to be good, whereas conservatives are pretty open about being scumbags, therefore liberals are burdened with solving every problem no matter how hard conservatives fight their efforts to do so.

I have no problem with the first one on its face.

I wasn't aware that waiting periods weren't already standard, and I'd also be fully on board with implementing one for retail sales. I thought there was already a 3 day waiting period for purchasing a gun, but a search turned up that wasn't true.

Artificial limits on what a stock rifle is capable of will probably wind up being just that, though. Less fun for the hobbyist, but trivial to overcome by anyone bent on destruction.

It is so bizzare watching a bunch of Americans debate gun control as if they need to reinvent the wheel. It's been done EVERYWHERE else. It's not hard.

For things on the right side of that list, I'll give the Inso0 seal of right-wing approval for:

Reporting lost or stolen guns
Expanding mental health treatment
Universal checks
No sales to terrorists
Centralized record of gun sales ()
3 day waiting period
Bar sales to convicted stalkers
Bar sales to violent criminals
Require gun license
Universal checks for ammo buyers
Automatic weapons ban

Personally fine with it, but sounds stupid or fail to see how it can be enforced:
Bar sales to mentally ill
Ammo purchase limit
High-capacity magazine ban


lolno:
Semi-auto ban (Bolt-action or muzzle loaders only? wtf)
Demonstrate a need for a gun



Seems were mostly on the same page. Where do I buy my Berniebro 2020 bumper sticker?

In fairness, America's love of guns and shooting bad guys probably contributed at least a little bit to whatever country you're from currently enjoying a swastika-free decorating motif.

MURICA is a different animal. John Wayne wouldn't let anyone take his gun, either.

People in other countries watch John Wayne movies you dolt.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Not even a little.

And the Soviets won WWII, not America.

I think you're confused.

Continuing the "we'll do anything, absolutely anything (except gun control) to prevent mass shootings" trend...

This week's answer: make sure the government can access your phone when they want. Privacy and the 4th amendment? Who cares!

In an article ostensibly about the gunman's mental health problems and other "failures of the system," 7 of 27 paragraphs touch on the pressing need to give up our electronic privacy to the government.

Texas church gunman once escaped from mental-health center

This dude literally escaped from a mental asylum lol.

Ponied

The Allies never win that war without the USSR soaking up German bullets from the East.

It was a combined effort. Shouldn't forget that we supplied the Russians a lot and beat the Japanese, but it did take a combined effort to beat Germany. USSR would have lost w/o the US.

But, the US never would have lost WW2, at least not unless the Germany stays allied to the USSR.

Meh, Soviets made the war faster. The atomic bomb was a joint effort on behalf of the entire world's scientists to stop Hitler which would have ended the war quickly. The Germans would have run out of oil and resources while fighting Britain eventually had they not attacked the USSR and the Brits would have been able to invade. The Germans had to attack Russia because they were so low on oil, Stalingrad was Hitler's meth addiction/narcissist mistake. Should have just gone after the oil fields. Russia had just come out with by far the best tank in the world at the time so even without Stalingrad they would have eventually been able to attack Germany from the East, just not as quickly.
Even if Russia did not exist and none of its resources, then Germany would probably have eventually succumbed to Britain in a war of attrition or eventually the atomic bomb.

Once Monty defeated Rommel in El Alamein the German's chances of winning the war were essentially 0 (no oil reserves), soon after the British had air superiority in Europe as well, + had cracked the German codes.

Conclusion: If Russia did not exist- Allies win a war that takes longer- have the atomic bomb.
If Russia and the atomic bomb does not exist- Allies still win a war that goes on for a number of years longer- no oil ( hypotheticals get weird because of Japan though)
If Russia/atomic bomb, and Germans have unlimited oil- can fight war all on one front- war takes super long time and technology determines the winner over the long term (strong advantage Allies- better scientists from around the world- many who escaped Germany or surrounding areas/ intelligent people hated the nazis + they gained significant advantages in tech (planes+ tanks) by that time)

To be fair, suing gun manufactures over gun violence when the guns are legal is kinda stupid. It's the government that should be on the hook for that ****.

Well, okay, good.

How is it outrageous on it's face? Are you just saying it offends you? People die all the time, if I pretend to care about every one of them I'm not going to have time for anything else.

I love how Inso0 is right here, but purely by accident.

To be fair, they're also partially your fault.

Yeah, we've got a lot of stupid mother ****ers standing in the way down here. See also: healthcare.

The gun manufacturers sponsor the NRA which in turn manipulates the government. Then again you shouldn't be able to sue someone for manipulating you.
Imagine what the current world would be like if tobacco companies were as well organized/ as devoid of morals as the firearm companies?

Inso will not understand this at all, though it is 100% correct and subsequently dismiss all your arguments as a result.