cite?

If I had to choose between a Thanos-style snap that got rid of all booze and cigarettes or all the guns, I'm taking the former in a heartbeat, and I don't own a gun.


This is just wrong. We have all sorts of useful gun control laws in place, but utterly fail at enforcement of those laws. Adding more on top is like adding another 15 pounds to the 5 pound paperweight on your desk. If your **** is blowing around, it's not because of the insufficient mass, you're clearly just not using it correctly or at all.

Please enlighten us as to how the "useful gun control laws in place" would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting.

No cite but I feel pretty confident that if people had to lose guns or booze thanos style it would be bye bye guns but I could be wrong.

A world with guns but not booze sounds awful tbh

Then you're insane.

i mean dinoboy probably is insane but what you quoted just makes him a loser, that's all

guy is literally incapable of having fun or friends

You're just not thinking rationally. Guns are inherently violent by design, but they can't hold a candle to the destructive reality of alcohol.

I'd wager that nearly everyone reading this post knows someone in their personal life who has had something terrible happen to them or done something terrible to someone else due to the influence of alcohol. I doubt everyone has been personally touched by the casual ownership of firearms gone wrong.

Choose any year for which stats are available, and you'll find there were more drunk-driving deaths than gun homicides. How many successful suicides started the process with a few drinks to work up the courage? How many dead or battered spouses at the hands of a drunk? Lives, careers, or young potential ruined by one stupid mistake while their judgment was impaired?

At the end of the day I'm cool with snapping all the guns away, too, but as a mutually exclusive choice, it's not even close. Keep the guns, ditch the drug. Though, I've never been intoxicated, so maybe it's just that great and that's why you think the upside outweighs the enormous down.

The reason I have an issue with stupid takes about gun control is because it's not actually about the gun violence. It's always an emotional reaction to an outlier horrific event by someone who fancies themselves as enlightened. In the next breath they'll say how horrible it is that our prisons are filled with people who landed there just because they sold some drugs for a guy who wouldn't hesitate to murder the competition. I hear those gunshots every week. Spouting off about making it more inconvenient for law-abiding citizens to own guns just makes you look like a tool. They aren't the problem and never have been. Nothing this guy in California did would've been prevented by anything short of the non-existence of firearms in the US.

I think Inso is on tilt over the defeat of Scott Walker. Has to be extra frustrating that it was a total blowout, well outside the recount margin.

Your change of subject says more than that low-effort dig ever could, bud.

If you don't feel like changing subjects, how about answering this question?

The US must have an incredibly bad problem with drink driving. I've looked at the figures for the UK and 230 people died on the roads last year to people who were over the alcohol limit. And we're a nation who like our alcohol.

What do you want me to say? There are exceptions to everything.

We couldn't prevent Vegas for the same reason that no amount of well-meaning laws prevented the Oklahoma City bombing. Where there's a will, there's a way, and some people are just sick.

However, instead of focusing on one awful incident, why not turn your attention to the systemic problems that keep career criminals on the streets to murder far more than that every year? What happened in Vegas was ****ed up, but it was also the most deadly mass shooting in US history. It's a one-off. Bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't exactly high tech devices. Making it more inconvenient for him to obtain them means he is slightly annoyed at needing to order them from the internet or craft them himself, or he goes without and only kills 47 people in stead of 58. Or maybe you mean we should ban the "scary-looking" guns. That just sees the existing ones grandfathered in and there will be a new standard as manufacturers adapt to comply. In the specific case of the Las Vegas incident, that also happened in a state with relatively lax gun laws compared to the rest of the country. So what, you're going to step all over state's rights to save those 58 lives? Where do you draw the line on other well-meaning initiatives?

I know you just want to plop down your horrific event on the stage and drop the mic, but life isn't that simple.

There are other factors in play when comparing the US to the UK, but the stat is legit. Good for the UK, however.

Nothing we can do to stop this, says man in the only country where this regularly happens

It's been happening regularly in Canada. The alarming thing is we've gotten conditioned to calling it "regularly" when it's been happening weekly/biweekly rather than yearly/biyearly.

15 Republicans with A ratings from the NRA were just replaced with Dems with F ratings. Staring to wonder if the gun lobby has been a paper tiger all this time.

A lot to unpack here, but for starters, it's not a "one-off" or "one awful incident"; gun violence is a systemic problem. And if our existing gun laws would not have stopped the worst mass shooting in US history, maybe we should do something about that.

Also, regarding the "systemic problems that keep career criminals on the streets", what problems are you referring to?

And I don't care about "scary-looking guns", I care about their function.

Inso, still triggered by the blowout defeat of Scott Walker, thinks that there's nothing that we can do to stop this because Americans - creators of the greatest country in the world - are just inherently more violent and mentally disturbed than people in the rest of the world.

I know there are more than 3 sentences in most of my posts above and you're always champing at the bit to LOL INSO but I said it multiple times: the only answer is voluntary surrender and mass confiscation from those who don't. Push for that instead of whining about magazine sizes like it'll make a meaningful difference.

I do. In the interim, let's also push for smaller magazines and a bump stock ban so as to perhaps not limit the number of mass shootings but at least their severities. Let's also tax the **** out of ammo, set a hard time for cap on the amount of ammo one is allowed to own, ban semiautomatic rifles, no, make that semiautomatic weapons, and I am open to other ideas.

I have one. How about change the definition of responsible gun owner from non-murderer to actually responsible? I know a notary who told me she is liable for any fraud committed with her stamp. She has to keep it under lock and key and will pay damages personally if it gets stolen and used. Meanwhile, a responsible gun owner I argued with in another forum has had pistols stolen out of his truck TWICE.

You lost me

Ay yo, what if we just stopped letting any random dickhead in this country have access to military-grade firearms?

Quick wiki search has 4 shootings killing more than 1 person for a total of 17 dead since start of 2016. Closer to the yearly number I guess.

2A bro

here's one how about BAN GUNS. **** the interim, BAN GUNS

i mean the fact that people feel compelled to get into the detail about what qualifies as semi-automatic and bump stocks and all that **** is insane. oventoast window. BAN GUNS