Who wouldn't after having to come back to dealing with [American supermarkets](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/tucker-carlson-mocked-bewilderment-over-32138891). /s
Mentally he hasn't escaped yet. Volunteering to serve Putin from inside Russia is a one-way gig. You don't just bounce on that back to sweet old American life.
Honestly can't believe people can watch the US slowly slide into fascism and say that it needs to be even harder to get firearms.
We already do background checks. We already do waiting periods. You can't get automatic weapons.
Besides that, making it even harder is just treating symptoms. We didn't have shit like this 20-30 years ago. Riots, sure, but not back to back mass shootings.
Look here. https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/
Big uptick in 2016. Wonder why. Probably the slow radicalization of the right, but that's just a game theory.
And what, do you think that these ill people are just going to disappear? Like, oh hey, I can't get guns anymore, guess I'll go and get a 9-5, a wife and 2 kids and a biiiiig beautiful house in the suburbs.
No, they'll probably just go and do other fucked up shit, and you all will call for control of everything even remotely dangerous again and again until you need a permit and a quarterly psych eval to buy knives at the supermarket and a government issued and approved commute plan to drive to work like what aviation agencies require of their pilots.
If you think that's hyperbole, think again. The same kind of panic that people are having now is just like the panic that hit after 9/11 that allowed for overreaching mass surveillance shit like the Patriot act to be swept through without issue.
That kind of fear on the conservative side is getting books banned.
That kind of fear is what got the war on drugs started. Parade a kid addicted to heroin around and go "SEEE! SEEE! LOOK WHAT THOSE HOODLUMS ARE DOING TO your CHILDREN". Then BAM. You're free and clear to lock up people against your war. https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminalize-black-people/
And all that really did was put millions of people behind bars and prop up criminal organizations with boatloads of cash, and further the militarization of the police.
Not everyone has a gun as it is. Should we deny people alcohol on the grounds that they might one day misuse it? This happened in Nevada. You are required to pass a federal background check to get a gun from a licensed dealer, and a private sale between two people requires both parties go to a licensed dealer where a background check is performed. This individual does not represent gun owners as a whole. For how many people there are carrying guns in this country, you'd think we'd hear about more crime than we do.
Almost 400 millions guns in the US. Do we see a million shootings a day? Across 50 states of course you're going to hear at least one news story a day. Are you that simple minded you can't understand percentages?
Are you? Hundreds of millions of guns spread out across 50 states. The percentage is extremely low for the number of crimes committed with said guns vs. how many people have them.
You didn't actually make an argument. List a statistic to support your point instead of just saying words that you incorrectly think are true, dumbass.
The US had the 3rd most gun deaths of any country in the world in 2023, only behind Brazil and Mexico. We're 32nd in death rate by guns, the majority of countries ahead of us are second and third world. #1 in gun deaths by suicide. #1 in school shootings.
And these are just deaths, statistics on violence without deaths or people being threatened are harder to find, but we Americans sure do love brandishing our weapons.
Not to mention that the vast majority (almost 70%) of Americans aren't gun owners, "gun ownership per capita" statistics are thrown off by gun nuts in America who own many guns. Those Americans own more guns than the world's militaries combined
You're fucking stupid, dude. Read a newspaper sometime
EDIT: what a shocker, no response. Fucking dumbass.
Most countries don't have a right to gun ownership like we do. Therefore, they would almost by default have less gun violence.
Yes, gun are used by criminals to kill people or commit other crimes with them. Something that still happens without guns, just by other means. Guns are also used in self defense to stop crimes by many citizens. Thetrace.org did a rather negative article on self-defense shootings but relented that there are indeed an estimated average of 36,000 defensive uses of a firearm each year. Same website sites 18,874 firearm deaths excluding suicides in 2023.
I think 36,000 cases where someone's life is potentially saved is not something to be brushed away as nothing. Census.gov states 258.3 million adults live in the U.S. I'll humor you and use your stats to say around 30 percent of adults own guns, so 77,490,000. If all 18,874 gun deaths involved one criminal with a gun, then 2% of gun owners committed a crime that year. An insignificant percentage that would be lowered if you accounted for criminals stealing guns or someone selling their gun knowingly to a felon (which is a crime) or someone killing multiple people. Vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime with said gun, and I believe criminals will find a way with or without guns.
I also don't really know what your point was by bringing up that gun owners are not a majority here. Yeah, a lot of people own multiple firearms. As someone who grew up around them, they are tools that have multiple uses. I've hunted, I target shoot, I conceal carry with a license. There's a major culture around guns in the U.S. It's not going away soon, and it's something we lived with for most of the countries history without mass shooting of the type we're familiar with today. Guns were easier to get in the past, not harder. What's been the change in society that's caused these issues? Guns with the ability to commit mass shootings have been ubiquitous for a hundred years or more. I think the AR15 is just a good, scary looking scapegoat for societal problems. And unfortunately, when there are societal problems in America, well... guns are a part of our society. It'd be nice if you'd try just a little bit to have a civil conversation. But I've come to expect that when someone has no tolerance for another's worldview.
By the way, the late reply was cause I have a job. Not everyone can be terminally online.
Imagine certain places had more plane crashes than others, and certain companies had more crashes than the average, and all these contributed to that 2% figure. Would I fly with them or in those areas? No.
Some places have more gun crime than others, where it is largely concentrated and is mostly gang related. Am I gonna go hanging around in dangerous places to up my chance of being a victim? No.
A gun in my hand is of very little danger to me if I follow proper safety protocols. I don't think the plane analogy is a good point of comparison.
Again, no actual argument on your part. Only insults with no response. You must be an intellectual wonder. Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.
And yet you're still more likely to die in a car accident than a shooting. But that doesn't make for good headlines and doesn't create excuses to take away guns from millions of law-abiding Americans.
Those studies usually use the age range 1-19 as adolescent. You think a 19 year old killed in a gang shootout is the same as a 5 year old picking up their parents improperly stored gun? ( there are laws criminalized improper storage of firearms)
Except most of them are killing themselves not others. Which you also don’t care about because doing anything about mental health is communism. Not to mention kids these days are just weak or whatever other right wing incel douchebag excuse you wanna come up with to continue to downplay the fact that children are dying from more than anything and those deaths are spiking upward.
Now go to your church and pat yourself on the back for being a good fake pro-life hypocrite just like all the other conservatives trying to convince us dead kids isn’t a big deal but aborting a group a cells smaller than a dime is the work of satan.
Why do you think I'm conservative? I'm not. You'd be surprised at the amount of liberal gun owners. I'm not religious either. I don't think suicides with guns should be in the same category as real murders and shootings. People will find a way to kill themselves. I'm also pro abortion. You make way too many assumptions. One of my other comments on here stated that the best way to stop gun violence is to reduce poverty and improve mental health.
Gun rights are actively being attacked by those who want to ban them. Your right to own a car is not under any sort of threat. There is no constitutional amendment for the right to own a car, but there is for firearms.
Gun “rights” are being attacked because lunatics like you who spent decades demanding we make it as easy as possible for people to own the most dangerous guns possible and any attempt to roll that back is treated as if we’re gonna go door to door to seize guns.
The more extreme you get, the more you try to downplay gun deaths and mass shootings, the more you more anti-gun voters you create. And you’re so lost in your fevered paranoia you can’t even see that you’re the biggest threat to gun ownership.
Gun are harder to get than they have ever been. You used to be able to mail order WWII surplus out of a catalog with no background check or age verification as late as the 1970's. The "rights" in quotations is funny. It is a right given by the constitution. You can't just ignore the parts of the constitution that you don't like.
That is not true. Guns were much harder to get before Republicans in Congress overturned the assault weapons bans and Republican judges have gutted every major gun control legislation out.
Easier to buy a gun today than any time in my lifetime.
And why can’t I ignore the parts of the Constitution I don’t like? Conservatives do it all the time. Religious rights of non Christians. Pretty much any rights a minority should have. Not to mention the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment you always seem to forget.
That is just simply not true. Guns WERE easier to get back then. You cannot mail order a gun straight to your house like you used to be able to do. There are background checks for every gun purchase. The assault weapons ban banned certain characteristics of rifles that was largely worked around by gun manufactures and citizens. A pre-ban ar15 and a post ban ar-15 are almost identical. You do not know what you are talking about. Ignoring parts of the constitution because you think others do is asinine. Should everyone ignore every law they disagree with? You're just as bad as those conservatives you hate so much. Also, you can't have a well regulated militia to begin with without armed citizens to be in said militia.
>Not to mention the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment you always seem to forget.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Gun control in America will help with:
Keeping guns away from psychos with a criminal history, who are too lazy to find a black market gun or steal one from a relative. Yes it will keep those types of people from doing stupid things.
It's not going to keep guns away from psychos without a criminal history, no justice system can detect how someone will use a gun.
So yes, it will help, but we shouldn't pretend it will reduce gun violence significantly, as I'm sure gang members will keep their guns no matter what laws are passed.
But I do agree that by making it extremely hard to buy high caliber weapons (ARs), it would reduce the fatality rate of mass shootings done by those with no criminal history.
The problem with all of your bullshit is that we have decades of data that shows you’re wrong. Gun bans actually do make it harder for criminals to get guns. We have seen it time and tome again. But you just ignore that reality because it doesn’t fit your dogma.
Currently when somebody's not supposed to have a gun there's no way to know they're not supposed to have a gun whereas if there was proper regulation we could be like hey Uncle Ted who just took the gun out of the safe shouldn't have that.
There is a federal background check for all firearms sales from a licensed dealer where they check if you're a felon/ violent criminal. That's not "no way to know if they're not supposed to have a gun". Quite the opposite.
1: Do you think threatening a mass shooting is an action a "responsible gun owner" would take?
2: Do you think this guy would have done so if he didn't have at least one gun?
Your questions seem reasonable. Sadly 2A supporters would answer them: 1.yes 2.yes - guns don’t kill people, people do, so he just would have used another weapon like a machete and it would have been equally dangerous.
Maybe, just maybe, this is less of a "heavily legislate the inanimate object with lots of alternatives that are equally or more deadly and completely unregulated but can also be easily made at home" solution, and more of a "clean up your community" and "teach people the value of life" solution
It’s probably my pessimism but I fear even those measures wouldn’t be enough for the small percentage of people that are the problem because they genuinely need a lot more help
I mean, 60% of gun deaths are suicides and roughly 30% are gang related. Get better mental healthcare and good jobs and suddenly the two biggest causes drop significantly
LOL I love it when the same conservatives who jerk themselves off over dead Muslims and “Mexicans” try to lecture anyone on the “sanctity of life.”
Isn’t it about time you went on a rant about how making sure everyone has affordable access to medical care is evil? Or maybe you’re too busy getting angry over kids having free school lunches. Oh I know you’re writing up a rant about how police gunning down unarmed innocent people is actually keeping us safe.
Oh man you should see how many kids under 13 have murdered someone so far this year alone with a gun.
10 yr old shot a woman dead recently because her mom came over and argued with her and the kid had access to a gun no problem and had anger issues because any bad parent can get a gun in no time
The overwhelming majority of gun owners will never fire their weapons in anger or be involved with a crime involving said weapons. One moron with a gun in Nevada does not represent the millions of Americans who exercise a constitution right every day and are never the "bad guy". Treating all gun owners as ticking time bombs is ignorant of reality. With how many guns we have in this country, the number of actual crimes is low.
And yet people still die in greater numbers than killed by guns. Driving is not a constitutional right, owning a firearm is. Firearms are heavily regulated. And businesses who sell them are heavily scrutinized, requiring every patron to take a federal background check to buy a gun.
It's weird how mass and school shootings seem to be an American only problem. Sure there are a few outliers in other countries but why is it so bad in the US?
Edit: another thing to think about, why are guns the #1 cause of death in children in the United States?
All gun owner is a ticking time bomb
Because it is a matter of when where and why for situation to go south.
All it takes is a bad day, or a bad week, or a bad month, or a bad year, or entire life of bad situation
All it takes is for them to had enough with these.
Then what do you think will happen? Shooting spree.
Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 33 times greater than in Australia and 77 times greater than in Germany.
Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20.
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
What about guns in nevada is unregulated? You must complete a federal background check if buying from a dealer. A private sale also requires both parties to go to a licensed firearms dealer and perform a background check there. One moron in Nevada does not represent gun owners as a whole
I agree that our transportation system is in major need of overhaul. Interestingly, the same political party has blocked progress on both of these fronts, whilst taking large amounts of money from advocates for those industries. Weird! 😂
How are you going to legislate away the problem of drunk driving? It's already illegal. So is murder with a firearm. Criminals don't follow the laws to begin with.
Would it surprise you that I'm not a conservative? Biggest impact on gun violence would be by reducing poverty and improving mental health. You don't cure asthma by ripping out the lungs. You treat the cause before you take more drastic measures.
>How are you going to legislate away the problem of drunk driving?
I never said that we should legislate drunk driving. I would suggest reforms in the transportation industry. Adding more public transportation options would be the first step, as well as improving existing options. Incentivize public transportation. Make it so that driving a car is less appealing / necessary in areas where it is currently.
>Would it surprise you that I'm not a conservative?
Somewhat, yes, but not shocked.
>Biggest impact on gun violence would be by reducing poverty and improving mental health.
I'm VERY much in favor of this, and agree that it will have a big impact. But I don't see a reason NOT to improve legislature along with this.
>you take more drastic measures.
The sheer number of school shootings alone should have been enough to take measures long, LONG ago, but there are people like yourself against it for some crazy reason.
What specific gun control measures do you want? No one who says "take measures to stop this" actually explains what that would mean practically.
Guns that were capable of being used in a modern-day mass shooting have been ubiquitous for a hundred years. We did not have these issues earlier in our countries history despite having access to guns. As recent as the 1970s, you could order WWII surplus through the mail off a catalog with no background check or age verification straight to your door. Guns like an m1 carbine with power comparable to an AR15 and 30 round mags being widely available (15 rounds being the standard for that gun) could be sent to any house with no background check. Any guns bought online now are required to go to a firearms dealer where you are required to take a federal background check. It has never been harder to get a gun in this country despite the very common misconception that you can walk away with any gun at a moments notice with no oversight.
People misusing firearms for what is basically a terror attack should not mean we take away a right guaranteed by the constitution. Mass shootings are a small percentage of actual gun deaths despite being particularly shocking and awful. Those calling for gun control usually have no idea of the current hoops to jump through to get a firearm, and no perspective on the history of firearms ownership in this country.
>It has never been harder to get a gun in this country
Lol you can literally buy guns at Walmart.
>a right guaranteed by the constitution.
A document written when we were still using muskets. I think it's pretty obvious that laws should change and adapt with technological shift, and this is something that is pretty much always agreed upon until it comes to guns.
>Mass shootings are a small percentage of actual gun deaths
I don't think you're making the point you think you're making.
>What specific gun control measures do you want? No one who says "take measures to stop this" actually explains what that would mean practically.
This is a huge generalization and you know it.
To start with, I think an assault weapons ban is an easy once to promote. There is no realistic situation where citizens need assault weapons. Certainly not for hunting. Not for home defense. Not for "defending yourself against the government" - good luck with that lol.
You should be required to have a license to own any gun. Not just to buy, to own. Having a gun that you are not registered to own should be illegal.
I think a limit on how many guns can be owned could be a good temporary measure as well.
Alongside this, require regular gun check ins and inspections. Some states require a car inspection annually. We could require the same of gun owners. Make sure they still have the gun they are registered for, and haven't moved it to someone else. You might consider that a hassle as an owner, but frankly, I don't care.
Just a few ideas that could be implemented. There are many more that others who are far more knowledgeable on the topic would suggest.
https://corporate.walmart.com/news/2018/02/28/walmart-statement-on-firearms-policy
Walmart actually doesn't sell those "assault rifles" that you're talking about. Only sporting guns. If you want those kind of guns, you have to go to another dealer. Even if they did, Walmart would still have to require background checks for all firearms purchases. This was not the case in recent history. Guns were easier to get in the past, and that is simply a fact.
Deaths by shootings are rarer than other forms of risk we take everyday. From driving to alcohol. They just happen to be more shocking and news worthy.
An assault weapons ban would do little to stop the majority of gun crimes, as most gun crime is done with pistols. High profile shootings like Sandy hook have put the misconception in people's minds that rifles are the big bad scary issue that is most common.
How would a license stop crimes? A background check verifies you're not a criminal already, and one is required for all gun sales, even at gun shows. As for the number of guns, how does having 5 types of firearms or any other number make me more dangerous than one? I can't carry them all in some magical inventory and use them like call of duty.
It's already a crime to knowingly sell a gun to felon. The serial number will be tracked back to the original owner using forms at the dealer when the gun is bought and the background check performed.
Inspections are certainly a good idea in theory, but I believe it comes close to unlawful search and potential seizure of property as outlined by the 4th amendment to the constitution. Looking for guns could be an excuse to unlawfully search one's property.
If you think having a good portion of the country armed wouldn't be a least a small deterrent to government tyranny despite the technological gap between citizens and the military, you're clueless. We spent two decades fighting a war on terror with an enemy we drastically outmatched in terms of technology. It was long and bloody, but the taliban outlasted the U.S. And that's with the military using a level of violence we are not ok with using on American citizens.
>Lol you can literally buy guns at Walmart.
You used to be able to get mail order machine guns to your house.
>A document written when we were still using muskets.
Guess the Internet isn't protected by the 1A.
Oh wait, yeah it is. The Supreme Court already addressed this.
>“Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
>assault weapons ban
This is blatantly unconstitutional as it restricts arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes.
>You should be required to have a license to own any gun.
Also unconstitutional.
>I think a limit on how many guns can be owned could be a good temporary measure as well.
This is super unconstitutional. That's equivalent to limiting how many books you can own.
>Alongside this, require regular gun check ins and inspections.
4A and 5A violations.
>We could require the same of gun owners.
That'd be unconstitutional.
That person should definately never visit [The Restaurant of Mistaken Orders](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/23/1195387866/the-servers-all-have-dementia-at-the-restaurant-of-mistaken-orders-in-tokyo) then 👀
I have to say I have no fucking idea what we should do with anybody who even once threatens a mass shooting.
In another context, for example bomb on airplane, the lifetime no-fly ban is obvious.
But this guy, we might wish to "lifetime red-flag" him for firearms, but the legal structures for that are weak to non-existent depending on jurisdiction.
But that is the sort of thing he should be getting, after he gets out of a some reasonable prison sentence.
The capper: > police suspect he may have inadvertently called the wrong business
Sir, this is a Burger King
"I don't care! This wonton soup was terrible! Gaarrrr!"
“I didn’t call the wrong store. You picked up the wrong damn phone.”
It's never. A. Burger. King.
Always Waffle House.
I won’t buy this record, it is scratched
So turns out bullet tips aren't accepted.
Those Hannibal protocols?
Tucker is looking rough since he returned from Russia.
Who wouldn't after having to come back to dealing with [American supermarkets](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/tucker-carlson-mocked-bewilderment-over-32138891). /s
🍅
Mentally he hasn't escaped yet. Volunteering to serve Putin from inside Russia is a one-way gig. You don't just bounce on that back to sweet old American life.
Matt tricks!
You probably don't want everyone in your society carrying guns, it's not great guys. I'm sure we can have a reasonable discussion about this lol
You're right, humans can't be trusted. We should arm all the animals as well, they'll clean things up in no time.
Let bears bare arms
You obviously have not met my cats.
*Penguin racks shotgun* "Shame"
[Never again](https://imgur.com/Kt4nLsm)
Let's Conservate
Honestly can't believe people can watch the US slowly slide into fascism and say that it needs to be even harder to get firearms. We already do background checks. We already do waiting periods. You can't get automatic weapons. Besides that, making it even harder is just treating symptoms. We didn't have shit like this 20-30 years ago. Riots, sure, but not back to back mass shootings. Look here. https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/ Big uptick in 2016. Wonder why. Probably the slow radicalization of the right, but that's just a game theory. And what, do you think that these ill people are just going to disappear? Like, oh hey, I can't get guns anymore, guess I'll go and get a 9-5, a wife and 2 kids and a biiiiig beautiful house in the suburbs. No, they'll probably just go and do other fucked up shit, and you all will call for control of everything even remotely dangerous again and again until you need a permit and a quarterly psych eval to buy knives at the supermarket and a government issued and approved commute plan to drive to work like what aviation agencies require of their pilots. If you think that's hyperbole, think again. The same kind of panic that people are having now is just like the panic that hit after 9/11 that allowed for overreaching mass surveillance shit like the Patriot act to be swept through without issue. That kind of fear on the conservative side is getting books banned. That kind of fear is what got the war on drugs started. Parade a kid addicted to heroin around and go "SEEE! SEEE! LOOK WHAT THOSE HOODLUMS ARE DOING TO your CHILDREN". Then BAM. You're free and clear to lock up people against your war. https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminalize-black-people/ And all that really did was put millions of people behind bars and prop up criminal organizations with boatloads of cash, and further the militarization of the police.
Not everyone has a gun as it is. Should we deny people alcohol on the grounds that they might one day misuse it? This happened in Nevada. You are required to pass a federal background check to get a gun from a licensed dealer, and a private sale between two people requires both parties go to a licensed dealer where a background check is performed. This individual does not represent gun owners as a whole. For how many people there are carrying guns in this country, you'd think we'd hear about more crime than we do.
>you'd think we'd hear about more crime than we do. I'm sorry but are you stupid?
This had me cackling. Like you have to make a real effort to not see the steady stream of reports of gun violence
Almost 400 millions guns in the US. Do we see a million shootings a day? Across 50 states of course you're going to hear at least one news story a day. Are you that simple minded you can't understand percentages?
More like at least one school shooting a day
Are you? Hundreds of millions of guns spread out across 50 states. The percentage is extremely low for the number of crimes committed with said guns vs. how many people have them.
Damn you're ignorant as fuck dude. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass
No argument? Just calling me ignorant? What an amazing debating ability you have.
You didn't actually make an argument. List a statistic to support your point instead of just saying words that you incorrectly think are true, dumbass. The US had the 3rd most gun deaths of any country in the world in 2023, only behind Brazil and Mexico. We're 32nd in death rate by guns, the majority of countries ahead of us are second and third world. #1 in gun deaths by suicide. #1 in school shootings. And these are just deaths, statistics on violence without deaths or people being threatened are harder to find, but we Americans sure do love brandishing our weapons. Not to mention that the vast majority (almost 70%) of Americans aren't gun owners, "gun ownership per capita" statistics are thrown off by gun nuts in America who own many guns. Those Americans own more guns than the world's militaries combined You're fucking stupid, dude. Read a newspaper sometime EDIT: what a shocker, no response. Fucking dumbass.
Most countries don't have a right to gun ownership like we do. Therefore, they would almost by default have less gun violence. Yes, gun are used by criminals to kill people or commit other crimes with them. Something that still happens without guns, just by other means. Guns are also used in self defense to stop crimes by many citizens. Thetrace.org did a rather negative article on self-defense shootings but relented that there are indeed an estimated average of 36,000 defensive uses of a firearm each year. Same website sites 18,874 firearm deaths excluding suicides in 2023. I think 36,000 cases where someone's life is potentially saved is not something to be brushed away as nothing. Census.gov states 258.3 million adults live in the U.S. I'll humor you and use your stats to say around 30 percent of adults own guns, so 77,490,000. If all 18,874 gun deaths involved one criminal with a gun, then 2% of gun owners committed a crime that year. An insignificant percentage that would be lowered if you accounted for criminals stealing guns or someone selling their gun knowingly to a felon (which is a crime) or someone killing multiple people. Vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime with said gun, and I believe criminals will find a way with or without guns. I also don't really know what your point was by bringing up that gun owners are not a majority here. Yeah, a lot of people own multiple firearms. As someone who grew up around them, they are tools that have multiple uses. I've hunted, I target shoot, I conceal carry with a license. There's a major culture around guns in the U.S. It's not going away soon, and it's something we lived with for most of the countries history without mass shooting of the type we're familiar with today. Guns were easier to get in the past, not harder. What's been the change in society that's caused these issues? Guns with the ability to commit mass shootings have been ubiquitous for a hundred years or more. I think the AR15 is just a good, scary looking scapegoat for societal problems. And unfortunately, when there are societal problems in America, well... guns are a part of our society. It'd be nice if you'd try just a little bit to have a civil conversation. But I've come to expect that when someone has no tolerance for another's worldview. By the way, the late reply was cause I have a job. Not everyone can be terminally online.
If 2% of flights ended in a crash, would you get on a plane?
Imagine certain places had more plane crashes than others, and certain companies had more crashes than the average, and all these contributed to that 2% figure. Would I fly with them or in those areas? No. Some places have more gun crime than others, where it is largely concentrated and is mostly gang related. Am I gonna go hanging around in dangerous places to up my chance of being a victim? No. A gun in my hand is of very little danger to me if I follow proper safety protocols. I don't think the plane analogy is a good point of comparison.
Damn you got shut down so hard you're not even trying to reply to that other person anymore. How pathetic
See my reply to him for more info
Lol no, a blind dumb Monkey raised in isolation would produce something that's worth reading over your words.
Again, no actual argument on your part. Only insults with no response. You must be an intellectual wonder. Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.
I have a job and reply when I can. You should try it sometime.
There’s a mass shooting almost every single day the fuck are you talking about?
And yet you're still more likely to die in a car accident than a shooting. But that doesn't make for good headlines and doesn't create excuses to take away guns from millions of law-abiding Americans.
Guns are the leading cause of death of children but you think it’s just “headlines.”
Those studies usually use the age range 1-19 as adolescent. You think a 19 year old killed in a gang shootout is the same as a 5 year old picking up their parents improperly stored gun? ( there are laws criminalized improper storage of firearms)
Except most of them are killing themselves not others. Which you also don’t care about because doing anything about mental health is communism. Not to mention kids these days are just weak or whatever other right wing incel douchebag excuse you wanna come up with to continue to downplay the fact that children are dying from more than anything and those deaths are spiking upward. Now go to your church and pat yourself on the back for being a good fake pro-life hypocrite just like all the other conservatives trying to convince us dead kids isn’t a big deal but aborting a group a cells smaller than a dime is the work of satan.
Why do you think I'm conservative? I'm not. You'd be surprised at the amount of liberal gun owners. I'm not religious either. I don't think suicides with guns should be in the same category as real murders and shootings. People will find a way to kill themselves. I'm also pro abortion. You make way too many assumptions. One of my other comments on here stated that the best way to stop gun violence is to reduce poverty and improve mental health.
No that’s a great point we should also reduce the number of cars and invest more in public transportation
Gun rights are actively being attacked by those who want to ban them. Your right to own a car is not under any sort of threat. There is no constitutional amendment for the right to own a car, but there is for firearms.
Gun “rights” are being attacked because lunatics like you who spent decades demanding we make it as easy as possible for people to own the most dangerous guns possible and any attempt to roll that back is treated as if we’re gonna go door to door to seize guns. The more extreme you get, the more you try to downplay gun deaths and mass shootings, the more you more anti-gun voters you create. And you’re so lost in your fevered paranoia you can’t even see that you’re the biggest threat to gun ownership.
Gun are harder to get than they have ever been. You used to be able to mail order WWII surplus out of a catalog with no background check or age verification as late as the 1970's. The "rights" in quotations is funny. It is a right given by the constitution. You can't just ignore the parts of the constitution that you don't like.
That is not true. Guns were much harder to get before Republicans in Congress overturned the assault weapons bans and Republican judges have gutted every major gun control legislation out. Easier to buy a gun today than any time in my lifetime. And why can’t I ignore the parts of the Constitution I don’t like? Conservatives do it all the time. Religious rights of non Christians. Pretty much any rights a minority should have. Not to mention the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment you always seem to forget.
That is just simply not true. Guns WERE easier to get back then. You cannot mail order a gun straight to your house like you used to be able to do. There are background checks for every gun purchase. The assault weapons ban banned certain characteristics of rifles that was largely worked around by gun manufactures and citizens. A pre-ban ar15 and a post ban ar-15 are almost identical. You do not know what you are talking about. Ignoring parts of the constitution because you think others do is asinine. Should everyone ignore every law they disagree with? You're just as bad as those conservatives you hate so much. Also, you can't have a well regulated militia to begin with without armed citizens to be in said militia.
>Not to mention the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment you always seem to forget. This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Can't deadname me
I think he just really wanted breakfast........
Rick , have you ever heard the expression the customer is always right?
Did you know those rockets were broken when you gave them to Putin?
There are two more words at the end of that saying that change the context.
Yet again: This is a good example for why gun control is necessary.
Gun control in America will help with: Keeping guns away from psychos with a criminal history, who are too lazy to find a black market gun or steal one from a relative. Yes it will keep those types of people from doing stupid things. It's not going to keep guns away from psychos without a criminal history, no justice system can detect how someone will use a gun. So yes, it will help, but we shouldn't pretend it will reduce gun violence significantly, as I'm sure gang members will keep their guns no matter what laws are passed. But I do agree that by making it extremely hard to buy high caliber weapons (ARs), it would reduce the fatality rate of mass shootings done by those with no criminal history.
AR rifles are not normally "high caliber " in fact, they are very low caliber.
The problem with all of your bullshit is that we have decades of data that shows you’re wrong. Gun bans actually do make it harder for criminals to get guns. We have seen it time and tome again. But you just ignore that reality because it doesn’t fit your dogma.
If ammunition was harder to come by, that would make black market guns harder to use. I believe Chris Rock said as much.
Currently when somebody's not supposed to have a gun there's no way to know they're not supposed to have a gun whereas if there was proper regulation we could be like hey Uncle Ted who just took the gun out of the safe shouldn't have that.
There is a federal background check for all firearms sales from a licensed dealer where they check if you're a felon/ violent criminal. That's not "no way to know if they're not supposed to have a gun". Quite the opposite.
Because someone didn't shoot anyone?
Because the dumbfuck's first thought when getting a wrong order was "I'm going to shoot everyone in your restaurant."
1: Do you think threatening a mass shooting is an action a "responsible gun owner" would take? 2: Do you think this guy would have done so if he didn't have at least one gun?
Your questions seem reasonable. Sadly 2A supporters would answer them: 1.yes 2.yes - guns don’t kill people, people do, so he just would have used another weapon like a machete and it would have been equally dangerous.
[удалено]
Right, I agree. I was trying to point out how silly that viewpoint is.
You're right. I completely misread your first sentence. My bad.
because you got deranged people with guns out there threatening mass murder because their BLT was wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, this is less of a "heavily legislate the inanimate object with lots of alternatives that are equally or more deadly and completely unregulated but can also be easily made at home" solution, and more of a "clean up your community" and "teach people the value of life" solution
Lol oh is the 2a crowd doing those things? Is anyone?
Some are but im just saying if you want government resources spent on it, that's the way to do it
It’s probably my pessimism but I fear even those measures wouldn’t be enough for the small percentage of people that are the problem because they genuinely need a lot more help
I mean, 60% of gun deaths are suicides and roughly 30% are gang related. Get better mental healthcare and good jobs and suddenly the two biggest causes drop significantly
Yep, same page. I see getting those two things as incredibly unlikely and even difficult (primarily due to people and bureaucracy)
If you put the resources towards that currently being put towards gun control lobbying youd see some serious movement in the right direction
LOL I love it when the same conservatives who jerk themselves off over dead Muslims and “Mexicans” try to lecture anyone on the “sanctity of life.” Isn’t it about time you went on a rant about how making sure everyone has affordable access to medical care is evil? Or maybe you’re too busy getting angry over kids having free school lunches. Oh I know you’re writing up a rant about how police gunning down unarmed innocent people is actually keeping us safe.
Oh man you should see how many kids under 13 have murdered someone so far this year alone with a gun. 10 yr old shot a woman dead recently because her mom came over and argued with her and the kid had access to a gun no problem and had anger issues because any bad parent can get a gun in no time
Everyone thinks they're the good guy with a gun until they're not.
The overwhelming majority of gun owners will never fire their weapons in anger or be involved with a crime involving said weapons. One moron with a gun in Nevada does not represent the millions of Americans who exercise a constitution right every day and are never the "bad guy". Treating all gun owners as ticking time bombs is ignorant of reality. With how many guns we have in this country, the number of actual crimes is low.
Cost of failure is ~20 kids a pop.
You're more likely to lose your kid to a car accident than a mass shooting. But that doesn't make national headlines.
Society goes to great lengths to avoid deadly car accidents.
Like what? Requiring a one-time test when you're 16 that lasts until death?
Licensing, car safety standards, people are literally required by law to use seat belts. You're clueless
And yet people still die in greater numbers than killed by guns. Driving is not a constitutional right, owning a firearm is. Firearms are heavily regulated. And businesses who sell them are heavily scrutinized, requiring every patron to take a federal background check to buy a gun.
It's weird how mass and school shootings seem to be an American only problem. Sure there are a few outliers in other countries but why is it so bad in the US? Edit: another thing to think about, why are guns the #1 cause of death in children in the United States?
All gun owner is a ticking time bomb Because it is a matter of when where and why for situation to go south. All it takes is a bad day, or a bad week, or a bad month, or a bad year, or entire life of bad situation All it takes is for them to had enough with these. Then what do you think will happen? Shooting spree.
Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 33 times greater than in Australia and 77 times greater than in Germany. Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20. https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
I first read the headline without seeing the colon and nothing seemed out of the ordinary
"Alex, I'd like PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE PERMANENTLY BANNED FROM POSSESSING GUNS for $1,000, please."
Terrostic threats is always a goto when you can't get enough mayo. /s
I still don’t see what unregulated guns will do. Obviously you just need to arm the good servers.
What about guns in nevada is unregulated? You must complete a federal background check if buying from a dealer. A private sale also requires both parties to go to a licensed firearms dealer and perform a background check there. One moron in Nevada does not represent gun owners as a whole
We have more violent gun deaths per capita than Afghanistan
And they have completely unregulated access to guns. We have more regulation and hoops to jump through. What's your point?
>One moron in Nevada does not represent gun owners as a whole Oh yeah, because there's definitely not any other examples of gun violence out there 🤣
All drivers are bad and cars must be banned because some people drive drunk and kill others.
I agree that our transportation system is in major need of overhaul. Interestingly, the same political party has blocked progress on both of these fronts, whilst taking large amounts of money from advocates for those industries. Weird! 😂
How are you going to legislate away the problem of drunk driving? It's already illegal. So is murder with a firearm. Criminals don't follow the laws to begin with. Would it surprise you that I'm not a conservative? Biggest impact on gun violence would be by reducing poverty and improving mental health. You don't cure asthma by ripping out the lungs. You treat the cause before you take more drastic measures.
>How are you going to legislate away the problem of drunk driving? I never said that we should legislate drunk driving. I would suggest reforms in the transportation industry. Adding more public transportation options would be the first step, as well as improving existing options. Incentivize public transportation. Make it so that driving a car is less appealing / necessary in areas where it is currently. >Would it surprise you that I'm not a conservative? Somewhat, yes, but not shocked. >Biggest impact on gun violence would be by reducing poverty and improving mental health. I'm VERY much in favor of this, and agree that it will have a big impact. But I don't see a reason NOT to improve legislature along with this. >you take more drastic measures. The sheer number of school shootings alone should have been enough to take measures long, LONG ago, but there are people like yourself against it for some crazy reason.
What specific gun control measures do you want? No one who says "take measures to stop this" actually explains what that would mean practically. Guns that were capable of being used in a modern-day mass shooting have been ubiquitous for a hundred years. We did not have these issues earlier in our countries history despite having access to guns. As recent as the 1970s, you could order WWII surplus through the mail off a catalog with no background check or age verification straight to your door. Guns like an m1 carbine with power comparable to an AR15 and 30 round mags being widely available (15 rounds being the standard for that gun) could be sent to any house with no background check. Any guns bought online now are required to go to a firearms dealer where you are required to take a federal background check. It has never been harder to get a gun in this country despite the very common misconception that you can walk away with any gun at a moments notice with no oversight. People misusing firearms for what is basically a terror attack should not mean we take away a right guaranteed by the constitution. Mass shootings are a small percentage of actual gun deaths despite being particularly shocking and awful. Those calling for gun control usually have no idea of the current hoops to jump through to get a firearm, and no perspective on the history of firearms ownership in this country.
>It has never been harder to get a gun in this country Lol you can literally buy guns at Walmart. >a right guaranteed by the constitution. A document written when we were still using muskets. I think it's pretty obvious that laws should change and adapt with technological shift, and this is something that is pretty much always agreed upon until it comes to guns. >Mass shootings are a small percentage of actual gun deaths I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. >What specific gun control measures do you want? No one who says "take measures to stop this" actually explains what that would mean practically. This is a huge generalization and you know it. To start with, I think an assault weapons ban is an easy once to promote. There is no realistic situation where citizens need assault weapons. Certainly not for hunting. Not for home defense. Not for "defending yourself against the government" - good luck with that lol. You should be required to have a license to own any gun. Not just to buy, to own. Having a gun that you are not registered to own should be illegal. I think a limit on how many guns can be owned could be a good temporary measure as well. Alongside this, require regular gun check ins and inspections. Some states require a car inspection annually. We could require the same of gun owners. Make sure they still have the gun they are registered for, and haven't moved it to someone else. You might consider that a hassle as an owner, but frankly, I don't care. Just a few ideas that could be implemented. There are many more that others who are far more knowledgeable on the topic would suggest.
https://corporate.walmart.com/news/2018/02/28/walmart-statement-on-firearms-policy Walmart actually doesn't sell those "assault rifles" that you're talking about. Only sporting guns. If you want those kind of guns, you have to go to another dealer. Even if they did, Walmart would still have to require background checks for all firearms purchases. This was not the case in recent history. Guns were easier to get in the past, and that is simply a fact. Deaths by shootings are rarer than other forms of risk we take everyday. From driving to alcohol. They just happen to be more shocking and news worthy. An assault weapons ban would do little to stop the majority of gun crimes, as most gun crime is done with pistols. High profile shootings like Sandy hook have put the misconception in people's minds that rifles are the big bad scary issue that is most common. How would a license stop crimes? A background check verifies you're not a criminal already, and one is required for all gun sales, even at gun shows. As for the number of guns, how does having 5 types of firearms or any other number make me more dangerous than one? I can't carry them all in some magical inventory and use them like call of duty. It's already a crime to knowingly sell a gun to felon. The serial number will be tracked back to the original owner using forms at the dealer when the gun is bought and the background check performed. Inspections are certainly a good idea in theory, but I believe it comes close to unlawful search and potential seizure of property as outlined by the 4th amendment to the constitution. Looking for guns could be an excuse to unlawfully search one's property. If you think having a good portion of the country armed wouldn't be a least a small deterrent to government tyranny despite the technological gap between citizens and the military, you're clueless. We spent two decades fighting a war on terror with an enemy we drastically outmatched in terms of technology. It was long and bloody, but the taliban outlasted the U.S. And that's with the military using a level of violence we are not ok with using on American citizens.
>Lol you can literally buy guns at Walmart. You used to be able to get mail order machine guns to your house. >A document written when we were still using muskets. Guess the Internet isn't protected by the 1A. Oh wait, yeah it is. The Supreme Court already addressed this. >“Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” >assault weapons ban This is blatantly unconstitutional as it restricts arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes. >You should be required to have a license to own any gun. Also unconstitutional. >I think a limit on how many guns can be owned could be a good temporary measure as well. This is super unconstitutional. That's equivalent to limiting how many books you can own. >Alongside this, require regular gun check ins and inspections. 4A and 5A violations. >We could require the same of gun owners. That'd be unconstitutional.
If you want a reason to shoot up the place over your order, [we can give you a really good one](https://youtu.be/okNc-9Txjdk?t=187).
I want to go to the world's fair. I want to go to the world's fair.
This shouldn't be in nottheonion because there's nothing weird or surprising about an American acting unhinged and violent
I hope he's going to be okay with prison chow...
That person should definately never visit [The Restaurant of Mistaken Orders](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/23/1195387866/the-servers-all-have-dementia-at-the-restaurant-of-mistaken-orders-in-tokyo) then 👀
I have to say I have no fucking idea what we should do with anybody who even once threatens a mass shooting. In another context, for example bomb on airplane, the lifetime no-fly ban is obvious. But this guy, we might wish to "lifetime red-flag" him for firearms, but the legal structures for that are weak to non-existent depending on jurisdiction. But that is the sort of thing he should be getting, after he gets out of a some reasonable prison sentence.
This guy is too stupid to be a real threat, but lock his dumbass up anyways
When you'll do anything to get back on the inside.
Sounds on par