111–120 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A agree you can't 'get all the guns back', but there are still reasons to consider more stringent controls, two spring to mind: 1) It's about the social permission you give to people by making guns easily available. For example, in many European countries, bars, pubs and drinking are an absolutely central part of life, whereas in the US drinking establishments often have a much more 'taboo' vibe about them. Alcohol c…
> Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference I have three firearms in my safe right now that were 100% legal when I purchased them. They came with a copy of a letter sent to the manufacturer by the ATF that clearly and explicitly states that they are legal as configured. January 31st of this year, the ATF decided that not only are they illegal, but they've always been illegal. If I don't destroy, modify,…
What we actually need is consistent legislation across the board that removes the minefield for most gun owners, while focusing on graduated regulation of the states of people who own/carry any type of gun, making sure they're mentally competent and attached to reality - especially as social media pushes more people to become detached.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem like criminals per se (apart from murders by highly organized crime), but rather people with severe mental health problems. Mental health problems that are seemingly due to mainlining social media memes telling them everyone is out to get them, which have been given a pass due to standing in for real political discourse. For example by the time someone is answering their front door with a gun and poin…
> For example by the time someone is answering their front door with a gun and pointing it at whomever is there, it's clear that person is suffering from a paranoia that should make them ineligible to possess firearms. First, let me say that "pointing at whomever is there" is a big step too far. Also, arbitrarily pointing a gun at someone who is not a threat to you in order to intimidate them is already a separate cr…
This is exactly what I'm talking about. First, it's unwarranted to think that your only action will be to tell them to get lost. What if they're asking for help? (And while it's certainly one's right to refuse to help someone, that minority opinion isn't particularly interesting)
Second, using this word "eject" indicates that you have set yourself up for a confrontation - from the same exact vein as the social media fueled paranoia I'm talking about. If you cannot answer the door with your priors set to that of civil society rather than action movie, then you aren't being particularly responsible.
> We do [police other gun owners]
Sure, sometimes. But if your buddy is having some mental health problems, and rejects your casual offer to hold his guns, do you escalate the situation to compel him to relinquish them? Or do you look the other way, knowing that he would end up on some kind of permanent flag list? That's the dynamic I'm talking about, and it's ultimately one that requires trust, which has broken down.
> we would much rather risk Armed Crazy Bob than to give the government the ability to apply the "Crazy" monicker to whomever they like.
Well at this point you aren't merely "risking" Crazy Bob. Rather there is an endless supply of Crazy Bobs continually shooting up public places, often broadcasting their psychoses ahead of time, while many gun advocates cling to this possibility that government might declare someone crazy for political purposes - while many simultaneously adopt aggressive craziness as a political movement!
One way or another something is going to break, and I'd much rather have it be this simulated defiance groupthink than most everyone's basic right to self defense as referenced by the second amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference I have three firearms in my safe right now that were 100% legal when I purchased them. They came with a copy of a letter sent to the manufacturer by the ATF that clearly and explicitly states that they are legal as configured. January 31st of this year, the ATF decided that not only are they illegal, but they've always been illegal. If I don't destroy, modify,…
If you're a city dwelling blue tribe member, read and reread this comment until you can understand where it's coming from. Most "gun control" legislation has resulted in arbitrary technical restrictions, utterly ineffective for their stated purpose, enforced in a draconian manner where everything is either perfectly legal or an immediate federal felony . Calls to "ban all guns" are a choir-preaching pipe dream, and t…
I'm not sure that's true, given the rise in gun violence starting when the last assault rifle ban ended in 1994.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A agree you can't 'get all the guns back', but there are still reasons to consider more stringent controls, two spring to mind: 1) It's about the social permission you give to people by making guns easily available. For example, in many European countries, bars, pubs and drinking are an absolutely central part of life, whereas in the US drinking establishments often have a much more 'taboo' vibe about them. Alcohol c…
> Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference I have three firearms in my safe right now that were 100% legal when I purchased them. They came with a copy of a letter sent to the manufacturer by the ATF that clearly and explicitly states that they are legal as configured. January 31st of this year, the ATF decided that not only are they illegal, but they've always been illegal. If I don't destroy, modify,…
What do you mean here by "always been illegal"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a city dwelling blue tribe member, read and reread this comment until you can understand where it's coming from. Most "gun control" legislation has resulted in arbitrary technical restrictions, utterly ineffective for their stated purpose, enforced in a draconian manner where everything is either perfectly legal or an immediate federal felony . Calls to "ban all guns" are a choir-preaching pipe dream, and t…
> Most "gun control" legislation has resulted in arbitrary technical restrictions, utterly ineffective for their stated purpose I'm not sure that's true, given the rise in gun violence starting when the last assault rifle ban ended in 1994.
Assault Rifles have universal background checks complete with fingerprints, a multi-month waiting period, and a $200 transfer tax - and have since the 1930s. No new assault rifles have been available for civilian purchase in almost 40 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are dangerous places, but everyone you are working with will quickly let you know where they are in your area, and you can avoid them People were randomly shot while they were walking out of a H&M in a premium outlet mall in suburban Dallas with a Whole Foods nearby. Doubt you can classify that as a 'dangerous place'. I do agree that this is not common in the USA.
It may not be common but it is becoming more regular. You like those odds? I wouldn't immigrate here, especially if I wasn't white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh. This is like Americans being terrified of living in Australia, b/c they've been convinced by Animal Planet that they'll be killed by venomous wildlife. There are dangerous places, but everyone you are working with will quickly let you know where they are in your area, and you can avoid them.
[flagged]
Mass shootings by weirdos with rifles are a tiny % of shooting deaths in the US. The vast majority are either suicides, or are occurring in places that anyone will tell you to avoid when you arrive in the country.
Disturbing to see so many in favor of removing our bedrock rights because they are afraid of a tool. Nobody wants to end up like the UK or Australia in terms of reduced rights. That was literally the impetus for the creation of the USA.