Law Gun Safety Legislation: Signed into Law

[jlagman]

i'd only be in favor of another bullshit restriction if there's ACTUALLY a compromise.

eg: "Expanded background checks" (whatever the fuck this is supposed to mean) for nationwide constitutional carry/reciprocity.

because the anti-guns want to bitch about "compromises" after we've already given up 4896896458745 things and have gotten jack shit in return.

I can't stand this idea of "compromise" either. Bring a horse or trade or fuck right off with that bullshit.

 

[rob mafia]

It's working really well.

sanctuary cities, refusing to make arrests, refusing to prosecute when arrests actually get made, refusing to enforce existing gun laws (eg, straw purchases), etc and etc have nothing to do with any of this, surely.

for more see: danielle outlaw (chief of police), krasner (activist da), kenney (mayor) and their repective stances on crime.

but i'm sure the sky high crime in this city is just because people like me have guns. totally.

 

[MaxMMA]

Imagine talking about "survival of the fittest" in the aftermath of a school shooting. Should the kids have been armed or...?

No but if we know that school shootings are a thing, why are the schools not being secured by armed guards?

Per nature, the fact that we as a society have failed to do so means that at least some children will be lost. I wonder how many of our ancient ancestors let the children wander far off from the cave/fire with no armed escort?

 

[Greta Thunberg]

Nope, but you could look at any number of people blocking changes in the name of the second amendment.

I'd specifically look at the cowards voted into power. Governors and the like, who only block change because it would cost them money.

I'm from the UK. Our government sucks, but we don't need guns for a straw man argument that we might need to defend ourselves from them. Politicians are inept, but no threat.

There you go with the coward word again...

Many of you docile foreigners always seem to miss the main point of our Second Amendment.

But, it's ironic to me when it's a United Kingdom resident calling us to disarm with such vigor!

 

[Greta Thunberg]

What do you need a high capacity magazine for? Seriously.

Would you be scared if it was illegal to have one?

Why do you drive an automobile when you could just walk or ride your bike?

They kill as many people as guns do. And that's not even taking out suicides.

You're not scared to walk, are you?

 

[My Spot]

Why do you drive an automobile when you could just walk or ride your bike?

They kill as many people as guns do. And that's not even taking out suicides.

You're not scared to walk, are you?

I think he's scared of his own shadow.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Anyone advocating for gun control is a tool and doesn't correctly comprehend reality. This world is survival of the fittest, no amount of legislation can change that.

The only thing legislation like gun control does is put people who are dumb enough to go along with it, at a disadvantage.

It's "survival of the fittest" in third world zhitholes not developed countries.

 

[Siver!]

There you go with the coward word again...

Many of you docile foreigners always seem to miss the main point of our Second Amendment.

But, it's ironic to me when it's a United Kingdom resident calling us to disarm with such vigor!

So which first world country needed guns to defend themselves?

Enlighten me.

 

[MaxMMA]

It's "survival of the fittest" in third world zhitholes not developed countries.

Sorry but that is incorrect. You don't actually believe you aren't subject to the laws of nature just because you live in a house and drive a car, do you?

You think "first world" countries have powerful police and military forces because we have superceded nature?

 

[spamking]

Shifting funds from where exactly? What programs are you willing to sacrifice for this?

All foreign aide to Ukraine for one. If we can magically find millions to allow the citizens of another country to take up arms in order to protect their homes I think we can make funding available for states to improve school security. We can also use other similar funds for improving mental healthcare.

If I understand it correctly, you are a conservative willing to support social programs because it will cause less crime resulting is less need to restrict access to firearms? So promoting social programs to protect gun rights?

This jibe with your perspective?

I support programs that would address the actual issue and not further restrict rights.

 

[spamking]

I see that the primary points were a little difficult to follow. I suspect that you started typing in response to individual sentences rather than the concept as a whole.

There are no restrictions on what type of firearm people can own but there is a tier system on when they can access them. I didn't set tier levels with any specificity because that's a detail that can be worked out if the broader concept makes sense. Did you notice that I didn't specify the number of tiers either? I also didn't set time periods or the criteria for advancing between tiers, remember?

As far as how well people perform in society? We already do that -- the ATF lists 9 distinct groups that are not allowed to possess a gun or ammunition, the most obvious being convicted felons. You and others already accept the concept that people who behave poorly should have lesser access to firearms (personally, I don't think being felon should deprive anyone of their rights but I'm in the minority on that one).

I'm not particularly interested in nitpicking the details at this level of the concept. Here's the baseline -- It doesn't outlaw any firearms. It doesn't prevent anyone from owning any firearms. It doesn't penalize anyone for owning/carrying a firearm. It will interfere with people like the Uvalde shooter buying the most dangerous weapons he could get his hands on and then immediately using those weapons against others. Good responsible people keep owning what they want to own.

I don't particularly care if you like the idea but at least read it and understand it more thoroughly before your assess it so I don't have to explain broad ideas multiple times. There are no details on how many tiers, how to determine what goes in which tiers or how long between tiers. It's a surface level concept.

Holy crap. I pulled one sentence out of a previous post for a reply and you whined about it . . . . so I thought I'd be very specific and replied to another post . . . . and you whine about it.

My response was based on the information provided. If you don't want your idea picked apart then explain it better in the first place. Don't blame me for the overall poor concept or act like I didn't read it and understand it sufficiently to ask you some apparently difficult questions.

 

[spamking]

What do you need a high capacity magazine for? Seriously.

If there is ever a situation where I need to defend myself I want the advantage. Sometimes that advantage means a standard capacity 20-30rd magazine.

Would you be scared if it was illegal to have one?

No. I would not be scared if it was illegal to have one. I'm not out publicizing what I own on a regular basis. I rarely visit public gun ranges.

 

[spamking]

It's working really well.

I wish folks would flesh out those stats and get specific with those involved instead of just dumping it all out there for the emotional impact.

There was a shooting over the weekend in a small town east of OKC where someone (a minority) was apparently looked at wrong or disrespected.

That's often used as the type of shooting I'm expected to just suddenly agree to more restrictions and give up more rights to prevent? No thanks.

 

[spamking]

eg: "Expanded background checks" (whatever the fuck this is supposed to mean) for nationwide constitutional carry/reciprocity.

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone in the gun control community is asking for this. The Buffalo and Uvalde shooters both bought their firearms legally. Expanding that same type of BGC to private sales won't suddenly catch someone unless the data behind the BGCs is improved/changed in some manner.

 

[spamking]

Imagine talking about "survival of the fittest" in the aftermath of a school shooting.

That talk isn't significantly different than the stunt Beto pulled or any other politician who fundraises after one of these incidents.

Should the kids have been armed or...?

You're better this type of comment dude . . .

 

[surrealworlds]

None. Either;
1) Remove all armed security for ALL politicians and THEN i will consider gun legislation
OR
2)Provide or schools and children with the same security protections our politicians enjoy.

Anything else is just lipservice.

Politicians do not want to stop school shootings. Its too much money for them.

Gun legislation would be the answer in a magical world. If we could snap our figures and make ALL guns disappear okay but thats not reality.

Reality is Gun legislation takes guns away from legal gun owners(me) while simultaneously leaving politicians protected(tax-paid security) and criminals armed(didnt care about laws in the first place).

If you want to protect schools in 2022 U.S.A. you have to provide harder security measures. If you dont want to do that be honest but dont pretenx like protecting our kids is impossible with legal guns in this country. Politicians are protected, celebrities are protected. Why not childre ?

 

[spamking]

It's working really well.

The data is so inconsistent . . . .

https://archive.ph/P3Rvu

Congress has defined “mass killings” as “3 or more killings in a single incident,” and this is the general guideline used by the FBI in response to requests for assistance from local and state law enforcement agencies. A 2015 report for the Congressional Research Service defined the term “mass shooting” as a “multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close geographical proximity.” Yet the corporate media rarely refer to these sources in reports about mass murders involving guns. Instead, the most widely cited media source is the Gun Violence Archive (GVA).
What is GVA? It is a “nonpartisan” organization launched in 2013 by Slate magazine and later taken over by Michael Klein of the leftist Sunlight Foundation. GVA’s definition of “mass shooting” is absurdly elastic, including gang-related shootings, gun crimes committed during robberies, and domestic violence. As of Tuesday morning, the GVA site listed 231 “mass shootings” that have purportedly occurred in 2022. It includes 87 incidents in which no one was killed, 17 that fit the three-death threshold set by Congress, and exactly two incidents — in Uvalde and Buffalo — that conform to the commonly understood definition of “mass shooting.”

Among GVA’s methodology issues is that most of its data comes from media reports. Thus, the media itself is the source for statistics such as those found in this NBC News story: Memorial Day weekend marked by “more than a dozen mass shootings” in the U.S. The GVA table cited by NBC lists 14 “mass shootings” from May 28 through May 30, including seven which resulted in no deaths, seven involving one fatality each, and one that resulted in two fatalities. According to GVA, these “mass shootings” also produced various unspecified injuries.

 

[spamking]

Holy crap . . . . <Lmaoo>

 

[Siver!]

I wish folks would flesh out those stats and get specific with those involved instead of just dumping it all out there for the emotional impact.

There was a shooting over the weekend in a small town east of OKC where someone (a minority) was apparently looked at wrong or disrespected.

That's often used as the type of shooting I'm expected to just suddenly agree to more restrictions and give up more rights to prevent? No thanks.

That's the perfect shooting to illustrate how dumb gun ownership is.

I've seen idiots shoot people after getting punched. That's not fucking self defence, that's murder.

If you get punched, punch them back or call the.police.

Everything's a fucking death sentence with guns. It's pathetic.

 

[Ichibanner]

Why not pass an act that restricts firearms on school property?

Oh wait, that already happened in 1990 with the "Federal Gun Free School Zones Act". How many school shootings happened since then?

This idea that you can regulate behavior or create laws to stop murder is laughable. Evil people do evil shit and you're not going to stop that by involving bureaucracy and hoping the Government can solve society's ills.