And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
So how hard is it, and how hard should it be, for an individual to get an AR-15? Obviously, I'm not troubled that you have one or even that probably the vast majority of those who have them do. Sled doesn't want crazies to have them either, but has also stated his opposition to "red flag" laws.
I am not opposed to more stringent background checks and limited laws to remove guns from people who have demonstrated mental health issues for short durations until accurate mental state assessments can be made. So I will give you two answers here, since we are discussing two different issues.
The issue all gun advocates have is, in the case of background check strengthening, that we really do not believe that is the end game. I think until politicians, whom I loathe, on both sides can have honest debates about their respective end games on gun control, there can be no quarter given. It's the opposite spectrum of the abortion debate - I don't think most reasonable liberals actually believe that aborting babies at birth is a good thing, but they also believe, and perhaps rightly so, that if they give in on ANYTHING, it's starts the slippery slope and the next thing you know abortion is mostly illegal because the pro life contingent has chipped away so long and hard that it is now basically not a right. That is precisely how gun advocates feel - most even ardent gun supporters I know believe in strong and effective background checks, and in some cases even gun safety classes. But if we give in there, next year it will be licensing, then the next year registration, then the next year banning type mentality. And I can't say I disagree with that position. In my perfect world we would have strong background checks and requirements for gun safety training, but never licensing or registration. I don't believe it infringes on your rights to take a class to learn to properly use a firearm. That said, I have zero faith if we gave in on on this point that Nancy Pelosi would say "welp, ok, we did it and got ironclad background checks and safety training, we're done here..." I can say this, I do not want felons or people who beat their wives routinely owning guns. Period. Full stop.
The red flag laws are super tricky. Here's why. I do not want any imbalanced person to have access to firepower. That said, I see so many ways this could be taken advantage of. Some wife gets dumped. Nothing abusive is happening but she's pissed. Call the cops and say "he threatened to hurt me and himself." Bam, dudes guns are gone for 90 days and he is in court petitioning for his right to get them back, after paying huge fees to do so. Liberal counties would make the list of requirements for resolution almost impossible to abide by. At the same time, some mechanism must exist whereby some assclown who is writing death threats to people, and it is proven, has their guns taken away by force if necessary. So this one is tricky and I don't have the answer. Whatever system is devised MUST be impartial, and expeditious, and not create undue burden on the gun owner - because we all know there will be abuse in any system like this. It must also be effective at keeping guns out of the hand of legit crazy fucks who want to go harm people. Tough nut.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
I've been in plenty of rough black neighborhoods. I practiced baseball at night in High Point when High Point was still High Point (fuck gentrification).
Fuck man I live in fucking Memphrica.
Try again.
Try what again? Clearly you are mistaken with your white poor trailer park comment. That ain't where the problem is.
He is virtue signalling. You'll notice how he has nothing in support his claim while being very quick to play the race card when he couldn't back up his mouth.
No one is virtue signaling here. You made a claim about poor whites being safer than poor blacks. I responded "I'd love to see those stats on crime by poor whites."
You have not yet provided one statistic about crime by poor whites.
Once you answer that question we can move off of this little merry go round we're on. And if you can't that's cool. Just don't claim you know anything about if it you don't.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
And I do.
hth
No, you made a claim that poor whites are more dangerous than poor blacks. You've provided nothing in support of that crap. Do you agree that there are more poor whites than poor blacks? Yes or no.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
Great, the entire exchange was based upon your feelings.
I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend what you were reading.
I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a 13 year old girl who believes her feelings trump the facts. And of course you still dodge the questions I put to you.
It was literally a question about one's feelings.
Just take responsibility for not being able to follow a thread.
Then why even ask about crime rate statistics? You weren't making an argument based upon facts you were emoting and stating your feelings.
Because you claimed poor whites are more dangerous.
I said I'd love to see the stats. I really would, I think it would be interesting.
I'm well aware that my feelings aren't the arbiter or what is true or fact and I never presented them as such. I just answered a direct question with a direct answer.
You interjected yourself with no clue what was being discussed an have continued to be clueless about the conversation for like 3 pages now.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
You clearly don't live in an area heavily populated with poor black Americans. After dark in South Atlanta is not a place anyone, black or white, wants to be on foot. I grew up in a poor, white trailer park, there is zero comparison. We had plenty of drama in the neighborhood but I didn't worry about getting shot. I have traveled to the worst hell holes in my career, seen Detroit at its worst, St. Louis, Flynt, covered South America for 7 years and witnessed abject poverty the likes of which we don't see here. I felt safer in SA than staying in downtown Detroit or South Atlanta at night. We have a serious problem here in America and it needs to be discussed and fixed. There are too many individuals who are just wasted human life and they are our fellow Americans. It shouldn't be that way regardless of skin color. The destruction of the black family has everything to do with it but democrats won't discuss it because they are deathly afraid of losing the black vote.
When you really look at the crime numbers, about 44% of violent crime comes from Americans who are black men. Black men = 6% of the population. We have to fix this. All this bullshit about white terrorism is just a ruse so that democrat strategists and politicians can paint their political enemies as racist. Meanwhile 1000's more die and hundreds of thousands are the victims of violent crime. Discussing poor white trailer parks isn't going to move the needle.
I've been in plenty of rough black neighborhoods. I practiced baseball at night in High Point when High Point was still High Point (fuck gentrification).
Fuck man I live in fucking Memphrica.
Try again.
Try what again? Clearly you are mistaken with your white poor trailer park comment. That ain't where the problem is.
He is virtue signalling. You'll notice how he has nothing in support his claim while being very quick to play the race card when he couldn't back up his mouth.
No one is virtue signaling here. You made a claim about poor whites being safer than poor blacks. I responded "I'd love to see those stats on crime by poor whites."
You have not yet provided one statistic about crime by poor whites.
Once you answer that question we can move off of this little merry go round we're on. And if you can't that's cool. Just don't claim you know anything about if it you don't.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
And I do.
hth
No, you made a claim that poor whites are more dangerous than poor blacks. You've provided nothing in support of that crap. Do you agree that there are more poor whites than poor blacks? Yes or no.
BTW I never said black neighborhoods are safer. I said I feel safer in black neighborhoods.
Great, the entire exchange was based upon your feelings.
I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend what you were reading.
I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a 13 year old girl who believes her feelings trump the facts. And of course you still dodge the questions I put to you.
It was literally a question about one's feelings.
Just take responsibility for not being able to follow a thread.
Then why even ask about crime rate statistics? You weren't making an argument based upon facts you were emoting and stating your feelings.
Because you claimed poor whites are more dangerous.
I said I'd love to see the stats. I really would, I think it would be interesting.
I'm well aware that my feelings aren't the arbiter or what is true or fact and I never presented them as such. I just answered a direct question with a direct answer.
You interjected yourself with no clue what was being discussed an have continued to be clueless about the conversation for like 3 pages now.
I'm not clueless now. You were just emoting. You have no basis for your feelings and you're unwilling to answer any questions about your feelings. I got it.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
Ak-47s are fully automatic. The relatively small number that exist legally in the country are heavily regulated.
Last I heard, the shooter got his legally. What did he have to go through to get it?
Who had an AK-47?
What kind of gun did the El Paso shooter have?
Digging through several ambiguous articles, it appears he had a semi-auto AK variant made in Romania. Most reporters have very little knowledge of firearms or firearms law. You'll probably take that as a political statement, but it's not.
And I don't know shit about guns, which is why I would want to talk to people who do.
That's good. The distinction above may seem trivial to you, but at the intersection of technical and legal, it's very important. Fully automatic weapons were first regulated in 1934, and then again in 1968 and 1986. There's a lot of them legally owned in the country but they are frightfully expensive, and even paperwork oversights can result in serious legal trouble. If you see a story cite use of a AK-47, AK-74, a M-16 or a M-4 in shooting, it is almost certainly wrong as those are regulated machine guns. Legally owned machine guns are almost never used in a crime, and even illegal or illegally modified machine guns. Only one I can think of off hand is the Hollywood bank robbery in the 90s, and even then I think they illegally modified semis to full auto.
Broadly speaking, typical reporters at outlets that get any kind of coverage have very little understanding of firearms. The next most misunderstood topics would probably be mainstream Christianity and finance. For whatever reason, it's self selecting with among those that go into journalism. I know that group, and actually specifically in a couple cases.
All true. Nothing is misrepresented as badly in this country as guns and statistics about guns. Shameful really.
That's because one side has an agenda to completely disarm it's citizens. Almost all media is in their camp.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
I appreciate you at least conversing on it, and I never expect to change anyone's mind in the Tug. In fact, I almost never wade into this stuff at all, but you asked a fair question and I wanted to give a fair answer. Others may not know the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, so even if they still don't agree, at least they know.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.
So how hard is it, and how hard should it be, for an individual to get an AR-15? Obviously, I'm not troubled that you have one or even that probably the vast majority of those who have them do. Sled doesn't want crazies to have them either, but has also stated his opposition to "red flag" laws.
Varies by state and locality. Damned near impossible in a few, walk up to the counter in other places. I've never found good numbers for how many ARs are out there, but I think it's safe to say several million.
And that's what I'm reading too. That it could be a very easy, same day process, depending on where you are. That seems nuts to me.
So, challenge your assumptions about gun violence with the scope of gun ownership, purchase, population and crime statistics.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
I appreciate you at least conversing on it, and I never expect to change anyone's mind in the Tug. In fact, I almost never wade into this stuff at all, but you asked a fair question and I wanted to give a fair answer. Others may not know the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, so even if they still don't agree, at least they know.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.
So how hard is it, and how hard should it be, for an individual to get an AR-15? Obviously, I'm not troubled that you have one or even that probably the vast majority of those who have them do. Sled doesn't want crazies to have them either, but has also stated his opposition to "red flag" laws.
Varies by state and locality. Damned near impossible in a few, walk up to the counter in other places. I've never found good numbers for how many ARs are out there, but I think it's safe to say several million.
And that's what I'm reading too. That it could be a very easy, same day process, depending on where you are. That seems nuts to me.
So, challenge your assumptions about gun violence with the scope of gun ownership, purchase, population and crime statistics.
Statistics say there are more guns now than ever and that gun crime has dropped.
So how hard is it, and how hard should it be, for an individual to get an AR-15? Obviously, I'm not troubled that you have one or even that probably the vast majority of those who have them do. Sled doesn't want crazies to have them either, but has also stated his opposition to "red flag" laws.
I am not opposed to more stringent background checks and limited laws to remove guns from people who have demonstrated mental health issues for short durations until accurate mental state assessments can be made. So I will give you two answers here, since we are discussing two different issues.
The issue all gun advocates have is, in the case of background check strengthening, that we really do not believe that is the end game. I think until politicians, whom I loathe, on both sides can have honest debates about their respective end games on gun control, there can be no quarter given. It's the opposite spectrum of the abortion debate - I don't think most reasonable liberals actually believe that aborting babies at birth is a good thing, but they also believe, and perhaps rightly so, that if they give in on ANYTHING, it's starts the slippery slope and the next thing you know abortion is mostly illegal because the pro life contingent has chipped away so long and hard that it is now basically not a right. That is precisely how gun advocates feel - most even ardent gun supporters I know believe in strong and effective background checks, and in some cases even gun safety classes. But if we give in there, next year it will be licensing, then the next year registration, then the next year banning type mentality. And I can't say I disagree with that position. In my perfect world we would have strong background checks and requirements for gun safety training, but never licensing or registration. I don't believe it infringes on your rights to take a class to learn to properly use a firearm. That said, I have zero faith if we gave in on on this point that Nancy Pelosi would say "welp, ok, we did it and got ironclad background checks and safety training, we're done here..." I can say this, I do not want felons or people who beat their wives routinely owning guns. Period. Full stop.
The red flag laws are super tricky. Here's why. I do not want any imbalanced person to have access to firepower. That said, I see so many ways this could be taken advantage of. Some wife gets dumped. Nothing abusive is happening but she's pissed. Call the cops and say "he threatened to hurt me and himself." Bam, dudes guns are gone for 90 days and he is in court petitioning for his right to get them back, after paying huge fees to do so. Liberal counties would make the list of requirements for resolution almost impossible to abide by. At the same time, some mechanism must exist whereby some assclown who is writing death threats to people, and it is proven, has their guns taken away by force if necessary. So this one is tricky and I don't have the answer. Whatever system is devised MUST be impartial, and expeditious, and not create undue burden on the gun owner - because we all know there will be abuse in any system like this. It must also be effective at keeping guns out of the hand of legit crazy fucks who want to go harm people. Tough nut.
I reneg on my earlier accusation @HHusky, you are having an earnest and reasonable conversation in good faith, or you are the best troll. Either way, I applaud you. @Swaye is doing an excellent job here so I'll save further thoughts other than to say that even if you are on the "side" of further gun controls it becomes a very problematic issue as a policy wonk. The details of legislation are a huge bitch very few actually want to tackle. Even states that have the most stringent of controls end up with mass shootings and not just because of guns coming across state lines. This is the part where the Dems pound the table and then never do anything bc 1) it's actually a really hard problem to fix and 2) it serves them better to do nothing and keep the base angry at the GOP/NRA.
I reneg on my earlier accusation @HHusky, you are having an earnest and reasonable conversation in good faith, or you are the best troll. Either way, I applaud you. @Swaye is doing an excellent job here so I'll save further thoughts other than to say that even if you are on the "side" of further gun controls it becomes a very problematic issue as a policy wonk. The details of legislation are a huge bitch very few actually want to tackle. Even states that have the most stringent of controls end up with mass shootings and not just because of guns coming across state lines. This is the part where the Dems pound the table and then never do anything bc 1) it's actually a really hard problem to fix and 2) it serves them better to do nothing and keep the base angry at the GOP/NRA.
Yeah, he might have be actually ignorant of the numbers, facts, math etc. of the issue.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor whites are more dangerous. I could be a Kunt and claim that you feel this way on account of their white skin but I'm not a Kunt.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor white are more dangerous.
Christ man, this is part of why no one takes you seriously. You rival StrongArm in inability to take an L or give a charitable interpretation of someone's argument.
You'd do yourself a favor if you spent just a bit more time picking your battles than picking fucking nits.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor whites are more dangerous. I could be a Kunt and claim that you feel this way on account of their white skin but I'm not a Kunt.
I am racist against white people.
After all these years, I've finally been found out.
Feels good to actually be able to say it, quite honestly.
And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
We already agreed there are more poor whites.
Are you even reading this thread?
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.
But you feel that poor white are more dangerous.
Christ man, this is part of why no one takes you seriously. You rival StrongArm in inability to take an L or give a charitable interpretation of someone's argument.
You'd do yourself a favor if you spent just a bit more time picking your battles than picking fucking nits.
What the fuck are you talking about? That was you're fucking argument. You had no facts you had no data, by your own admission you were just stating your feelings. Go ahead Kunt, the W is all yours. You win who can emote the best.
Comments
You're just stating your feelings.
The issue all gun advocates have is, in the case of background check strengthening, that we really do not believe that is the end game. I think until politicians, whom I loathe, on both sides can have honest debates about their respective end games on gun control, there can be no quarter given. It's the opposite spectrum of the abortion debate - I don't think most reasonable liberals actually believe that aborting babies at birth is a good thing, but they also believe, and perhaps rightly so, that if they give in on ANYTHING, it's starts the slippery slope and the next thing you know abortion is mostly illegal because the pro life contingent has chipped away so long and hard that it is now basically not a right. That is precisely how gun advocates feel - most even ardent gun supporters I know believe in strong and effective background checks, and in some cases even gun safety classes. But if we give in there, next year it will be licensing, then the next year registration, then the next year banning type mentality. And I can't say I disagree with that position. In my perfect world we would have strong background checks and requirements for gun safety training, but never licensing or registration. I don't believe it infringes on your rights to take a class to learn to properly use a firearm. That said, I have zero faith if we gave in on on this point that Nancy Pelosi would say "welp, ok, we did it and got ironclad background checks and safety training, we're done here..." I can say this, I do not want felons or people who beat their wives routinely owning guns. Period. Full stop.
The red flag laws are super tricky. Here's why. I do not want any imbalanced person to have access to firepower. That said, I see so many ways this could be taken advantage of. Some wife gets dumped. Nothing abusive is happening but she's pissed. Call the cops and say "he threatened to hurt me and himself." Bam, dudes guns are gone for 90 days and he is in court petitioning for his right to get them back, after paying huge fees to do so. Liberal counties would make the list of requirements for resolution almost impossible to abide by. At the same time, some mechanism must exist whereby some assclown who is writing death threats to people, and it is proven, has their guns taken away by force if necessary. So this one is tricky and I don't have the answer. Whatever system is devised MUST be impartial, and expeditious, and not create undue burden on the gun owner - because we all know there will be abuse in any system like this. It must also be effective at keeping guns out of the hand of legit crazy fucks who want to go harm people. Tough nut.
I said I'd love to see the stats. I really would, I think it would be interesting.
I'm well aware that my feelings aren't the arbiter or what is true or fact and I never presented them as such. I just answered a direct question with a direct answer.
You interjected yourself with no clue what was being discussed an have continued to be clueless about the conversation for like 3 pages now.
Are you even reading this thread?
I'm not clueless now. You were just emoting. You have no basis for your feelings and you're unwilling to answer any questions about your feelings. I got it.
You'd do yourself a favor if you spent just a bit more time picking your battles than picking fucking nits.
After all these years, I've finally been found out.
Feels good to actually be able to say it, quite honestly.
I am ashamed.