Meh, I use it because it perfectly describes the type of person I’m referring to. I present my cases how I want, sometimes I like to make it uncomfortable to read.
You are a dumb, bald loser. Also, 2+2 equals 4.
Not the best intro, maybe. Whatever though, people are too thin skinned.
The question here, like with most issues of national significance, is not whether people support background checks or other forms of gun control. It is whether these measures have enough corporate, special interest, establishment support and how much it would affect those who reap the benefits of these measures not being in place. Why do you think we are paying more than the rest of the developed world in health care costs while having significantly worse outcomes? Same reason.
If people want change you need to look towards what MADD did against drunk driving. Get lobbying.
^ Agreed.
yay work 1 loveee. but i disagree we need another 1 of me!
as for gun control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrsFXgQk5UI
“Baby, I am not afraid to die.” Push me to the edge All my friends are dead
I find it very telling that on one hand liberals want to restrict gun rights as a result of something like 1000 mass shootings deaths over the past 50 years, and on the other hand the same liberals go on about civil rights violations when cops are doing more invasive searches of black people in certain inner cities in areas where there happens to be more gun violence, which has historically been a much larger factor for gun violence.
What spurred my post was that this is the first time I’ve seen victims and/or survivors of a massacre use a platform to directly call out leaders that then gets shared in minutes globally. Kids from the school are taking Trump/*insert GOP talking head* tweets, quoting them and telling them to go fuck themselves.
It’s plausible it’s staying within an echo chamber but my guess is its getting across the desks of the intended targets eventually. Whether they actually care is another question, of course (they don’t).
Yeah I agree with that
I’ve read this a couple times and I can’t pull the dichotomy or point out of it. Stop and frisk leads to more gun violence from minorities?
The dichotomy being that libs want to disarm law abiding citizens while ignoring the fact that its the criminals that prey on them that will have access to guns regardless. They also give a disproportionate amount of attention to mass shootings while focusing less on the more significant source of gun violence, presumably because its one of their protected classes.
I’m also not aware of any data that suggests that there is a decrease in gun violence as a result of greater restrictions on the legal access of guns. To the contrary, I’ve seen studies that suggest that there are higher rates of gun violence in places with more stringent laws about who can access guns.
Got it, thanks. Yeah I mean it goes right in line with the “I’ll fight for a minority classes rights right up until the point they move next door.” Kid walking into suburban school and gunning down kids is obviously bad. Poor people killing each other in poor neighborhoods? Way less bad, to the point of total ignorance. It’s how you get liberals to go along with broken windows policing methods that leads to things like stop and frisk. Oops, guess you fucked up, Malcolm Gladwell.
I think the second point you made is why there is never even a discussion on reasonable gun policy, even the widely supported items that BS cited earlier. Because it’s like, well we’re already so deep in it what good will it even do? Even in areas where gun laws are strict, you don’t have to resort to buying them illegally, you can just get in your car and drive somewhere where it’s easier to get them.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
This Chicago point is in isolation because you can’t buy guns in states you don’t reside, so on a state by state comparison, gun laws should be relevant. That said, I’d also favor strengthening gun laws around purchasing as well, mandate all sales occur through registered dealers (so if I want to sell to you we would have to go to a dealer together and complete the transaction there for some fee) and strengthen penalties around any cross border transportation and sale violations so that they carry full gun trafficking charges. After a few examples are made out of people, the rest will fall in line. Personally I think a full scale robust background check system designed to fluidly work across data bases and us AI techniques worth billions should be designed by top engineers and funded with mandatory taxes on firearm sales so as to be revenue neutral. They also need to build out policies so that in violent behavior cases (like this kid’s expulsion or stalking cases) they pursue mandatory court appointed therapy that would show up on background checks. I would also be in favor of heavier restrictions by class of firearm (ie if you had mandated therapy you’re banned from owning non-hunting guns for three years) and in those cases you would surrender any non-hunting weapons to the police for that period.
I mean, he has a point. You have an anonymous tip line for this exact reason. Somebody calls in January 5th, six weeks before the shooting, details the shooters weapons, instability and desire to shoot up a school. This guy has been posting publicly about wanting to shoot up a school and the local sheriffs’ office has had numerous calls about this guy being a threat and… the FBI literally does nothing. Doesn’t even bother to relay the info of the call to the local office, doesn’t investigate. Meanwhile they have all the resources to go chasing conspiracies. Yes, heads should roll at the FBI.
Yup. 
But this is sort of the norm these days; entities don’t do what they were formed to do, or do the exact opposite. The “news” is a disinformation outlet. The “Anti Defamation League” is a defamation agency. The “intelligence” agencies are morons.
without being dragged into this thread full of political and sociopolitical and socioeconomic experts with seemingly endless ties to government files and “truths”…
I will say this…Growing up, I have been to many gun shows where you can buy any guns second hand without an ID…Want a NATO standard round 5.56 with 3x scope? check. Want armor piercing green tips with it? check. Want extended mag of +30? check. Want to buy 1000 rounds? check…Super accurate to 700 yards and military grade reliability at your fingertips…Pretty cool eh? Don’t even need to practice to hit targets at 200 yards…just point and pull point and pull.
Cash is king boys…No ID. No transaction paper trail…
From U of Alabama professor, Adam Lanford:
Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns.
From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American - US second in the world. First place is Yemen which happens to have second highest gun ownership lagging behind the US.
Before the tea partiers and NRA members of AF go wild…I am merely stating my own experience (first part) and summarizing a scientific finding (second part) from Prof. Lanford, a criminology professor at U of A.
I’m not sure what your point here is.
just stating.