the problem with not seizing them means all those guns are still in circulation. all the regulation and registration won't change the fact that a certain percentage of gun owner simply do not adequately secure their firearms away from people who shouldn't have them.
a mandatory buyback program coupled with a hefty jail sentence for anyone who is non compliant would do wonders.
I would say a voluntary buyback program and required registration...maybe even a program where you have to let the police verify the weapon is still in your possession every few years.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of gun owners in america would voluntarily sell back their gun. I'd say in the zero point something to zero point something but slightly higher range.
the propaganda associated with a buyback, mandatory or voluntary, by the right wing media would be like something none of us had ever seen. so I don't think that's ever going to happen. I think Biden et al are going to try to ban "assault style" rifles like Clinton did. But he'll grandfather in current owners and require registration, which will do absolutely nothing. And it will fail anyway. I'm sure even a few democrats would vote against it.
At market rates a lot. Above market rates even more. giving out a 20 dollar gift card per gun, not a lot.
At the end of the day it’s about incentives
isn't "freedum from tyranny" the biggest incentive of them all amongst this crowd? or I suppose I'm overestimating the amount of nut jobs in the gun owner group.
They may not sell all their guns, but they might get rid of half of them if it’s enough money.
I agree a buyback program is probably less effective among single gun owners
That’s exactly what I would do if it was retail value. It’s too much of a hassle and expensive to sell a gun privately, so I end up keeping some I will probably never use. If I got fair market I’d sell them.
So up to $10.00 and waiting up to 30 days for a CBI check to come back on the buyer is “too much of a hassle and expensive?”
No. Not what I said at all. you’re referring to fees with buying a gun. I was taking about selling guns. If I sell mine through a gun store, they’ll usually take half for commission. If I want to sell it at a gun show then I have to spend all weekend either waking around trying to sell it, or rent a booth for the weekend and hope someone is interested enough to offer me a fair price . Even less worth it. most online sites don’t allow advertisement of guns. I’m sure there’s some out there, but I’m not even aware of a local place like Craigslist that allows it, so doubtful it gets much traffic. There are sites like gunbroker, but there are more fees, have to ship to a dealer which adds to the cost. A gun dealer isn’t going to receive and handle the gun for free. I’ve never tried shipping a gun, but there’s probably more paperwork involved. So if I have a gun worth $350 and I’m likely going to get half that selling through a store or online, I’m more likely to keep it. I’d be willing to bet a lot less people would sell posters if they were banned on here, eBay and almost every other website except for a few select auctions sites dedicated to posters which took 50% commission. We’d all probably just end up keeping posters we aren’t too excited about if that was the case.
My understanding is that you can sell the gun to another buyer and that the requirements are that the buyer go to a licensed dealer to facilitate the purchase by having them file the paperwork for the CBI check. Your obligation is not to transfer the firearm until the CBI check declares the buyer is legally allowed to possess the firearm. Each transaction requires this but a transaction can be multiple firearms. The dealer is allowed to charge a small fee, previously $10.00, now it appears to be $15.00. That’s from the CBI website. CBI used to have 3 days to conduct the background check but it was expanded to up to 30 because during a deluge of requests, it was taking 4 days and regardless of the background check results, the transfer was legal if it wasn’t completed within 3 days. Now the process, on average, takes 20 minutes. You’re not required to leave the firearm with the dealer so I’m not sure where you come up with a 50% commission. These requirements were passed by the legislature and, again, because of the deluge of requests and Colorado’s excess revenue law, they even reduced the fee to $7.00 for a short time. Also, there’s an online platform called ArmsList where you can advertise your firearms for sale and I’m sure state “only to legal residents of Colorado.”
Im sure you find all of this a violation of your 2A and it makes you angry at the gubmint for limiting your freedom? Why do you think the sale of guns online is more arduous than posters? Before the interwebs, there were whole glossy catalogs of firearms for sale by private folks just like the Autotrader mag that’s still around. Paper Tiger and another reason nothing changes.
What you said is correct, but you’re also missing some steps. If I’m selling my gun, where am I going to find a buyer? I’m not allowed to list on Facebook, Craigslist, or almost anywhere else. So finding a buyer is a hassle. My 50% commission I mentioned was selling my gun through a dealer on consignment. Go to any gun store and they will have used guns. Where did they get them? They are guns they sell on consignment or buy flat out for about half value. Much like a music store, Guitar center will pay me $500 then sell my guitar for $1000. Most people don’t do that because selling a guitar on your own is easy. Finding a buyer for a gun isn’t since most online places don’t allow you to sell it. To find that buyer I have to spend a weekend walking around a gun show hoping someone is going to buy 2 or 3 guns I’m selling. Totally not worth my time. Even if I do find a buyer, it’s a lot more than the $15 you were talking about. That $15 is what the government charges for the background check. The store charges whatever they want to process it. Buy a gun through the store they almost always waive that fee. Do it as a third party transfer they often charge about $75, which is going to lower the cost of the gun. Since I have a gun worth $300 that I want to sell my options are really get $150 for it from the store. Spend a weekend trying to sell it and maybe get around $200 for it because the buyer isnt going to pay much more than that knowing the fees involved on a private transfer. Sell it online, which again it will probably sell for less than $200 because the buyer knows he has even more fees shipping it to a dealer and after my listing fees I probably walk away with the $150 I’d get from the store. Knowing this hypothetical gun is worth $300, knowing I’d have to pay taxes and fees if I ever wanted it again on top of that price, but would only get a small amount back by selling, I’m more likely to keep it. So the original question who would sell guns to a buyback program. If there was a buyback program that did offer me the $300 it’s worth, there’s a couple I’d sell.
I found gun stores in Denver that charged a range of 15% to $75, a flat fee, for facilitating a transfer of a firearm.
Jeez Mace, ever think to have the buyer pay the fees? Ever think to make a For Sale sign? Maybe with a gmail email for further information? You make it sound like the oppressive government is preventing you from selling your firearms. Seems to me like they made it fairly easy and straight forward. And safer. How hard is any of this to do while your firearms sit collecting dust? Seems more like stubborn principle to me. It also seems like firearms are like automobiles in that the moment you take them off the lot or out of the store, they lose value and thus, are a poor investment.
Why do you have to ship it to a dealer? Can’t drive? Walk or ride a bike to a licensed gun store?
%15 to $75 flat fee. I said most gun stores charge about $75, so not sure what the argument is here? The same number I used. Buyers would pay the fees. But no one would pay $300 for a private party gun sale knowing there are more fees involved. Selling a gun is a lot like everything else. Just like cars and guitars, people expect to pay less, not more, going through a private party vs a dealership or Guitar Center. So with a private party and the additional fees involved, a gun that a store sells for $300 I would expect to get at most $200 selling on my own, and that is likely only going to save the buyer $25-$50 on the price, not a huge savings for him going private party sale. You might ship because it’s difficult to find a buyer on those online websites you mentioned locally. You can sell on gun trader or gunbroker, but most likely the buyer will be out of state. I’m not waking that far. So I would use a postal service. Shipping increases the cost to the buyer, and therefore usually means he’s willing to spend less on the gun. Do you never factor in cost of shipping when buying something on eBay? You’d be the only one. I could make a sign. Where would I put it, my front yard? I wouldn’t really want to advertise to everyone who drives by. Im not sure why everything has to turn into an argument. The question was would gun owners sell any of their guns in a buyback program? I said I would. If someone offered me full value for a gun, sure I’d sell some. I don’t understand why that is difficult to understand. People do it all the time with everything. Look at lost dogs, people post looking for ads. And a poster they maybe weren’t actively trying to sell but was just sitting around, someone offers a fair price they sell it. I didn’t complain about the process or the cost. Never said guns should be an investment. Didn’t say it’s infringing anything. Just explaining the process, don’t know why you always jump to those conclusions.
Because your initial explanation of “the process” was not accurate. You began by claiming you’d have to pay a 50% commission and made it sound like “the process” wasn’t worth the “hassle.” Guess you’re stuck with your guns?
If I had something that cost me $400 or $375 or whatever your initial claim was, however many years ago, and I could get $300 or even $250 for it now, I’d sell it. And I’d figure it out. 20 million guns purchased in 2020 and you can’t tell me they were all brand new from a licensed retail store.
And yes, selling a firearm is a lot like everything else, possible. The “hassle” part is on you.
A Politico/Morning consult poll out Wednesday showed “huge support”
for gun regulations. It showed that 88% of voters strongly or somewhat
support background checks on all gun sales, while only 8% strongly or
somewhat oppose such checks. That’s a net approval of +80.
Preventing
gun sales to people who have been reported to police as dangerous by a
mental health provider is supported by 84% of voters while only 9%
oppose it, a net approval of +75.
Seventy-seven percent of
voters support requiring guns to be stored in a safe storage unit,
while only 15% oppose such a requirement, a net approval of +62.
A national database for gun sales gets 75% approval and 18% disapproval, a net approval rate of +57.
Banning
assault style weapons like the AR-15 has an approval rate of 67% of
voters while only 25% disapprove. That’s a net approval of +42.
And
fifty-four percent of voters approve of arming teachers with concealed
weapons, while only 34% oppose it, a net approval of +20.
And yet look what we've got. This is lunacy.
That last one is scary. I can't believe support for arming teachers is that high.
Agreed, it's a horrible idea! When I as teaching, if they'd told me I had to be armed to go to work, I'd have quit. No doubt many others would as well. The notion that arming more people will solve the problem is insane.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,912
After
each of the repeated mass shootings that now provide a tragic backbeat
to American life, the same doomed dance of legislation quickly begins.
As the outraged demands for action are inevitably derailed in Congress,
disappointed gun-control advocates, and perplexed ordinary citizens,
point their fingers at the influence of the National Rifle Association
or the intransigent opposition of congressional Republicans. Those are
both legitimate factors, but the stalemate over gun-control legislation
since Bill Clinton’s first presidential term ultimately rests on a much
deeper problem: the growing crisis of majority rule in American
politics.
Polls are clear
that while Americans don’t believe gun control would solve all of the
problems associated with gun violence, a commanding majority supports
the central priorities of gun-control advocates, including universal
background checks and an assault-weapons ban. Yet despite this
overwhelming consensus, it’s highly unlikely that the massacre of at
least 19 schoolchildren and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, yesterday, or
President Joe Biden’s emotional plea for action last night, will result
in legislative action.
That’s
because gun control is one of many issues in which majority opinion in
the nation runs into the brick wall of a Senate rule—the filibuster—that
provides a veto over national policy to a minority of the states, most
of them small, largely rural, preponderantly white, and dominated by
Republicans.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
the problem with not seizing them means all those guns are still in circulation. all the regulation and registration won't change the fact that a certain percentage of gun owner simply do not adequately secure their firearms away from people who shouldn't have them.
a mandatory buyback program coupled with a hefty jail sentence for anyone who is non compliant would do wonders.
I would say a voluntary buyback program and required registration...maybe even a program where you have to let the police verify the weapon is still in your possession every few years.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of gun owners in america would voluntarily sell back their gun. I'd say in the zero point something to zero point something but slightly higher range.
the propaganda associated with a buyback, mandatory or voluntary, by the right wing media would be like something none of us had ever seen. so I don't think that's ever going to happen. I think Biden et al are going to try to ban "assault style" rifles like Clinton did. But he'll grandfather in current owners and require registration, which will do absolutely nothing. And it will fail anyway. I'm sure even a few democrats would vote against it.
At market rates a lot. Above market rates even more. giving out a 20 dollar gift card per gun, not a lot.
At the end of the day it’s about incentives
isn't "freedum from tyranny" the biggest incentive of them all amongst this crowd? or I suppose I'm overestimating the amount of nut jobs in the gun owner group.
They may not sell all their guns, but they might get rid of half of them if it’s enough money.
I agree a buyback program is probably less effective among single gun owners
That’s exactly what I would do if it was retail value. It’s too much of a hassle and expensive to sell a gun privately, so I end up keeping some I will probably never use. If I got fair market I’d sell them.
So up to $10.00 and waiting up to 30 days for a CBI check to come back on the buyer is “too much of a hassle and expensive?”
No. Not what I said at all. you’re referring to fees with buying a gun. I was taking about selling guns. If I sell mine through a gun store, they’ll usually take half for commission. If I want to sell it at a gun show then I have to spend all weekend either waking around trying to sell it, or rent a booth for the weekend and hope someone is interested enough to offer me a fair price . Even less worth it. most online sites don’t allow advertisement of guns. I’m sure there’s some out there, but I’m not even aware of a local place like Craigslist that allows it, so doubtful it gets much traffic. There are sites like gunbroker, but there are more fees, have to ship to a dealer which adds to the cost. A gun dealer isn’t going to receive and handle the gun for free. I’ve never tried shipping a gun, but there’s probably more paperwork involved. So if I have a gun worth $350 and I’m likely going to get half that selling through a store or online, I’m more likely to keep it. I’d be willing to bet a lot less people would sell posters if they were banned on here, eBay and almost every other website except for a few select auctions sites dedicated to posters which took 50% commission. We’d all probably just end up keeping posters we aren’t too excited about if that was the case.
My understanding is that you can sell the gun to another buyer and that the requirements are that the buyer go to a licensed dealer to facilitate the purchase by having them file the paperwork for the CBI check. Your obligation is not to transfer the firearm until the CBI check declares the buyer is legally allowed to possess the firearm. Each transaction requires this but a transaction can be multiple firearms. The dealer is allowed to charge a small fee, previously $10.00, now it appears to be $15.00. That’s from the CBI website. CBI used to have 3 days to conduct the background check but it was expanded to up to 30 because during a deluge of requests, it was taking 4 days and regardless of the background check results, the transfer was legal if it wasn’t completed within 3 days. Now the process, on average, takes 20 minutes. You’re not required to leave the firearm with the dealer so I’m not sure where you come up with a 50% commission. These requirements were passed by the legislature and, again, because of the deluge of requests and Colorado’s excess revenue law, they even reduced the fee to $7.00 for a short time. Also, there’s an online platform called ArmsList where you can advertise your firearms for sale and I’m sure state “only to legal residents of Colorado.”
Im sure you find all of this a violation of your 2A and it makes you angry at the gubmint for limiting your freedom? Why do you think the sale of guns online is more arduous than posters? Before the interwebs, there were whole glossy catalogs of firearms for sale by private folks just like the Autotrader mag that’s still around. Paper Tiger and another reason nothing changes.
What you said is correct, but you’re also missing some steps. If I’m selling my gun, where am I going to find a buyer? I’m not allowed to list on Facebook, Craigslist, or almost anywhere else. So finding a buyer is a hassle. My 50% commission I mentioned was selling my gun through a dealer on consignment. Go to any gun store and they will have used guns. Where did they get them? They are guns they sell on consignment or buy flat out for about half value. Much like a music store, Guitar center will pay me $500 then sell my guitar for $1000. Most people don’t do that because selling a guitar on your own is easy. Finding a buyer for a gun isn’t since most online places don’t allow you to sell it. To find that buyer I have to spend a weekend walking around a gun show hoping someone is going to buy 2 or 3 guns I’m selling. Totally not worth my time. Even if I do find a buyer, it’s a lot more than the $15 you were talking about. That $15 is what the government charges for the background check. The store charges whatever they want to process it. Buy a gun through the store they almost always waive that fee. Do it as a third party transfer they often charge about $75, which is going to lower the cost of the gun. Since I have a gun worth $300 that I want to sell my options are really get $150 for it from the store. Spend a weekend trying to sell it and maybe get around $200 for it because the buyer isnt going to pay much more than that knowing the fees involved on a private transfer. Sell it online, which again it will probably sell for less than $200 because the buyer knows he has even more fees shipping it to a dealer and after my listing fees I probably walk away with the $150 I’d get from the store. Knowing this hypothetical gun is worth $300, knowing I’d have to pay taxes and fees if I ever wanted it again on top of that price, but would only get a small amount back by selling, I’m more likely to keep it. So the original question who would sell guns to a buyback program. If there was a buyback program that did offer me the $300 it’s worth, there’s a couple I’d sell.
I found gun stores in Denver that charged a range of 15% to $75, a flat fee, for facilitating a transfer of a firearm.
Jeez Mace, ever think to have the buyer pay the fees? Ever think to make a For Sale sign? Maybe with a gmail email for further information? You make it sound like the oppressive government is preventing you from selling your firearms. Seems to me like they made it fairly easy and straight forward. And safer. How hard is any of this to do while your firearms sit collecting dust? Seems more like stubborn principle to me. It also seems like firearms are like automobiles in that the moment you take them off the lot or out of the store, they lose value and thus, are a poor investment.
Why do you have to ship it to a dealer? Can’t drive? Walk or ride a bike to a licensed gun store?
%15 to $75 flat fee. I said most gun stores charge about $75, so not sure what the argument is here? The same number I used. Buyers would pay the fees. But no one would pay $300 for a private party gun sale knowing there are more fees involved. Selling a gun is a lot like everything else. Just like cars and guitars, people expect to pay less, not more, going through a private party vs a dealership or Guitar Center. So with a private party and the additional fees involved, a gun that a store sells for $300 I would expect to get at most $200 selling on my own, and that is likely only going to save the buyer $25-$50 on the price, not a huge savings for him going private party sale. You might ship because it’s difficult to find a buyer on those online websites you mentioned locally. You can sell on gun trader or gunbroker, but most likely the buyer will be out of state. I’m not waking that far. So I would use a postal service. Shipping increases the cost to the buyer, and therefore usually means he’s willing to spend less on the gun. Do you never factor in cost of shipping when buying something on eBay? You’d be the only one. I could make a sign. Where would I put it, my front yard? I wouldn’t really want to advertise to everyone who drives by. Im not sure why everything has to turn into an argument. The question was would gun owners sell any of their guns in a buyback program? I said I would. If someone offered me full value for a gun, sure I’d sell some. I don’t understand why that is difficult to understand. People do it all the time with everything. Look at lost dogs, people post looking for ads. And a poster they maybe weren’t actively trying to sell but was just sitting around, someone offers a fair price they sell it. I didn’t complain about the process or the cost. Never said guns should be an investment. Didn’t say it’s infringing anything. Just explaining the process, don’t know why you always jump to those conclusions.
Because your initial explanation of “the process” was not accurate. You began by claiming you’d have to pay a 50% commission and made it sound like “the process” wasn’t worth the “hassle.” Guess you’re stuck with your guns?
If I had something that cost me $400 or $375 or whatever your initial claim was, however many years ago, and I could get $300 or even $250 for it now, I’d sell it. And I’d figure it out. 20 million guns purchased in 2020 and you can’t tell me they were all brand new from a licensed retail store.
And yes, selling a firearm is a lot like everything else, possible. The “hassle” part is on you.
I laid out the different options. Selling through a store on commission was only 1 of them. There are fewer options to post guns for sale online, most places don’t allow it. The ones that do have fees, it’s not like Craigslist. The fees can be high to have a gun dealer do the paperwork. It’s not difficult to understand, you’re just choosing not to. You like to make simple claims to really complicated arguments. I never said all gun sales are brand new? Where did you get that? Again, part of your hobby of making stuff up to complicate a simple statement. If I was eager to sell a gun, I’d go through the proper channels and sell it.
My initial “claim” was a hypothetical gun value. So my apologies if it changed from $375 to 400 and it confused you.
The question was would any gun owners sell guns in an optional buyback program? I’m not eager to sell it, but if someone just offered me a fair value I’d sell some and keep some. Therefore a buyback program would work for some of my guns and not others. But knowing I can’t just post it on Facebook or Craigslist and expect full market value, I’m more likely to keep it. That’s it. No need to complicate this, or make false claims that I’m angry and my rights are being violated, or only new guns are being sold. Equally puzzling as to why you continue to try and complicate that simple fact is why do I keep responding?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,763
After
each of the repeated mass shootings that now provide a tragic backbeat
to American life, the same doomed dance of legislation quickly begins.
As the outraged demands for action are inevitably derailed in Congress,
disappointed gun-control advocates, and perplexed ordinary citizens,
point their fingers at the influence of the National Rifle Association
or the intransigent opposition of congressional Republicans. Those are
both legitimate factors, but the stalemate over gun-control legislation
since Bill Clinton’s first presidential term ultimately rests on a much
deeper problem: the growing crisis of majority rule in American
politics.
Polls are clear
that while Americans don’t believe gun control would solve all of the
problems associated with gun violence, a commanding majority supports
the central priorities of gun-control advocates, including universal
background checks and an assault-weapons ban. Yet despite this
overwhelming consensus, it’s highly unlikely that the massacre of at
least 19 schoolchildren and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, yesterday, or
President Joe Biden’s emotional plea for action last night, will result
in legislative action.
That’s
because gun control is one of many issues in which majority opinion in
the nation runs into the brick wall of a Senate rule—the filibuster—that
provides a veto over national policy to a minority of the states, most
of them small, largely rural, preponderantly white, and dominated by
Republicans.
continues....
Good article!
Time to end the filibuster and gerrymandering!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
After
each of the repeated mass shootings that now provide a tragic backbeat
to American life, the same doomed dance of legislation quickly begins.
As the outraged demands for action are inevitably derailed in Congress,
disappointed gun-control advocates, and perplexed ordinary citizens,
point their fingers at the influence of the National Rifle Association
or the intransigent opposition of congressional Republicans. Those are
both legitimate factors, but the stalemate over gun-control legislation
since Bill Clinton’s first presidential term ultimately rests on a much
deeper problem: the growing crisis of majority rule in American
politics.
Polls are clear
that while Americans don’t believe gun control would solve all of the
problems associated with gun violence, a commanding majority supports
the central priorities of gun-control advocates, including universal
background checks and an assault-weapons ban. Yet despite this
overwhelming consensus, it’s highly unlikely that the massacre of at
least 19 schoolchildren and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, yesterday, or
President Joe Biden’s emotional plea for action last night, will result
in legislative action.
That’s
because gun control is one of many issues in which majority opinion in
the nation runs into the brick wall of a Senate rule—the filibuster—that
provides a veto over national policy to a minority of the states, most
of them small, largely rural, preponderantly white, and dominated by
Republicans.
continues....
Good article!
Time to end the filibuster and gerrymandering!
Electoral College as well
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,763
After
each of the repeated mass shootings that now provide a tragic backbeat
to American life, the same doomed dance of legislation quickly begins.
As the outraged demands for action are inevitably derailed in Congress,
disappointed gun-control advocates, and perplexed ordinary citizens,
point their fingers at the influence of the National Rifle Association
or the intransigent opposition of congressional Republicans. Those are
both legitimate factors, but the stalemate over gun-control legislation
since Bill Clinton’s first presidential term ultimately rests on a much
deeper problem: the growing crisis of majority rule in American
politics.
Polls are clear
that while Americans don’t believe gun control would solve all of the
problems associated with gun violence, a commanding majority supports
the central priorities of gun-control advocates, including universal
background checks and an assault-weapons ban. Yet despite this
overwhelming consensus, it’s highly unlikely that the massacre of at
least 19 schoolchildren and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, yesterday, or
President Joe Biden’s emotional plea for action last night, will result
in legislative action.
That’s
because gun control is one of many issues in which majority opinion in
the nation runs into the brick wall of a Senate rule—the filibuster—that
provides a veto over national policy to a minority of the states, most
of them small, largely rural, preponderantly white, and dominated by
Republicans.
continues....
Good article!
Time to end the filibuster and gerrymandering!
Electoral College as well
Oh my, YES!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
the problem with not seizing them means all those guns are still in circulation. all the regulation and registration won't change the fact that a certain percentage of gun owner simply do not adequately secure their firearms away from people who shouldn't have them.
a mandatory buyback program coupled with a hefty jail sentence for anyone who is non compliant would do wonders.
I would say a voluntary buyback program and required registration...maybe even a program where you have to let the police verify the weapon is still in your possession every few years.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of gun owners in america would voluntarily sell back their gun. I'd say in the zero point something to zero point something but slightly higher range.
the propaganda associated with a buyback, mandatory or voluntary, by the right wing media would be like something none of us had ever seen. so I don't think that's ever going to happen. I think Biden et al are going to try to ban "assault style" rifles like Clinton did. But he'll grandfather in current owners and require registration, which will do absolutely nothing. And it will fail anyway. I'm sure even a few democrats would vote against it.
At market rates a lot. Above market rates even more. giving out a 20 dollar gift card per gun, not a lot.
At the end of the day it’s about incentives
isn't "freedum from tyranny" the biggest incentive of them all amongst this crowd? or I suppose I'm overestimating the amount of nut jobs in the gun owner group.
They may not sell all their guns, but they might get rid of half of them if it’s enough money.
I agree a buyback program is probably less effective among single gun owners
That’s exactly what I would do if it was retail value. It’s too much of a hassle and expensive to sell a gun privately, so I end up keeping some I will probably never use. If I got fair market I’d sell them.
So up to $10.00 and waiting up to 30 days for a CBI check to come back on the buyer is “too much of a hassle and expensive?”
No. Not what I said at all. you’re referring to fees with buying a gun. I was taking about selling guns. If I sell mine through a gun store, they’ll usually take half for commission. If I want to sell it at a gun show then I have to spend all weekend either waking around trying to sell it, or rent a booth for the weekend and hope someone is interested enough to offer me a fair price . Even less worth it. most online sites don’t allow advertisement of guns. I’m sure there’s some out there, but I’m not even aware of a local place like Craigslist that allows it, so doubtful it gets much traffic. There are sites like gunbroker, but there are more fees, have to ship to a dealer which adds to the cost. A gun dealer isn’t going to receive and handle the gun for free. I’ve never tried shipping a gun, but there’s probably more paperwork involved. So if I have a gun worth $350 and I’m likely going to get half that selling through a store or online, I’m more likely to keep it. I’d be willing to bet a lot less people would sell posters if they were banned on here, eBay and almost every other website except for a few select auctions sites dedicated to posters which took 50% commission. We’d all probably just end up keeping posters we aren’t too excited about if that was the case.
My understanding is that you can sell the gun to another buyer and that the requirements are that the buyer go to a licensed dealer to facilitate the purchase by having them file the paperwork for the CBI check. Your obligation is not to transfer the firearm until the CBI check declares the buyer is legally allowed to possess the firearm. Each transaction requires this but a transaction can be multiple firearms. The dealer is allowed to charge a small fee, previously $10.00, now it appears to be $15.00. That’s from the CBI website. CBI used to have 3 days to conduct the background check but it was expanded to up to 30 because during a deluge of requests, it was taking 4 days and regardless of the background check results, the transfer was legal if it wasn’t completed within 3 days. Now the process, on average, takes 20 minutes. You’re not required to leave the firearm with the dealer so I’m not sure where you come up with a 50% commission. These requirements were passed by the legislature and, again, because of the deluge of requests and Colorado’s excess revenue law, they even reduced the fee to $7.00 for a short time. Also, there’s an online platform called ArmsList where you can advertise your firearms for sale and I’m sure state “only to legal residents of Colorado.”
Im sure you find all of this a violation of your 2A and it makes you angry at the gubmint for limiting your freedom? Why do you think the sale of guns online is more arduous than posters? Before the interwebs, there were whole glossy catalogs of firearms for sale by private folks just like the Autotrader mag that’s still around. Paper Tiger and another reason nothing changes.
What you said is correct, but you’re also missing some steps. If I’m selling my gun, where am I going to find a buyer? I’m not allowed to list on Facebook, Craigslist, or almost anywhere else. So finding a buyer is a hassle. My 50% commission I mentioned was selling my gun through a dealer on consignment. Go to any gun store and they will have used guns. Where did they get them? They are guns they sell on consignment or buy flat out for about half value. Much like a music store, Guitar center will pay me $500 then sell my guitar for $1000. Most people don’t do that because selling a guitar on your own is easy. Finding a buyer for a gun isn’t since most online places don’t allow you to sell it. To find that buyer I have to spend a weekend walking around a gun show hoping someone is going to buy 2 or 3 guns I’m selling. Totally not worth my time. Even if I do find a buyer, it’s a lot more than the $15 you were talking about. That $15 is what the government charges for the background check. The store charges whatever they want to process it. Buy a gun through the store they almost always waive that fee. Do it as a third party transfer they often charge about $75, which is going to lower the cost of the gun. Since I have a gun worth $300 that I want to sell my options are really get $150 for it from the store. Spend a weekend trying to sell it and maybe get around $200 for it because the buyer isnt going to pay much more than that knowing the fees involved on a private transfer. Sell it online, which again it will probably sell for less than $200 because the buyer knows he has even more fees shipping it to a dealer and after my listing fees I probably walk away with the $150 I’d get from the store. Knowing this hypothetical gun is worth $300, knowing I’d have to pay taxes and fees if I ever wanted it again on top of that price, but would only get a small amount back by selling, I’m more likely to keep it. So the original question who would sell guns to a buyback program. If there was a buyback program that did offer me the $300 it’s worth, there’s a couple I’d sell.
I found gun stores in Denver that charged a range of 15% to $75, a flat fee, for facilitating a transfer of a firearm.
Jeez Mace, ever think to have the buyer pay the fees? Ever think to make a For Sale sign? Maybe with a gmail email for further information? You make it sound like the oppressive government is preventing you from selling your firearms. Seems to me like they made it fairly easy and straight forward. And safer. How hard is any of this to do while your firearms sit collecting dust? Seems more like stubborn principle to me. It also seems like firearms are like automobiles in that the moment you take them off the lot or out of the store, they lose value and thus, are a poor investment.
Why do you have to ship it to a dealer? Can’t drive? Walk or ride a bike to a licensed gun store?
%15 to $75 flat fee. I said most gun stores charge about $75, so not sure what the argument is here? The same number I used. Buyers would pay the fees. But no one would pay $300 for a private party gun sale knowing there are more fees involved. Selling a gun is a lot like everything else. Just like cars and guitars, people expect to pay less, not more, going through a private party vs a dealership or Guitar Center. So with a private party and the additional fees involved, a gun that a store sells for $300 I would expect to get at most $200 selling on my own, and that is likely only going to save the buyer $25-$50 on the price, not a huge savings for him going private party sale. You might ship because it’s difficult to find a buyer on those online websites you mentioned locally. You can sell on gun trader or gunbroker, but most likely the buyer will be out of state. I’m not waking that far. So I would use a postal service. Shipping increases the cost to the buyer, and therefore usually means he’s willing to spend less on the gun. Do you never factor in cost of shipping when buying something on eBay? You’d be the only one. I could make a sign. Where would I put it, my front yard? I wouldn’t really want to advertise to everyone who drives by. Im not sure why everything has to turn into an argument. The question was would gun owners sell any of their guns in a buyback program? I said I would. If someone offered me full value for a gun, sure I’d sell some. I don’t understand why that is difficult to understand. People do it all the time with everything. Look at lost dogs, people post looking for ads. And a poster they maybe weren’t actively trying to sell but was just sitting around, someone offers a fair price they sell it. I didn’t complain about the process or the cost. Never said guns should be an investment. Didn’t say it’s infringing anything. Just explaining the process, don’t know why you always jump to those conclusions.
Because your initial explanation of “the process” was not accurate. You began by claiming you’d have to pay a 50% commission and made it sound like “the process” wasn’t worth the “hassle.” Guess you’re stuck with your guns?
If I had something that cost me $400 or $375 or whatever your initial claim was, however many years ago, and I could get $300 or even $250 for it now, I’d sell it. And I’d figure it out. 20 million guns purchased in 2020 and you can’t tell me they were all brand new from a licensed retail store.
And yes, selling a firearm is a lot like everything else, possible. The “hassle” part is on you.
I laid out the different options. Selling through a store on commission was only 1 of them. There are fewer options to post guns for sale online, most places don’t allow it. The ones that do have fees, it’s not like Craigslist. The fees can be high to have a gun dealer do the paperwork. It’s not difficult to understand, you’re just choosing not to. You like to make simple claims to really complicated arguments. I never said all gun sales are brand new? Where did you get that? Again, part of your hobby of making stuff up to complicate a simple statement. If I was eager to sell a gun, I’d go through the proper channels and sell it.
My initial “claim” was a hypothetical gun value. So my apologies if it changed from $375 to 400 and it confused you.
The question was would any gun owners sell guns in an optional buyback program? I’m not eager to sell it, but if someone just offered me a fair value I’d sell some and keep some. Therefore a buyback program would work for some of my guns and not others. But knowing I can’t just post it on Facebook or Craigslist and expect full market value, I’m more likely to keep it. That’s it. No need to complicate this, or make false claims that I’m angry and my rights are being violated, or only new guns are being sold. Equally puzzling as to why you continue to try and complicate that simple fact is why do I keep responding?
I thought accuracy in discussing firearms was important for understanding? Guess not.
And the initial post of yours that I responded to was your claim “it’s not worth the hassle.” I don’t view it as a hassle. Fuck, going to the supermarket is “a hassle.”
I wasn’t confused, just couldn’t remember what your initial post was regarding the value of your firearm(s). Regardless, weren’t you chastising us for not knowing the technical terms for gun parts, in the interest of understanding?
So, 15% or up to $75 dollars is high? I’m sure you could shop around but maybe it’s too much of a hassle for you? Again, your initial post to what I responded to was not accurate and you made it sound as if it was too much of a hassle to overcome. Ironic that you want the government to provide a solution via a buy back program at fair market value. I thought the “fair market” was the solution to everything?
Honest question, what is the fair market value of an assault rifle, give a range to factor all the doo hickey upfits, and what would the government have to offer for a buy back? How much would it cost, keeping in mind POOTWH gave away $1.3 or 4 or 5 or 7 trillion dollars, mostly to the top %?
If the above, would you still be able to defend yourself if the government banned them and made them illegal with the firearms left on the market and would you consider your 2A trampled?
Here’s what we collectively forget about as time goes on. Until it happens again.
Noah Orona still had not cried.
The 10-year-old’s father, Oscar, couldn’t understand it. Just hours earlier, a stranger with a rifle had walked into the boy’s fourth-grade classroom at Robb Elementary School and opened fire, slaughtering his teachers and classmatesin front of him. One round struck Noah in the shoulder blade, carving a 10-inch gash through his back before popping out and spraying his right arm with shrapnel. He’d laid amid the blood and bodies of his dead friends for an hour, maybe more, waiting for help to come.
But there he was, resting in his hospital bed, his brown eyes vacant, his voice muted.
“I think my clothes are ruined,” Noah lamented.
It was okay, his dad assured him. He would get new clothes.
“I don’t think I’m going to get to go back to school,” he said.
“Don’t worry about it,” his father insisted, squeezing his son’s left hand.
“I lost my glasses,” the boy continued. “I’m sorry.”
The children and adults who die in school shootings dominate headlines and consume the public’s attention. Body counts become synonymous with each event, dictating where they rank in the catalogue of these singularly American horrors: 10 at Santa Fe High, 13 at Columbine High, 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary. And now, added to the list is 21 at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Tex.
Those tallies, however, do not begin to capture the true scope of this epidemic in the United States, where hundreds of thousands of children’s lives have been profoundly changed by school shootings. There are the more than 360 kids and adults, including Noah, who have been injured on K-12 campuses since 1999, according to a Washington Post database. And then there are the children who suffer no physical wounds at all, but are still haunted for years by what they saw or heard or lost.
A Politico/Morning consult poll out Wednesday showed “huge support”
for gun regulations. It showed that 88% of voters strongly or somewhat
support background checks on all gun sales, while only 8% strongly or
somewhat oppose such checks. That’s a net approval of +80.
Preventing
gun sales to people who have been reported to police as dangerous by a
mental health provider is supported by 84% of voters while only 9%
oppose it, a net approval of +75.
Seventy-seven percent of
voters support requiring guns to be stored in a safe storage unit,
while only 15% oppose such a requirement, a net approval of +62.
A national database for gun sales gets 75% approval and 18% disapproval, a net approval rate of +57.
Banning
assault style weapons like the AR-15 has an approval rate of 67% of
voters while only 25% disapprove. That’s a net approval of +42.
And
fifty-four percent of voters approve of arming teachers with concealed
weapons, while only 34% oppose it, a net approval of +20.
And yet look what we've got. This is lunacy.
That last one is scary. I can't believe support for arming teachers is that high.
Agreed, it's a horrible idea! When I as teaching, if they'd told me I had to be armed to go to work, I'd have quit. No doubt many others would as well. The notion that arming more people will solve the problem is insane.
That's part of the long game. Not only will arming teachers increase profits for gun manufacturers, but it will also push out the liberal/leftist teachers leaving conservative pro-gun, anti-LGBTQ, anti-CRT teachers. We're doomed.
Some of The public thinks we are indoctrinating their children, want to ban books, and skip parts of history but they now want us to carry guns in the classroom? Get the fuck out of here. I ve been handling firearms for 35 years and there is zero way I would want the responsibility of carrying a firearm in school. Fuck that.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,763
A Politico/Morning consult poll out Wednesday showed “huge support”
for gun regulations. It showed that 88% of voters strongly or somewhat
support background checks on all gun sales, while only 8% strongly or
somewhat oppose such checks. That’s a net approval of +80.
Preventing
gun sales to people who have been reported to police as dangerous by a
mental health provider is supported by 84% of voters while only 9%
oppose it, a net approval of +75.
Seventy-seven percent of
voters support requiring guns to be stored in a safe storage unit,
while only 15% oppose such a requirement, a net approval of +62.
A national database for gun sales gets 75% approval and 18% disapproval, a net approval rate of +57.
Banning
assault style weapons like the AR-15 has an approval rate of 67% of
voters while only 25% disapprove. That’s a net approval of +42.
And
fifty-four percent of voters approve of arming teachers with concealed
weapons, while only 34% oppose it, a net approval of +20.
And yet look what we've got. This is lunacy.
That last one is scary. I can't believe support for arming teachers is that high.
Agreed, it's a horrible idea! When I as teaching, if they'd told me I had to be armed to go to work, I'd have quit. No doubt many others would as well. The notion that arming more people will solve the problem is insane.
That's part of the long game. Not only will arming teachers increase profits for gun manufacturers, but it will also push out the liberal/leftist teachers leaving conservative pro-gun, anti-LGBTQ, anti-CRT teachers. We're doomed.
Truly horrible to think about. If this happens we are done (if we aren't already done).
Hope is elusive.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Some of The public thinks we are indoctrinating their children, want to ban books, and skip parts of history but they now want us to carry guns in the classroom? Get the fuck out of here. I ve been handling firearms for 35 years and there is zero way I would want the responsibility of carrying a firearm in school. Fuck that.
when i saw that poll that someone posted last page i immediately thought of you and wondered how you would feel. i thought this is pretty much what you would say. it is hard enough for you all to just teach, and now they want you to be dirty harry too. it is just insane.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
the fact that 19 police officers were fearful to go into that school because they were scared of 1 man with an ar-15 tells me all i need to know about those guns and that they need to be regulated better than they are.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,912
the fact that 19 police officers were fearful to go into that school because they were scared of 1 man with an ar-15 tells me all i need to know about those guns and that they need to be regulated better than they are.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I think it is a good thing to mention multiple times that the teacher propped the door open. People should hopefully think twice next time about propping a door open (as until we get guns out of murderers hands the door is an important defense). I hope this teacher can come to peace and not have his/her life ruined by guilt. It isn't the teacher's fault that this happened. The teacher did something that one out of a 1,000,000 times would not have resulted in an issue. But we all should be thinking about the 1 in a million chance when we prop a door open that is typically locked for good reason.
in response to what I'm really hoping is a sarcastic post:
so I suppose it also makes sense to blame the driver of a car who forgot to put their seatbelt on and got killed by a drunk driver, instead of the dangers of drunk driving? sure, mention how the driver 1 time out of a million forgot their seatbelt. but then the liquor industry has paid people to talk about that instead of the drunk driving issue.
really?
My post was not sarcastic. It was 100% fine and reasonable. I said it my post it wasn’t the teacher’s fault. But, the teacher did prop a locked door open. I don’t know why, and there may be a chance the shooter might have made it into the school anyway.
My point is that by publicizing how the shooter got in (a propped open door), maybe people will think twice about propping open a door that is locked to help protect people just in case.
Nobody should be blaming the teacher, but locked doors are one of the defenses. The shooter could have got in some other way too but what if it did take him another two minutes to find a way in and a cop got there in that two minutes?
We can be anti-gun and point out other ways to defend ourselves too.
but by allowing the focus to be on that at this stage, you/we are paving the way for that to the ridiculous distraction gun nuts need to get through this unscathed. AGAIN. sure, mention it later in a report. But this cop purposely made it the focus of that part of the press release. sorry, but you're buying it.
I'm not.
another two minutes with these (supposedly) coward cops would have done nothing. again, shifting the blame. of COURSE he would have gotten in another way. I've never ONCE heard of a school shooting being thwarted by locked doors. ffs
Hugh, we can’t get guns out of circulation tomorrow so if we are going to protect kids in school today and tomorrow, the best thing the general public can do to keep each other safe is be diligent about securing the building you are in.
That is all I am saying. I hate automatic guns too. I hate the NRA too. A pistol for protection is the only thing I can be okay with because we will never ban guns. I am placing zero blame on the teacher, and nobody should be using the teacher as a scapegoat, or saying doors are the answer to all of our security problems.
I get that you are upset, and we all are, but don’t project things on other people that they are not saying. Not everything needs to be an argument. I should be able to post here saying that people shouldn’t prop open doors that are meant to keep kids safe, and not have to caveat it like I have to do by saying I don’t like guns, not the teacher’s fault, yada yada yada. This is a big problem on AMT and I think why moderates like myself don’t post often.
I can appreciate that. I just find this "propped open door" thing to be the "rape victim shouldn't have worn a short skirt" of school shootings.
I see this whole thing of “doors are the new enemy of the right” thing a little ridiculous. I’ve see one person (Cruz) refer to too many doors in this last shooting. And I’m not seeing it repeated anywhere but here. No rational person, right or left, is blaming teachers and doors. I just don’t see it as the new calling card for the right. People are upset about the timeline, only Cruz cares about the door.
I see this whole thing of “doors are the new enemy of the right” thing a little ridiculous. I’ve see one person (Cruz) refer to too many doors in this last shooting. And I’m not seeing it repeated anywhere but here. No rational person, right or left, is blaming teachers and doors. I just don’t see it as the new calling card for the right. People are upset about the timeline, only Cruz cares about the door.
I'll agree with the "ridiculous" part of what you said. But Cruz isn't the only Republican trying to deflect the problem to doors:
"Cruz isn’t the only Republican waging a war on doors: the issue has long
been a favourite talking point among conservatives trying to deflect
from the idea of gun reform. After a 2018 shooting at a high school in
Houston, for example, the Texas lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, blamed
the massacre on doors. “From what we know, [the shooter] walked in …
with a long coat and a shotgun under his coat,” Patrick said during a news conference.
“It’s 90 degrees. Had there been one single entrance possibly for every
student, maybe he would have been stopped … There are too many
entrances and too many exits to our over 8,000 campuses in Texas.”
Comments
If I had something that cost me $400 or $375 or whatever your initial claim was, however many years ago, and I could get $300 or even $250 for it now, I’d sell it. And I’d figure it out. 20 million guns purchased in 2020 and you can’t tell me they were all brand new from a licensed retail store.
And yes, selling a firearm is a lot like everything else, possible. The “hassle” part is on you.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Agreed, it's a horrible idea! When I as teaching, if they'd told me I had to be armed to go to work, I'd have quit. No doubt many others would as well. The notion that arming more people will solve the problem is insane.
The Real Reason America Doesn’t Have Gun Control
The basic rules of American democracy provide a veto over national policy to a minority of the states.
After each of the repeated mass shootings that now provide a tragic backbeat to American life, the same doomed dance of legislation quickly begins. As the outraged demands for action are inevitably derailed in Congress, disappointed gun-control advocates, and perplexed ordinary citizens, point their fingers at the influence of the National Rifle Association or the intransigent opposition of congressional Republicans. Those are both legitimate factors, but the stalemate over gun-control legislation since Bill Clinton’s first presidential term ultimately rests on a much deeper problem: the growing crisis of majority rule in American politics.
Polls are clear that while Americans don’t believe gun control would solve all of the problems associated with gun violence, a commanding majority supports the central priorities of gun-control advocates, including universal background checks and an assault-weapons ban. Yet despite this overwhelming consensus, it’s highly unlikely that the massacre of at least 19 schoolchildren and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, yesterday, or President Joe Biden’s emotional plea for action last night, will result in legislative action.
That’s because gun control is one of many issues in which majority opinion in the nation runs into the brick wall of a Senate rule—the filibuster—that provides a veto over national policy to a minority of the states, most of them small, largely rural, preponderantly white, and dominated by Republicans.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
There are fewer options to post guns for sale online, most places don’t allow it. The ones that do have fees, it’s not like Craigslist. The fees can be high to have a gun dealer do the paperwork. It’s not difficult to understand, you’re just choosing not to.
You like to make simple claims to really complicated arguments. I never said all gun sales are brand new? Where did you get that? Again, part of your hobby of making stuff up to complicate a simple statement.
If I was eager to sell a gun, I’d go through the proper channels and sell it.
Oh my, YES!
And the initial post of yours that I responded to was your claim “it’s not worth the hassle.” I don’t view it as a hassle. Fuck, going to the supermarket is “a hassle.”
I wasn’t confused, just couldn’t remember what your initial post was regarding the value of your firearm(s). Regardless, weren’t you chastising us for not knowing the technical terms for gun parts, in the interest of understanding?
So, 15% or up to $75 dollars is high? I’m sure you could shop around but maybe it’s too much of a hassle for you? Again, your initial post to what I responded to was not accurate and you made it sound as if it was too much of a hassle to overcome. Ironic that you want the government to provide a solution via a buy back program at fair market value. I thought the “fair market” was the solution to everything?
Honest question, what is the fair market value of an assault rifle, give a range to factor all the doo hickey upfits, and what would the government have to offer for a buy back? How much would it cost, keeping in mind POOTWH gave away $1.3 or 4 or 5 or 7 trillion dollars, mostly to the top %?
If the above, would you still be able to defend yourself if the government banned them and made them illegal with the firearms left on the market and would you consider your 2A trampled?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Noah Orona still had not cried.
The 10-year-old’s father, Oscar, couldn’t understand it. Just hours earlier, a stranger with a rifle had walked into the boy’s fourth-grade classroom at Robb Elementary School and opened fire, slaughtering his teachers and classmatesin front of him. One round struck Noah in the shoulder blade, carving a 10-inch gash through his back before popping out and spraying his right arm with shrapnel. He’d laid amid the blood and bodies of his dead friends for an hour, maybe more, waiting for help to come.
But there he was, resting in his hospital bed, his brown eyes vacant, his voice muted.
“I think my clothes are ruined,” Noah lamented.
It was okay, his dad assured him. He would get new clothes.
“I don’t think I’m going to get to go back to school,” he said.
“Don’t worry about it,” his father insisted, squeezing his son’s left hand.
“I lost my glasses,” the boy continued. “I’m sorry.”
The children and adults who die in school shootings dominate headlines and consume the public’s attention. Body counts become synonymous with each event, dictating where they rank in the catalogue of these singularly American horrors: 10 at Santa Fe High, 13 at Columbine High, 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary. And now, added to the list is 21 at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Tex.
Those tallies, however, do not begin to capture the true scope of this epidemic in the United States, where hundreds of thousands of children’s lives have been profoundly changed by school shootings. There are the more than 360 kids and adults, including Noah, who have been injured on K-12 campuses since 1999, according to a Washington Post database. And then there are the children who suffer no physical wounds at all, but are still haunted for years by what they saw or heard or lost.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/28/survivors-school-shootings-uvalde-sandy-hook/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
parts of history but they now want us to carry guns in the classroom? Get the fuck
out of here. I ve been handling firearms for 35 years and there is zero way I would want the responsibility of carrying a firearm in school. Fuck that.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
now if it were an unarmed black man.......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/29/us/chattanooga-tennessee-shooting/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
After 21 people were killed, the Republican party’s newest enemy is … doors
We are the dumbest country on earth.
I’ve see one person (Cruz) refer to too many doors in this last shooting. And I’m not seeing it repeated anywhere but here. No rational person, right or left, is blaming teachers and doors. I just don’t see it as the new calling card for the right.
People are upset about the timeline, only Cruz cares about the door.