America's Gun Violence #2

brianlux

bootlegger10 said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want. 

some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue. 

I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.

Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.

In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.

I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.

Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.

Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.  

And then this is what the abortion debate becomes...  Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.

Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.

I can't comment on every sentence...

It is interesting to me, that one line.

States Rights are becoming a big deal now.  If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away.  I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.

Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.

Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."

I thought the same about abortion...

Do you really believe that abortion is going to stop or women won't get abortions because of what laws OK, FL and Tejas (and other red states will pass) have passed? Conversely, do you really believe the gubmint is going to confiscate 400 million firearms in this country? Do you really believe that?

Can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed?

Ban=Bad, I've always said that.

Other people want us to be like Canada and NZ, Australia where the gubmint does indeed round them up.  It's not a nutso idea to think would come to light, it's not.

The ghosts of gun violence? I still haven't been able to find polling on what number of Americans want to "ban firearms." Boo! Talk about semantics.

And you didn't answer the question but chose to deflect with Ban=Bad. Again, can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed? Its a yes or no question.

This is why nothing changes, slippery slope, semantics, lack of "responsibility." Last time I checked, it wasn't non-gun owners going around shooting places up.

Are you following this thread?  at least 5 people have been saying that.  
Here ya go
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/268340/analyzing-surveys-banning-assault-weapons.aspx

Yes, at least.  I am one of them.

I used to say this:  "A lot of us are not talking about banning guns all together.  What we want is a ban on assault rifles and much more rigid background checks."

But a lot of us (me included) are sick to death of asking the same thing year after year for decades and getting jack shit.  We're also getting sick to death of reading about mass shootings.  And it's only happened once, but once was all it took for me to be sick to death of hearing about a friend killed by a stray bullet from some wacko out there.

So now I say this:  "Ban all guns except for use by military and police."  A little stringent a demand?  Maybe, but a lot of us have had it with the inaction around guns.  Fuck it.  Ban them all.

(Not meant to be a personal attack on you, C.  I know you like target shooting.  Sorry so many of your other firearms fans have been so fucking lame and unreasonable.  They will fuck it up for you, not me.)

The republicans need a parent to come in and say, “if you can’t share the ball then no one gets to play with it”.  They act like children who only want things their way.

Good analogy!

mickeyrat said:

  May 26, 2022 (Thursday)

One of the key things that drove the rise of the current Republican Party was the celebration of a certain model of an ideal man, patterned on the image of the American cowboy. Republicans claimed to be defending individual men who could protect their families if only the federal government would stop interfering with them. Beginning in the 1950s, those opposed to government regulation and civil rights decisions pushed the imagery of the cowboy, who ran cattle on the Great Plains from 1866 to about 1886 and who, in legend, was a white man who worked hard, fought hard against Indigenous Americans, and wanted only for the government to leave him alone.

That image was not true to the real cowboys, at least a third of whom were Black or men of color, or to the reality of government intervention in the Great Plains, which was more extensive there than in any other region of the country. It was a reaction to federal laws after the Civil War defending Black rights in the post–Civil War South, laws white racists said were federal overreach that could only lead to what they insisted was “socialism.”

In the 1950s, the idea of an individual hardworking man taking care of his family and beholden to no one was an attractive image to those who disliked government protection of civil rights, and politicians who wanted to dissolve business regulation pulled them into the Republican Party by playing to the mythology of movie heroes like John Wayne. Part of that mythology, of course, was the idea that men with guns could defend their families, religion, and freedom against a government trying to crush them. By the 1980s, the National Rifle Association had abandoned its traditional stance promoting gun safety and was defending “gun rights” and the Republican Party; in the 1990s, talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh fed the militia movement with inflammatory warnings that the government was coming for a man’s guns, destroying his ability to protect his family.

That cowboy image has stoked an obsession with guns and with military hardware and war training in police departments. It feeds a conviction that true men dominate situations, both at home and abroad, with violence. That dominance, in turn, is supposed to protect society’s vulnerable women and children.

In 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Supreme Court said that individuals have a right to own firearms outside of membership in a militia or for traditional purposes such as hunting or self-defense, and dramatically limited federal regulation of them. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision, was a leading “originalist” on the court, eager to erase the decisions of the post-WWII courts that upheld business regulation and civil rights.

In 2004, a ten-year federal ban on assault weapons expired, and since then. mass shootings have tripled. Zusha Elinson, who is writing a history of the bestselling AR-15 military style weapon used in many mass shootings, notes that there were about 400,000 AR-15 style rifles in America before the assault weapons ban went into effect in 1994. Today, there are 20 million.

For years now, Republicans have stood firmly against measures to guard Americans against gun violence, even as a majority of Americans support commonsense measures like  background checks. Notably, after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012, when a gunman murdered 20 six- and seven-year-old students and 6 staff members, Republicans in the Senate filibustered a bipartisan bill sponsored by Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) that would have expanded background checks, killing it despite the 55 votes in favor of it.

Since Sandy Hook, the nation has suffered more than 3500 mass shootings, and Republicans have excused them by claiming they didn’t actually happen, or by insisting we need more guns so there will be “a good guy with a gun” to take out a shooter, or that we need to “harden targets,” or that we need more police in the schools (which has simply led to more student arrests), or as Senator Ted Cruz said today, to limit the number of doors in schools, or, as a guest on Fox News Channel personality Sean Hannity’s show said, to put “mantraps” and trip wires in the schools.

The initial story of what happened on Tuesday in Uvalde fit the Republican myth. Police spokespeople told reporters that a school district police officer confronted the shooter outside the building before he barricaded himself in a classroom, killing 19 and wounding 22 others in his rampage.

But as more details are emerging today, they are undermining the myth itself.

Robb Elementary School, where the murders took place, had already been “hardened” with the town investing more than $650,000 in security enhancements, but the shooter apparently entered through an unlocked door. The Uvalde police department consumes 40% of the town’s budget and has its own Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) unit. And yet, the stories that are emerging from Uvalde suggest that the shooter fired shots outside the school for 12 minutes before entering it and that he was not, in fact, confronted outside. Police officers arrived at the same time he entered the school, but they did not go in until after he had been in the building for four minutes. Seven officers then entered, but the lone gunman apparently drove them out with gunfire, and they stayed outside, holding back frantic parents, until Border Patrol tactical officers arrived a full hour later.

Parents tried to get the police to go in but instead found themselves under attack for interfering with an investigation. One man was thrown to the ground and pepper sprayed. U.S. Marshals arrested and handcuffed Angeli Rose Gomez, whose children were in the school and who had had time to drive 40 miles to get to them, for interfering as she demanded they do something. Gomez got local officers she knew to talk the Marshals into releasing her. Then she jumped the school fence, ran in, grabbed her two kids, and ran out.

A Texas Department of Safety official told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer tonight that the law enforcement officers at the school were reluctant to engage the gunman because “they could’ve been shot, they could’ve been killed.”

There are still many, many questions about what happened in Uvalde, but it seems clear that the heroes protecting the children were not the guys with guns, but the moms and the dads and the two female teachers who died trying to protect their students: Eva Mireles and Irma Garcia. News reports today say that Garcia’s husband, Joseph, died this morning of a heart attack, leaving four children.

Last week, in the aftermath of the deadly attack on a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, Democrats in the House of Representatives quickly passed a a domestic terrorism bill. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tried to get the Senate to take it up today. It would have sparked a debate on gun safety. Republicans blocked it. In the aftermath of Tuesday’s massacre, only five Republicans have said they are willing to consider background checks for gun purchases. That is not enough to break a filibuster.

Last night, Texas candidate for governor Beto O’Rourke confronted Texas governor Greg Abbott at a press conference. Last year, Abbott signed at least seven new laws to make it easier to obtain guns, and after the Uvalde murders, he said tougher gun laws are not “a real solution.” O’Rourke offered a different vision for defending our children than stocking up on guns. "The time to stop the next shooting is right now, and you are doing nothing," O'Rourke said, standing in front of a dais at which Abbott sat. "You said this is not predictable…. This is totally predictable…. This is on you, until you choose to do something different…. This will continue to happen. Somebody needs to stand up for the children of this state or they will continue to be killed, just like they were killed in Uvalde yesterday.”
 
Uvalde mayor Don McLaughlin shouted profanities at O'Rourke; Texas Republican lieutenant governorDan Patrick told the former congressman, "You're out of line and an embarrassment”; and Senator Ted Cruz told him, “Sit down.”

But this evening the New York Yankees and the Tampa Bay Rays announced they would use their social media channels not to cover tonight’s game but to share facts about gun violence. “The devastating events that have taken place in Uvalde, Buffalo and countless other communities across our nation are tragedies that are intolerable.”

Heather nailed it tonight.

Well done, Yankees, Rays!

Gern Blansten

I'm not sure seizing weapons is necessarily the answer. I do think that preventing the sales or exchanges of those weapons should be controlled though.  Clearly there are a lot of weapons in circulation and the owners aren't shooting up schools. I would guess that most of these shootings relate to recent purchases. I know that is the case for the one's I can think of off the top of my head. The one exception being the shooting in my town where the kid took his parents guns that were not secured. 

Halifax2TheMax

‘Murica’s carnage seems to be exportable. It’s just a matter of time once the market is saturated here.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/world/toronto-police-shoot-man-firearm-near-schools/index.html

HughFreakingDillon

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. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

Cropduster-80

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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 

HughFreakingDillon

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

I'm actually ok with letting people keep their shit as long as there is accountability for what they have. That seems like a good compromise to me. But yes....prevent any future manufacture and sales at all levels. No more gun shows...no more private sales without titling...just like we do with fucking automobiles. 

Cropduster-80

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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 

Hobbes

NRA is banning guns at their own convention. Laughable. I understand it’s the request of the secret service as trump will be in attendance, for his safety. Bans keep people safe, apparently. 

Gern Blansten

Hobbes said:

NRA is banning guns at their own convention. Laughable. I understand it’s the request of the secret service as trump will be in attendance, for his safety. Bans keep people safe, apparently. 

yeah the contradiction is amazing...fucking assholes

Cropduster-80

Hobbes said:

NRA is banning guns at their own convention. Laughable. I understand it’s the request of the secret service as trump will be in attendance, for his safety. Bans keep people safe, apparently. 

I was down there yesterday. Eating lunch across the street. Explosive dogs everywhere, not so well disguised plain clothes officers etc.  they are making sure no guns or explosives are anywhere near that building. They are fanning out blocks away.  No way you can exercise your 2A rights anywhere near there.  

Really there should be a gun rights protest outside that building 

tempo_n_groove

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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 

My answer is no.  They never give you fair market value.  I'd hold and want the option to sell later at a proper price.  In the end I'd rather just keep the gun since it would be harder and more expensive to try and acquire another later.

What that would do though is stop a lot of first time buyers perhaps.

Gern Blansten

Cropduster-80 said:

Hobbes said:

NRA is banning guns at their own convention. Laughable. I understand it’s the request of the secret service as trump will be in attendance, for his safety. Bans keep people safe, apparently. 

I was down there yesterday. Eating lunch across the street. Explosive dogs everywhere, not so well disguised plain clothes officers etc.  they are making sure no guns or explosives are anywhere near that building. They are fanning out blocks away.  No way you can exercise your 2A rights anywhere near there.  

Really there should be a gun rights protest outside that building 

yeah a lot of good guys with guns are getting their rights trampled there

Cropduster-80

Gern Blansten said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Hobbes said:

NRA is banning guns at their own convention. Laughable. I understand it’s the request of the secret service as trump will be in attendance, for his safety. Bans keep people safe, apparently. 

I was down there yesterday. Eating lunch across the street. Explosive dogs everywhere, not so well disguised plain clothes officers etc.  they are making sure no guns or explosives are anywhere near that building. They are fanning out blocks away.  No way you can exercise your 2A rights anywhere near there.  

Really there should be a gun rights protest outside that building 

yeah a lot of good guys with guns are getting their rights trampled there

It’s funny because pro gun people boycotted Toby Keith’s restaurant specifically because guns were banned.  They will go to the gun free NRA convention though 

discussions on pro gun forums go like this…
https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/-ARCHIVED-THREAD-Toby-Keith-s-Anti-gun-Restaurant-Opening-in-VA/5-1569692/?page=1


I’m glad we can have civilised discussions here 🤣

mace1229

Hobbes said:

NRA is banning guns at their own convention. Laughable. I understand it’s the request of the secret service as trump will be in attendance, for his safety. Bans keep people safe, apparently. 

I think it’s horrible timing and bad taste to not move or postpone the event. But you can’t fault anyone for enforcing no guns at an event with a former president, even if it is the NRA.
Its ironic, but that’s about all.

mace1229

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

OnWis97

Cropduster-80 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Hobbes said:

NRA is banning guns at their own convention. Laughable. I understand it’s the request of the secret service as trump will be in attendance, for his safety. Bans keep people safe, apparently. 

I was down there yesterday. Eating lunch across the street. Explosive dogs everywhere, not so well disguised plain clothes officers etc.  they are making sure no guns or explosives are anywhere near that building. They are fanning out blocks away.  No way you can exercise your 2A rights anywhere near there.  

Really there should be a gun rights protest outside that building 

yeah a lot of good guys with guns are getting their rights trampled there

It’s funny because pro gun people boycotted Toby Keith’s restaurant specifically because guns were banned.  They will go to the gun free NRA convention though 

discussions on pro gun forums go like this…
https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/-ARCHIVED-THREAD-Toby-Keith-s-Anti-gun-Restaurant-Opening-in-VA/5-1569692/?page=1


I’m glad we can have civilised discussions here 🤣

That's funny. I'd actually think most "freedom" people would recognize the freedom a private establishment has to not allow guns.

But when people live their lives in fear of some mystical "oppression," rationality goes out the window. About 15 years ago, before Minnesota went smoke-free at restaurants, I was living in a small city (Winona) and the Green Mill went smoke free. There was a little piece in the newspaper and I'll never forget the online commenter whining about government overreach...it was a decision by one restaurant. But I think people are just waiting to get outraged.

mickeyrat

https://youtu.be/DKjSLAUFWSo