A man who arrived at the scene of the Allen, Texas, mass shooting said he found a girl with 'no face' and a mother who died protecting her son from bullets

[Leftfield 3,378]

44 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The difference is trying to ban AR’s nationally.

The problem here is that if you don't ban them nationally, they would still be produced in large numbers, and criminals would still smuggle them into states with bans, meaning your worst nightmare: somebody would have a gun bigger than yours.

46 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Every other country doesn’t have that pesky US Constitution to deal with.  Amend the Constitution if you think there is that big a following.

Not many other countries have this right, and most that do call out restrictions or state only weapons approved by law. The only other country besides us that basically has no restrictions codified is Yemen. Not exactly company you want to keep.

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That bill passed a month before Uvalde, bad timing for sure.

That's the only problem you have with him cutting mental health funding? The timing? What about your belief that we need additional mental health services to reduce gun violence?

 

[Leftfield 3,378]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How long do you believe the negotiations would take to nail down these points of an Assault Rifle/Weapon?  A long time I would bet.

So keep doing nothing?

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It may or may not be workable, but the logistics of collecting all the banned weapons would be a night mare.  If you don’t get them off the streets what are we arguing about?

Where did I say current weapons would be confiscated?

Certainly they would be taken when used in crimes or someone otherwise forfeits their rights due to becoming a felon, mentally incompetent, etc. That way the number of illegal weapons drops, while those in the hands of law abiding citizens remain much longer.

 

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yeah, I get the gist.  Control.

You've earned this.....

 

 

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

7 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The problem here is that if you don't ban them nationally, they would still be produced in large numbers, and criminals would still smuggle them into states with bans, meaning your worst nightmare: somebody would have a gun bigger than yours.

I was explaining the difference to AUDynasty, however, to your statement; how are you going to ban the weapon, how are you going to collect all the weapons that are in circulation?  No matter what item humans have they will look to get a bigger one than yours.

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Not many other countries have this right, and most that do call out restrictions or state only weapons approved by law. The only other country besides us that basically has no restrictions codified is Yemen. Not exactly company you want to keep.

There is a way to amend the Constitution.

11 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

That's the only problem you have with him cutting mental health funding? The timing? What about your belief that we need additional mental health services to reduce gun violence?

No, if the bill was up for a vote after Uvalde I doubt it would have past.  That is what I meant about the timing.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

So keep doing nothing?

So you don’t want to answer the question.  If you don’t start the negotiations they can’t end.  I thought you wanted some kind of compromise.

7 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Where did I say current weapons would be confiscated?

This implies if you only do a state by state banning it could not work.  Maybe you could explain what you meant.

16 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The problem here is that if you don't ban them nationally, they would still be produced in large numbers, and criminals would still smuggle them into states with bans, meaning your worst nightmare: somebody would have a gun bigger than yours.

 

12 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Certainly they would be taken when used in crimes or someone otherwise forfeits their rights due to becoming a felon, mentally incompetent, etc. That way the number of illegal weapons drops, while those in the hands of law abiding citizens remain much longer.

They would still be out there just waiting for some 30 something to go berserk.  What would be the purpose if you don’t eliminate those evil guns?  You know *control*. 🤦‍♂️

[Didba 5,510]

How anyone can still support the sale of firearms outside of hunting equipment is just beyond me. This article was sickening. 

[Leftfield 3,378]

57 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There is a way to amend the Constitution.

Yes, but most Republican lawmakers are beholden to the base and NRA on this and refuse to even consider it.

47 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So you don’t want to answer the question.  If you don’t start the negotiations they can’t end.  I thought you wanted some kind of compromise.

What are you even talking about? I have no idea how long it would take, so I didn't answer. You say I don't want negotiations simply because I don't know how long it would take? Why put words in my mouth like that?

47 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This implies if you only do a state by state banning it could not work.  Maybe you could explain what you meant.

I never said a state-by-state banning, for the very reason I shared in a previous post - the weapons would still be produced in large volumes as long as some states did not ban them, and those weapons would inevitably find their way, via criminals, to states that did. The ban would have to be nation-wide.

47 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So you don’t want to answer the question.  If you don’t start the negotiations they can’t end.  I thought you wanted some kind of compromise.

This implies if you only do a state by state banning it could not work.  Maybe you could explain what you meant.

 

They would still be out there just waiting for some 30 something to go berserk.  What would be the purpose if you don’t eliminate those evil guns?  You know *control*. 🤦‍♂️

Christ, man, what the hell is your endgame here? Sure, I'd love to see all of these rifles eliminated overnight, but I'm pointing out a way that doesn't have to be done. You're sitting here telling me the reasons they all need to disappear immediately, as if I didn't already know. As I said before, confiscate them as criminals use them, or otherwise commit crimes where they forfeit their right to own them and get them away from those mentally unstable. Also, institute a buyback program. I guarantee that a sizeable percentage of those that just can't live without their AR-15 will magically become less attached to them if they can get a decent payment for it.

I don't understand you. I'm trying to show ways to compromise where the majority of guns owners get to keep what they have, and you're throwing it back in my face. You're like these people that go out and buy a gun just to dare the government to take if from them. What do you want to hear, that deep down I really want all guns gone? Well, if it comes to your black-and-white view of the argument, where the only possible outcomes can be do nothing or eliminate everything, then yeah, I would go to banning everything. Fortunately for gun owners, most people out there, including in government, are capable of nuance.

But go ahead and keep ignoring the possibility that most that want something done don't want to get rid of them all. You'd better hope not every Republican politician sees it the same way you do.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Leftfield

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

As I said before, confiscate them as criminals use them, or otherwise commit crimes where they forfeit their right to own them and get them away from those mentally unstable.

This is what we are doing right now.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Also, institute a buyback program. I guarantee that a sizeable percentage of those that just can't live without their AR-15 will magically become less attached to them if they can get a decent payment for it.

This would be reasonable and separate the ones that don’t feel they really need the gun.  It will get the number of AR-15’s down.  This assumes the manufacture of these weapons will cease

 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

I don't understand you. I'm trying to show ways to compromise where the majority of guns owners get to keep what they have, and you're throwing it back in my face.

I’m trying to show the problem is more complicated that just ban the AR and I think you agree that it is.

 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

But go ahead and keep ignoring the possibility that most that want something done don't want to get rid of them all. You'd better hope not every Republican politician sees it the same way you do.

I’m not ignoring anything, the devil is in the details and you or any of your fellow compadres are not putting anything out there that would solve the problem.  The solving of the problem will come in incremental steps, a drawn out plan with many facets, I’m not sure anyone knows were to begin.

If Democrats could see past restricting gun ownership of law abiding citizens and work on the criminal element we might see some common ground.

[Leftfield 3,378]

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is what we are doing right now.

Yeah, except that they go right back out and buy more because they're easy to get. What good does it do to bail out the water when the pipe is still leaking?

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This assumes the manufacture of these weapons will cease

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m not ignoring anything, the devil is in the details and you or any of your fellow compadres are not putting anything out there that would solve the problem.  The solving of the problem will come in incremental steps, a drawn out plan with many facets, I’m not sure anyone knows were to begin.

If Democrats could see past restricting gun ownership of law abiding citizens and work on the criminal element we might see some common ground.

I'll say where to begin....ban assault weapons.

Of course other things are needed. Of course we have to work on better enforcing laws that are in place, but a message board is a very difficult place to discuss these things because they are incredibly involved and detailed, and we'd be writing books. We're not going to create world peace on here, but we can discuss simpler steps, and one is to stop mass production of guns that never had business being in the hands of average citizens to begin with. Had they been outlawed from the start, nobody would be complaining, but here we are.

There are certainly Democrats that are going too far in their quest to change the way we deal with criminals, but the fact is the policies that have led to mass incarceration with little focus on rehabilitation are a blight. There's a balance to be struck there, and it's going to take a lot of time and effort to find it. There are also far too many issues to discuss when it comes to how society has created the circumstances that have led to many turning to crime, and ways to help alleviate that - oh, but I forget, CRT is a dirty word around here.

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Leftfield

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

To no particular poster

 

 

[arein0 1,105]

On 5/7/2023 at 10:12 AM, I_M4_AU said:

This is comparing apples to oranges.  Republicans complain the Democratically run CITIES are the problem and this article is linking homicides increase in, not Republican states, but Trump voting red states.  How utterly bias and triggering reporting.  Where has journalism gone?

https://www.newsweek.com/high-crime-gop-cities-fueled-guns-inequality-1797939

High Crime in Republican Cities Fueled by Guns, Inequality

BY ANDREW STANTON ON 5/8/23 AT 5:00 AM EDT

Republicans have criticized progressive policies for fueling crime, but cities without those policies are also seeing high rates of crime.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, a Republican-led city, "basic needs not being met" is helping to fuel crime, according to Dr. Tiffany Crutcher, the executive director of the Terence Crutcher Foundation.
Lower taxes in Republican areas may also lead to less funding for police, helping fuel crime.
Republican mayors rejected progressive criminal justice reforms embraced by their Democratic counterparts, but factors such as inequality and guns are still driving crime in larger conservative cities, experts told Newsweek.

The GOP has seized on Democrats' support for criminal justice reform in recent election cycles, arguing these policies lead to higher crime rates in large cities. Instead, Republicans have offered "tough on crime" and pro-police positions that have proved salient, helping them secure control of Congress during the 2022 midterm elections.

However, a city's partisan lean generally does not necessarily correlate with its crime rate, according to data compiled by Newsweek. While cities like Chicago and Philadelphia indeed have higher crime rates than other cities, places like New York City or Los Angeles, frequently cast as crime-ridden by Republicans, have crime rates on par or lower than many cities led by Republicans.
 
New York City has particularly faced scrutiny following former President Donald Trump's indictment in April. Republicans have sought to accuse Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of ignoring crime in the city while engaging in a politically motivated prosecution. However, conservative cities like Jacksonville, Florida; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Miami all reported higher crime rates in 2021.

High Crime GOP Cities Fueled by Guns,Inequality
Police tape is seen as law enforcement officials investigate a shooting at the GLHF Game Bar located in the Jacksonville Landing on August 27, 2018 in Jacksonville, Florida. The shooting occurred at the GLHF Game Bar during a Madden 19 video game tournament and initial reports indicate 3 people were killed including the gunman and several others were wounded. Inequality and guns are contributing factors to high crime rates in Republican-led cities, experts told Newsweek.
JOE RAEDLE/GETTY
Experts told Newsweek there are several reasons Republican-leaning cities experience high crime rates, with many of these factors being similar to those in Democratic areas. However, there are several actions conservative mayors can take to reduce crime in their cities, experts said.

Maria Tcherni-Buzzeo, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven, told Newsweek that eliminating poverty is key to reducing crime, as people who grow up in poverty are more likely to "turn to violence" when they are teenagers or young adults—though this correlation does not exist for property crimes.

Tcherni-Buzzeo said lawmakers of both political parties can seek to reduce crime by investing in social programs like daycare for children, which are "the most consequential" policies when it comes to reducing crime. She noted that Democratic cities are more likely to embrace these programs compared to Republicans, who argue lower taxes, rather than a social safety net, help reduce poverty.

"I think what makes the difference in the long run, some policies that alleviate poverty that are more likely to be enacted by Democratic legislators," she said. "They have an impact in the long run."

Dr. Tiffany Crutcher, the executive director of the Terence Crutcher Foundation, said a lack of investment in marginalized communities contributes to crime in Tulsa, where her organization is based. She founded that organization after her brother was fatally shot by a police officer in 2016.

"A lot of the main factors that lead to crime in Tulsa is a lack of investment into communities that are marginalized," she said. "Divestment into communities. Basic needs not being met."

Investments in housing, vocational programs, mental health systems and infrastructure would help reduce crimes, she said, arguing that funding more policing over these services does not reduce violent crime and often results in Black communities facing disproportionately higher arrest rates over non-violent offenses.

Even putting streetlights in a neighborhood can reduce crime by up to 29 percent, Crutcher said.

"We need to be asking why we are ok with putting a homeless person in jail for stealing an apple but not interested in funding food for that person in the first place," she said. "And research shows that community based solutions over our punitive, carceral would have massive positive implications. Not only for reduction in the instances of crime and for our collective quality of life, but it's also much, much cheaper."

Gun Ownership
Jim Kessler, the executive vice president for policy at the think tank Third Way, told Newsweek that gun ownership in conservative areas also contributes to higher crime rates. Republican states have gun ownership twice as high as Democratic states due to their more lax gun laws, he said.

"You add those into the mix, plus a much higher level of firearms purchases in the past 10 years, all across the country, you can see that there's going to be a problem," he said.

Although gun control policy remains a divisive issue for many Americans, there are areas where both Democratic and Republican mayors can work to prevent violent crime. He said policies helping law enforcement trace firearms used in shootings, as well as laws cracking down on gun trafficking, could be a point of bipartisan cooperation.

"Trying to crack down on that illicit flow of guns is more of a law enforcement problem and should be a point of emphasis," he said.

Police Funding and Changes
Kessler also noted that police funding could play a role in Republican cities' crime rates. While these cities Republican mayors are often pro-police and allocate a high portion of their budgets to law enforcement, their embrace of lower taxes sometimes translates to lower police funding per capita.

Others, however, say that the type of policing used in a city can also affect crime rates. Hanna Love, a senior research associate at Brookings Institution, said cities embracing particularly "harsh" policing measures may be counterproductive.

"In places that take a more punitive approach to addressing violent crime, sometimes those approaches can exacerbate the causes," she said. "When you rely on harsh sentences or prison, specifically, then you are contributing to neighborhood dislocation. You're moving a huge portion of the population from the community and reducing trust for policing systems."

Tcherni-Buzzeo suggested a change to police that could receive support from both Democrats and Republicans would be a better way to reintegrate people who have served time in prison into society. She said these policies are often overlooked but will help those most vulnerable to reoffending while keeping others safe.

Edited May 9, 2023 by arein0
Added article as text

[Leftfield 3,378]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

To no particular poster

 

 

Oh how precious: acting like a "man" by trying to belittle the masculinity of those he disagrees with. So proud of my misogynist! Little tyke's growing so fast!

Are we sure this guy Gorka isn't AUFAN78?

 

[aubaseball 2,823]

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I'll say where to begin....ban assault weapons.

I think this is where you lose a lot of people around the country.   This term, “assault weapon”, is made up.   It doesn’t have any meaning with relation to guns sold to the public.    An AR style gun, in its simplest form, is just a long handgun with a different caliber round.   

[Leftfield 3,378]

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

I think this is where you lose a lot of people around the country.   This term, “assault weapon”, is made up.   

All terms are made up.

I really don't care what it's called. I have no problem saying "military style" or "AR style" or whatever would make everybody happy, but even when I hear complaints about using the term "assault weapon," that person still knows what I'm talking about. Let me know which term you prefer and I'll use it.

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

 An AR style gun, in its simplest form, is just a long handgun with a different caliber round.   

So what you're saying is....ARs identify as hand guns?

[homersapien 12,244]

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

I think this is where you lose a lot of people around the country.   This term, “assault weapon”, is made up.   It doesn’t have any meaning with relation to guns sold to the public.    An AR style gun, in its simplest form, is just a long handgun with a different caliber round.   

What complete BS. 

Only a complete idiot would say something like that and expect to be taken seriously (well at least outside of your peer group of idiots).

"Assault weapons" is simply a shorthand for describing military-purposed designs like the AR-15, the Kalashnikov-designed AK series and similar designs that have the same basic features and purpose.

While the assault weapons ban did not completely outlaw all AR-15-style rifles, it did impose a social stigma at the time that discouraged sales of the gun, said Ryan Busse, senior policy advisor for Giffords, a gun control advocacy group.

When the ban sunsetted in 2004, under President George W. Bush, the U.S. had undergone a major cultural shift. In the wake of 9/11, patriotic sentiment surged, and support for the military spiked as the U.S. launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Around the same time, Call of Duty, a first-person shooter video game, was first released, followed by many others of that genre. Over the past two decades, these games that allow people to envision what it could be like to use the weapons themselves have helped bolster the rifle’s popularity, said Reeher, the professor at Syracuse University.

“You’ve got this whole new set of people that are playing these games and really getting into these rifles. And then they decide, you know what, I want the real thing,” Reeher said.

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce Arms Act was passed, shielding the gun industry from civil action “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm or ammunition.

This law “took the lid off” of marketing for the AR-15, leading to many more companies manufacturing or selling the rifle, said Busse, who worked in the firearms industry for more than two decades.

. 

And it's an appropriate term. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 18,259]

18 hours ago, Didba said:

How anyone can still support the sale of firearms outside of hunting equipment is just beyond me. This article was sickening. 

iam can and he does not care. his right is more important than you life. and he is christain as well. bad bad bad look. he has blood on his hands as well. i do not play when it comes to murdering kids because adults want a very dangerous play toy.

[homersapien 12,244]

One could make a strong argument that Al Quaeda actually defeated America on 9/11:

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/what-is-ar15-rifle-history-of-firearm/

".....The federal ban stemmed from a 1994 law, which received bipartisan support in Congress and was signed by President Bill Clinton. It banned the “manufacture, transfer, and possession” of about 118 different firearm models and all magazines with capacities larger than 10 rounds. However, the law also included a grandfather clause — firearms or large-capacity magazines made prior to 1994 were still legal....."

....While the assault weapons ban did not completely outlaw all AR-15-style rifles, it did impose a social stigma at the time that discouraged sales of the gun, said Ryan Busse, senior policy advisor for Giffords, a gun control advocacy group.

When the ban sunsetted in 2004, under President George W. Bush, the U.S. had undergone a major cultural shift. In the wake of 9/11, patriotic sentiment surged, and support for the military spiked as the U.S. launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Around the same time, Call of Duty, a first-person shooter video game, was first released, followed by many others of that genre. Over the past two decades, these games that allow people to envision what it could be like to use the weapons themselves have helped bolster the rifle’s popularity, said Reeher, the professor at Syracuse University.

“You’ve got this whole new set of people that are playing these games and really getting into these rifles. And then they decide, you know what, I want the real thing,” Reeher said.

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce Arms Act was passed, shielding the gun industry from civil action “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm or ammunition.

This law “took the lid off” of marketing for the AR-15, leading to many more companies manufacturing or selling the rifle, said Busse, who worked in the firearms industry for more than two decades....

 

Bottom line - in the words of Stephen Stills - "This country isn't sane anymore, that's for sure"

 

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

18 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

iam can and he does not care. his right is more important than you life. and he is christain as well. bad bad bad look. he has blood on his hands as well. i do not play when it comes to murdering kids because adults want a very dangerous play toy.

You are full of BS.  There is no connection between defending the 2nd Amendment and killing children, that is just a leftist talking point.  I have no more blood on my hands than you do for supporting drug dealers for decades.

[AUDynasty 631]

19 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Yes, but most Republican lawmakers are beholden to the base and NRA on this and refuse to even consider it.

What are you even talking about? I have no idea how long it would take, so I didn't answer. You say I don't want negotiations simply because I don't know how long it would take? Why put words in my mouth like that?

I never said a state-by-state banning, for the very reason I shared in a previous post - the weapons would still be produced in large volumes as long as some states did not ban them, and those weapons would inevitably find their way, via criminals, to states that did. The ban would have to be nation-wide.

Christ, man, what the hell is your endgame here? Sure, I'd love to see all of these rifles eliminated overnight, but I'm pointing out a way that doesn't have to be done. You're sitting here telling me the reasons they all need to disappear immediately, as if I didn't already know. As I said before, confiscate them as criminals use them, or otherwise commit crimes where they forfeit their right to own them and get them away from those mentally unstable. Also, institute a buyback program. I guarantee that a sizeable percentage of those that just can't live without their AR-15 will magically become less attached to them if they can get a decent payment for it.

I don't understand you. I'm trying to show ways to compromise where the majority of guns owners get to keep what they have, and you're throwing it back in my face. You're like these people that go out and buy a gun just to dare the government to take if from them. What do you want to hear, that deep down I really want all guns gone? Well, if it comes to your black-and-white view of the argument, where the only possible outcomes can be do nothing or eliminate everything, then yeah, I would go to banning everything. Fortunately for gun owners, most people out there, including in government, are capable of nuance.

But go ahead and keep ignoring the possibility that most that want something done don't want to get rid of them all. You'd better hope not every Republican politician sees it the same way you do.

In the bolded part, I think I’m starting to see the survivalism mentality that’s starting to grow in conservative circles. Harboring deep fears that the “big, bad government” will suddenly take over their lives. And then you see stuff like these stories:

 

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article274517706.html — Lester and Ralph Yarl — in the article it says Lester bought into conspiracies and disinformation to a point where he was scared and paranoid of everyone.

When I think about it, it really does adds up. Fear, paranoia, and anxiety built up by years watching shows that’s designed to strike fear, anger, and anxiety has reached to a boiling point in some people. 

Now, the bigger question remains: are men of all ages too emotional to handle guns? Seems like it everyday.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

Will the relatives of Eugene Stoner take the advice of Sarah Winchester:

Sarah Winchester was the widow of William Wirt Winchester, heir to the Winchester Repeating Arms Company.

Born around 1840, Sarah Winchester grew up in a world of privilege. She spoke four languages, attended the best schools around, married well, and eventually gave birth to a daughter, Annie. However, tragedy struck in her late twenties when Annie died, followed by the death of Sarah’s husband William more than a decade later.

After William’s death in 1881, Sarah inherited roughly $20 million (over $500 million in 2019 dollars) as well as fifty percent of the Winchester Arms company which left her with a continued income equal to $1,000 a day (or $26,000 a day in 2019 dollars).

Newly in possession of a massive fortune and struggling with the loss of her husband and daughter, she sought the advice of a medium. She hoped, perhaps, to get advice from the beyond as to how to spend her fortune or what to do with her life. 

Though the exact specifics remain between Sarah Winchester and her medium, the story goes that the medium was able to channel dearly departed William, who advised Sarah to leave her home in New Haven, Connecticut, and head west to California. As far as what to do with her money, William answered that too; she was to use the fortune to build a home for the spirits of those who had fallen victim to Winchester rifles, lest she be haunted by them for the rest of her life.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/winchester-mystery-house

This sounds eerily similar to the logic being used by many on this board.  Poor Sarah could only focus on the deaths (whether justified or not) and not how that weapon changed America for the eventual good.  Like the Henry Repeating rifle, used mostly be the Union in the Civil War, had a profound impact.  That rifle was not bought or supported my the Union Army, but bought by private citizens and used in the Civil War.

Now don’t go thinking I am comparing the good affects the repeating rifle eventually had to the AR-15 as that would not be a good comparison.  The Winchester is still a viable hunting rifle even after Sarah and her medium have passed.  The AR-15 is the weapon that has taken down mass shooters, most recently, in Nashville and Louisville.  It also was the gun used by a civilian to convince the mass murder of a church in Sutherland, Texas to give up on his rampage.

It really does depend on who’s hand the weapon is in that makes the difference.

 

[arein0 1,105]

[homersapien 12,244]

6 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

iam can and he does not care. his right is more important than you life. and he is christain as well. bad bad bad look. he has blood on his hands as well. i do not play when it comes to murdering kids because adults want a very dangerous play toy.

He's not defending his right, he's defending a fetish founded on his insecurity.

[homersapien 12,244]

This insanity got supercharged when the law providing unique protection to the gun industry was enacted. That's when the mass marketing really got going.  A bunch of start-up jumped for the money to be made.

Recent lawsuits are challenging that status quo.  Hopefully that will result in some progress.

(But I refuse to get my hopes up with the MAGA majority on the SCOTUS.)

 

https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-industry-legal-immunity-plcaa/#:~:text=The law%2C passed in 2005%2C gave the gun,always dismiss the case before it reached trial.

A Guide to the Gun Industry’s Unique Legal Protections

A pair of lawsuits threatens to erode the special legal immunity that gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers enjoy. Here’s the federal law they’re taking on.

Edited May 9, 2023 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 18,259]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You are full of BS.  There is no connection between defending the 2nd Amendment and killing children, that is just a leftist talking point.  I have no more blood on my hands than you do for supporting drug dealers for decades.

that is rich. the bottom line is you do not care if children die because you want your assault rifle. you got a bump stock with it? it makes it easier to shoot a little girls face off.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

Just now, aubiefifty said:

that is rich. the bottom line is you do not care if children die because you want your assault rifle. you got a bump stock with it? it makes it easier to shoot a little girls face off.

Why makes you think I don’t care about little children?  Is it because I defend the 2nd Amendment?  Do you believe if all the AR-15s disappeared tomorrow there would be no mass shootings at schools?  If you gave up your gun would it save a child’s life?  If I gave up my guns do you think it will save a child’s life?

Answers:  I do care greatly, I have 3 sons and 6 grandkids, I suspect so, no, no, no.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

On 5/8/2023 at 8:17 PM, arein0 said:

High Crime in Republican Cities Fueled by Guns, Inequality

I never said Republican cities do not have crime.  Crime maybe fueled by guns and inequality in red cities, the issue in blue cities is letting criminals out of jail and no bail laws keeps them on the streets to create more crime.  It is a bad formula.