Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+703|4642|United States of America
You can't have a serious gun discussion if you make sure it's always too soon after a shooting to talk about it. /meme

Jay's knowledge of public health issues is severely lacking, as we've already established. I'm surprised people even trot out the line that it's too soon to talk about it, as if talking even stands a fucking chance of changing anything. Talk all you want, but Congress is in the pocket of the NRA and a sizeable portion of the population has had paranoia stoked for decades that any reasonable attempt at reducing firearms would likely cause several shootouts between law enforecement and the crazies.

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,961|3315|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

You can't have a serious gun discussion if you make sure it's always too soon after a shooting to talk about it. /meme

Jay's knowledge of public health issues is severely lacking, as we've already established. I'm surprised people even trot out the line that it's too soon to talk about it, as if talking even stands a fucking chance of changing anything. Talk all you want, but Congress is in the pocket of the NRA and a sizeable portion of the population has had paranoia stoked for decades that any reasonable attempt at reducing firearms would likely cause several shootouts between law enforecement and the crazies.

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!
No, your math skills and sense of magnitude are terrible.you should've gone into climate science instead. You could predict doom and gloom to your hearts content. Moron.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+176|1677
WaPo actually ran the numbers. About a thousand mass shooting deaths in the last 50 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … f2b13562a1

About 400,000 gun related murders in that time frame while total deaths from firearms including suicide is at 1,650,000
SuperJail Warden
Member
+176|1677
I hate the discussion about mental health care and how "if only we helped this guy sooner we wouldn't have this tragedy". Such bullshit. There are many people who have much worse issues that don't go around killing innocent people (they troll video game forums instead). Same with the black high school kids I used to teach. All the black teachers always talked about how ghetto culture is unique and these kids can't be expected to learn like white kids. Also bullshit excuses. People go through worse every in life and aren't rude little animals for it.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,741|4729|Banoi, PNG

Bringing up guns as a contributor to mass shootings draws gun people out of their comfort zone, so you see alternatives like mental health interjected a lot. Or bizarre solutions like training teachers as armed security guards are offered. Or the subject gets derailed by something unrelated like a Nixon appreciation monologue or a tirade about government oppression.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+703|4642|United States of America

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

You can't have a serious gun discussion if you make sure it's always too soon after a shooting to talk about it. /meme

Jay's knowledge of public health issues is severely lacking, as we've already established. I'm surprised people even trot out the line that it's too soon to talk about it, as if talking even stands a fucking chance of changing anything. Talk all you want, but Congress is in the pocket of the NRA and a sizeable portion of the population has had paranoia stoked for decades that any reasonable attempt at reducing firearms would likely cause several shootouts between law enforecement and the crazies.

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!
No, your math skills and sense of magnitude are terrible.you should've gone into climate science instead. You could predict doom and gloom to your hearts content. Moron.
You say my math is terrible, but you're the one literally accepting thousands of preventable deaths because it's arbitrarily not big enough for you to want to change anything.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,961|3315|London, England
Well, it's because there is a rather big divide between the people having the discussions. On the one hand you have people who grew up with guns, feel comfortable around guns, and just don't see the big deal. On the other hand you have people who have never touched one and are terrified of them to the point that if they ever saw one they would probably break down and cry or run away. There's no common ground there.

I shot my first gun at eight. My dad took me up to his friends property in the Pocono Mountains and I shot a paper target with a rifle. My five year old brother shot a pistol. The next time I fired a weapon was when I was nineteen in basic training. I qualified expert. These days I own a shotgun for trap shooting and home defense.

I tell you all this because even though I am familiar, and a gun owner, my trust levels are low and I am afraid of other gun owners and their intentions. I've probably watched too many movies with drive-by shootings in them, or maybe it was my time in Iraq when driving was a deadly occupation, but I still get a twinge of fear when someone pulls up next to me in their car. Completely irrational. I get the desire to have a law written and to magically make all guns disappear. It's one of the things that would make me truly happy if it could happen. But it's like wishing away war or bullying or poverty or famine.

Anyway, if you want any sort of gun control you need the gun owners to buy in. You need them to agree and accept it as the proper course of action. Dictating to them, or lecturing them, or condescending towards them will just piss them off and make them hate you and double down even harder. It requires building trust. Up until now, the gun control advocates have done everything in their power to destroy any and all trust. They have hate in their heart, not understanding or compassion, and so they are denied. You can't overcome fear, because it is fear that drives the arms race, without establishing that trust. Be open and honest with your intentions. Be open to debate. Don't try to ram through ill-thought-out legislation after every tragedy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,961|3315|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

You can't have a serious gun discussion if you make sure it's always too soon after a shooting to talk about it. /meme

Jay's knowledge of public health issues is severely lacking, as we've already established. I'm surprised people even trot out the line that it's too soon to talk about it, as if talking even stands a fucking chance of changing anything. Talk all you want, but Congress is in the pocket of the NRA and a sizeable portion of the population has had paranoia stoked for decades that any reasonable attempt at reducing firearms would likely cause several shootouts between law enforecement and the crazies.

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!
No, your math skills and sense of magnitude are terrible.you should've gone into climate science instead. You could predict doom and gloom to your hearts content. Moron.
You say my math is terrible, but you're the one literally accepting thousands of preventable deaths because it's arbitrarily not big enough for you to want to change anything.
Heart disease: 633,842
Cancer: 595,930
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
Diabetes: 79,535
Influenza and Pneumonia: 57,062
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 49,959
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

We've spent approximately $1,000,000,000,000 on the war on drugs since 1971. Approximately 55,000 people die from drug overdoses each year, which puts it below flu deaths. Do you think it would've been better to spend that money on say, the leading cause of death, heart disease, or maybe the second leading cause of death, cancer, rather than putting millions of people in jail? Drugs are illegal. People still do drugs. It's a conscious decision that they've made. Wouldn't it make more sense to stop fighting reality and maybe instead make it safer for people to do what they want? If people actually knew the quality of the product they were using you'd see a more dramatic drop in overdose deaths than you would by doubling down on the drug war like you seem to want to.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,961|3315|London, England
National Review got it right:

We Need an Accurate National Conversation About Guns Thank you, Washington Post, for stepping up to the plate and correcting a widely-cited and shared piece of misinformation in the aftermath of the Florida shooting. There have not been 18 school shootings in the United States so far this year.

The figure originated with Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit group, co-founded by Michael Bloomberg, that works to prevent gun violence and is most famous for its running tally of school shootings…

It is a horrifying statistic. And it is wrong.

Everytown has long inflated its total by including incidents of gunfire that are not really school shootings. Take, for example, what it counted as the year’s first: On the afternoon of Jan. 3, a 31-year-old man who had parked outside a Michigan elementary school called police to say he was armed and suicidal. Several hours later, he killed himself. The school, however, had been closed for seven months. There were no teachers. There were no students.

Also listed on the organization’s site is an incident from Jan. 20, when at 1 a.m. a man was shot at a sorority event on the campus of Wake Forest University. A week later, as a basketball game was being played at a Michigan high school, someone fired several rounds from a gun in the parking lot. No one was injured, and it was past 8 p.m., well after classes had ended for the day, but Everytown still labeled it a school shooting.

We keep hearing, “we need to have a national conversation about guns,” and then we keep hearing statements from those same voices that are simply not true. If we’re going to have that national conversation, I want the other side to do its homework first.

I don’t want to hear CNN lamenting that Florida doesn’t require a concealed carry permit for an AR-15 or shotgun. (They are too large to conceal.) I don’t want to hear people referring to the AR-15 as an “automatic assault weapon” and I want them to learn the difference between automatic and semiautomatic, and which kind is already illegal. I don’t want to hear about “the gun show loophole” unless the shooter purchased his gun at a gun show. (To the best of my knowledge, not a single mass-shooter has done so.) I want former presidents to stop asserting that it’s easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than buy a computer or a book.

If someone wants to ban AR-15s, I want them to say so. I also want to know what they want to do about the 5 million to 10 million AR-15s already in private hands. I want them to realize that if they don’t grandfather in the already-owned ones, they will instantly turn millions of law-abiding Americans, who have never fired a shot in anger, into criminals. If a gun control advocate proposes a buyback program like Australia’s, I want that person to recognize that the compliance rate down under was about 20 percent and it created a violent black market for guns. If a gun control advocate calls for law enforcement to confiscate AR-15s from private homes, I want that person to realize that they’re calling for violent chaos. And I want them to know that as long as groups advocate ideas like this, the line “no one wants to take away your guns” is a disingenuous lie.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+176|1677
You guys are stupid. You should know the drill by now: it doesn't matter unless Jay was affected.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,776|4589|949

Jay wrote:

Well, it's because there is a rather big divide between the people having the discussions. On the one hand you have people who grew up with guns, feel comfortable around guns, and just don't see the big deal. On the other hand you have people who have never touched one and are terrified of them to the point that if they ever saw one they would probably break down and cry or run away. There's no common ground there.

I shot my first gun at eight. My dad took me up to his friends property in the Pocono Mountains and I shot a paper target with a rifle. My five year old brother shot a pistol. The next time I fired a weapon was when I was nineteen in basic training. I qualified expert. These days I own a shotgun for trap shooting and home defense.

I tell you all this because even though I am familiar, and a gun owner, my trust levels are low and I am afraid of other gun owners and their intentions. I've probably watched too many movies with drive-by shootings in them, or maybe it was my time in Iraq when driving was a deadly occupation, but I still get a twinge of fear when someone pulls up next to me in their car. Completely irrational. I get the desire to have a law written and to magically make all guns disappear. It's one of the things that would make me truly happy if it could happen. But it's like wishing away war or bullying or poverty or famine.

Anyway, if you want any sort of gun control you need the gun owners to buy in. You need them to agree and accept it as the proper course of action. Dictating to them, or lecturing them, or condescending towards them will just piss them off and make them hate you and double down even harder. It requires building trust. Up until now, the gun control advocates have done everything in their power to destroy any and all trust. They have hate in their heart, not understanding or compassion, and so they are denied. You can't overcome fear, because it is fear that drives the arms race, without establishing that trust. Be open and honest with your intentions. Be open to debate. Don't try to ram through ill-thought-out legislation after every tragedy.
and wouldn't you know, gun owners DO buy in
Even an overwhelming majority of NRA members support stronger background checks

So I guess the only one that's coming across as condescending is you!  Surprise surprise.  Maybe if you develop as strong a penchant for fact-based critical analysis as you have for telling #storeys about yourself you'd know this and save yourself some typing.

National Review got 'it' right by pointing out that school shooting numbers were overstated and saying that's what's stopping logical criticism and debate on gun control?  How fucking absurd it is to say "we can't have a conversation because there's only been 8 mass shootings in America this year, not 18!"
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+703|4642|United States of America

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:


No, your math skills and sense of magnitude are terrible.you should've gone into climate science instead. You could predict doom and gloom to your hearts content. Moron.
You say my math is terrible, but you're the one literally accepting thousands of preventable deaths because it's arbitrarily not big enough for you to want to change anything.
Heart disease: 633,842
Cancer: 595,930
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
Diabetes: 79,535
Influenza and Pneumonia: 57,062
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 49,959
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

We've spent approximately $1,000,000,000,000 on the war on drugs since 1971. Approximately 55,000 people die from drug overdoses each year, which puts it below flu deaths. Do you think it would've been better to spend that money on say, the leading cause of death, heart disease, or maybe the second leading cause of death, cancer, rather than putting millions of people in jail? Drugs are illegal. People still do drugs. It's a conscious decision that they've made. Wouldn't it make more sense to stop fighting reality and maybe instead make it safer for people to do what they want? If people actually knew the quality of the product they were using you'd see a more dramatic drop in overdose deaths than you would by doubling down on the drug war like you seem to want to.
Where did I say about doubling down on the drug war? I would actually like to reduce the number of deaths by doing something that actually works. You'll see that most healthcare professionals and people who subscribe to that approach aren't the ones advocating throwing people in prison.
uziq
Member
+140|1410

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I hate the discussion about mental health care and how "if only we helped this guy sooner we wouldn't have this tragedy". Such bullshit. There are many people who have much worse issues that don't go around killing innocent people (they troll video game forums instead). Same with the black high school kids I used to teach. All the black teachers always talked about how ghetto culture is unique and these kids can't be expected to learn like white kids. Also bullshit excuses. People go through worse every in life and aren't rude little animals for it.
this sounds a lot like some jordan peterson bullshit talking about how all the 'leading white males' also have cancer victims in their family and deal with multiplicand stresses every day -- and still lead their respective careers, woohoo. it totally under-rates the massive benefit of a decent support network and growing up with positive role models, etc. it's not the severity of the issue itself that matters, here. some people flip and nope out over something trivial because they literally haven't learned how to deal with life's expected vicissitudes. it is a problem of correct socialisation and i'm not sure why you're blaming those black teens for their lot.
uziq
Member
+140|1410

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:


No, your math skills and sense of magnitude are terrible.you should've gone into climate science instead. You could predict doom and gloom to your hearts content. Moron.
You say my math is terrible, but you're the one literally accepting thousands of preventable deaths because it's arbitrarily not big enough for you to want to change anything.
Heart disease: 633,842
Cancer: 595,930
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
Diabetes: 79,535
Influenza and Pneumonia: 57,062
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 49,959
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

We've spent approximately $1,000,000,000,000 on the war on drugs since 1971. Approximately 55,000 people die from drug overdoses each year, which puts it below flu deaths. Do you think it would've been better to spend that money on say, the leading cause of death, heart disease, or maybe the second leading cause of death, cancer, rather than putting millions of people in jail? Drugs are illegal. People still do drugs. It's a conscious decision that they've made. Wouldn't it make more sense to stop fighting reality and maybe instead make it safer for people to do what they want? If people actually knew the quality of the product they were using you'd see a more dramatic drop in overdose deaths than you would by doubling down on the drug war like you seem to want to.
what does the war on drugs have to do with the US being flooded with totally legal, massively abusable prescription drugs? kids are being over-prescribed strong opiates and painkillers, leading to an addiction problem. the war on drugs' aims and rhetoric have nothing to do with this problem. you're like conflating two issues and claiming that the expenditure of funding narco wars in colombia proves that trying to combat teenagers taking xannies is a lost cause. lol.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,961|3315|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:


You say my math is terrible, but you're the one literally accepting thousands of preventable deaths because it's arbitrarily not big enough for you to want to change anything.
Heart disease: 633,842
Cancer: 595,930
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
Diabetes: 79,535
Influenza and Pneumonia: 57,062
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 49,959
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

We've spent approximately $1,000,000,000,000 on the war on drugs since 1971. Approximately 55,000 people die from drug overdoses each year, which puts it below flu deaths. Do you think it would've been better to spend that money on say, the leading cause of death, heart disease, or maybe the second leading cause of death, cancer, rather than putting millions of people in jail? Drugs are illegal. People still do drugs. It's a conscious decision that they've made. Wouldn't it make more sense to stop fighting reality and maybe instead make it safer for people to do what they want? If people actually knew the quality of the product they were using you'd see a more dramatic drop in overdose deaths than you would by doubling down on the drug war like you seem to want to.
what does the war on drugs have to do with the US being flooded with totally legal, massively abusable prescription drugs? kids are being over-prescribed strong opiates and painkillers, leading to an addiction problem. the war on drugs' aims and rhetoric have nothing to do with this problem. you're like conflating two issues and claiming that the expenditure of funding narco wars in colombia proves that trying to combat teenagers taking xannies is a lost cause. lol.
Kids are definitely over-prescribed drugs. My house is a madhouse when my three year old has his friends over. Running around, chasing each other, climbing crap. I think it's awesome, but a lot of parents can't deal with it and medicate the shit out of their kids so they won't be bothered while pinteresting. It gets worse when kids are in school and told to sit in a chair for eight hours straight and they act out. Rather than changing the system, it seems every other male boy gets diagnosed with ADHD and drugged into compliance.

I'm not saying there isn't an issue with drugs or prescription drugs, I just feel that we've taken the wrong tack as a society. We're making the same mistake we made during the alcohol prohibition era. Heavy use of law enforcement doesn't work. I'd rather see the money spent on treatment and rehabilitation coupled with regulated (government or trade association standards) legalization so that we stop the overdoses and treat the dependency.

But frankly, you were right in the other thread, it is heavily concentrated in ex-industrial towns where people have given up hope. I don't think anyone knows how to fix their situation short of telling them to "move to the jobs like your grandparents did". When your options are shitty job or welfare and partying, it's a no-brainer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,597|4063|eXtreme to the maX

DesertFox- wrote:

You can't have a serious gun discussion if you make sure it's always too soon after a shooting to talk about it. /meme

Jay's knowledge of public health issues is severely lacking, as we've already established. I'm surprised people even trot out the line that it's too soon to talk about it, as if talking even stands a fucking chance of changing anything. Talk all you want, but Congress is in the pocket of the NRA and a sizeable portion of the population has had paranoia stoked for decades that any reasonable attempt at reducing firearms would likely cause several shootouts between law enforecement and the crazies.

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!
As long as the shootings keep happening at a steady rate there'll always be warm bodies, ergo the debate can never happen - awesome.

As I see it there are two basic problems.

- American society is thoroughly fucked up at many levels, brutal, exclusionary, unequal, elitist, the US democratic system was poorly designed, is unrepresentative and does not deliver for the average citizen and as a consequence seems to spit out a steady stream of people seething with anger and hate of their country and fellow citizens (or who choose to take industrial drugs to escape it all)

- Excessively easy availability of powerful weapons.
Mentally ill teenagers should not have their hands on AR15s and multiple 30 round clips, it is that simple.
Some straightforward changes could be easily implemented to drastically reduce the likelihood of this happening which would impinge on no-one's rights in the slightest. But the 'adults' in charge shut their minds and hunker down behind the same moronic arguments every time.

I could drone on about this at length but I'm not sure there's much point.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2018-02-19 02:43:24)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,961|3315|London, England
I'm in favor of a ban on semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines, personally.

Edit - however, the counter argument will always be that you would be putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage against people who flout the law. It also wouldn't prevent someone bent on mass murder from just carrying multiple disposable weapons. There's no easy fix

Last edited by Jay (2018-02-18 05:08:05)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+176|1677
Most of the gun debate in this country boils down to "I rather innocent people die than have to get a new hobby"
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,597|4063|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

I'm in favor of a ban on semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines, personally.

Edit - however, the counter argument will always be that you would be putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage against people who flout the law. It also wouldn't prevent someone bent on mass murder from just carrying multiple disposable weapons. There's no easy fix
There are plenty of things which could be done to reduce the risk, but then of course we'd have the retards yelling "there's no point doing anything if it doesn't 200% guarantee there will never be a mass-murder again ever ever and whatever anyone comes up with would be unconstitutional anyway so lets not even think about it"

The likelihood of the average citizen really needing more firepower than the average criminal does not make for much of an argument. You're probably better off worrying about Martians invading, or having the appropriate firearm to deal with huge worms breaking into your gun-vault. Or you can stack up your 100rnd clips just in case Serbians try to car-jack you. Not that self-defence features anywhere in the constitutional right to own a gun as far as I know.

The US managed to ban production and sale of (new) fully automatic weapons in the civilian market, its a felony to possess a sawn-off shot-gun - after all only a criminal would have a use for either. Apparently this is all fine and constitutional and hasn't been overturned, so there are possibilities to change the laws which probably wouldn't result in the British invading and reclaiming their birthright.
In fact "shall not be infringed" has been so thoroughly infringed as to be as good as invalid. Parity of arms with the govt went away about a century ago. Can the average American own a modern artillery piece? Anti-tank missile? Anti-aircraft cannon? No, only small-arms and then not small-arms comparable with what the govt has. When once it was musket vs musket and cannon vs cannon its now 5.56mm pop-gun vs 155mm fin-stabilised shaped charge projectile. A sensible court would rule the 2nd amendment was null and void in about 1920.

The assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine bans passed all the tests, and were let lapse by Duhbya.

What I would do:

Ban sale of semi-automatic rifles below a certain length - full-size M16/AR15s, Garands etc can be used for mass-shootings but are that much harder to carry and conceal.

Ban sale of a device which effectively converts any firearm to fully automatic operation

Ban sale of magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds

Maybe make some exceptions for serving members of the National Guard, actually make the 'militia' thing make some kind of sense.

Close the 'gun show' loophole - anyone purchasing a firearm, receiving as a gift, from a relative or whatever, should go through a background check.
That someone can buy a gun and hand it straight to a crazy is beyond retarded. Actually I'd introduce registration and take the pain of the nutballs going on about 'muh freedums'. People need a licence and registration to drive a car but not to own a gun, its retarded.

Probably set a min age of 21 for owning any kind of semi-automatic firearm.

^ None of this would guarantee there would be no more mass-shootings, or really impinge on anyone's freedoms, but it would put a crimp on things.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2018-02-19 02:44:17)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|4110|what

Dilbert I think what you wrote is too reasonable to be accepted.

They did nothing after Sandy Hook. Nothing after Vegas.

The only way this could be different is if the NRA stop buying off politicians.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,776|4589|949

but according to Jay (and stupid Americans like him), it's not the NRA, it's the average gun owner, not the NRA.  Jay knows because back when he was a tyke he shot some guns and his grandpa told him so and then he once met an NRA member who told him how it was.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,961|3315|London, England
The NRA is a convenient bogeyman. No lobbying group has that much power, let's be real. The reason gun control measures don't get implemented is because even when Democrats have power they care more about not losing their handful of remaining seats in the Senate from flyover country. The Republican base, in turn, would turn against them if they proposed anything that restricted gun ownership, especially if it's anything popular with the left wing media. So yeah, blame the NRA. Lots of gun owners would get behind reasonable measures, but they'd rather, out of spite, that nothing get done than to give liberals any sort of victory. You are the problem Ken, not the NRA. You and people like you are smarmy cunts and no one wants to hear your voice. They'd rather loltrump.

Last edited by Jay (2018-02-20 17:43:34)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Adams_BJ
Warman is a hermaphrodite.
+2,025|4580|Little Bentcock
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,597|4063|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

The NRA is a convenient bogeyman. No lobbying group has that much power, let's be real. The reason gun control measures don't get implemented is because even when Democrats have power they care more about not losing their handful of remaining seats in the Senate from flyover country. The Republican base, in turn, would turn against them if they proposed anything that restricted gun ownership, especially if it's anything popular with the left wing media. So yeah, blame the NRA. Lots of gun owners would get behind reasonable measures, but they'd rather, out of spite, that nothing get done than to give liberals any sort of victory. You are the problem Ken, not the NRA. You and people like you are smarmy cunts and no one wants to hear your voice. They'd rather loltrump.
So its not the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans, its the fault of the average dumb voter?
Or the Republicans being petty?

From this perspective it is pathetic that the Republicans devote so much of their time to blocking sensible policies solely so they can later say "look! the democrats are useless! they never get anything done!" when they agreed with the policies and they themselves prevented them happening.
That doesn't necessarily mean that people like Ken are the problem, its that Republicans are so dumb they'd prefer to cut off their own nose to spite someone elses face. Or their own face. I still don't get the people who drive without a seatbelt so they can feel they're sticking it to the gubmint as they're sailing through their windshield.

While we're on the subject its mindbending that the same Republicans who blocked Obama's debt and spending increases, because they believe in small government and fiscal responsibility, are the same people pushing Trump's debt and spending increases - plus tax cuts, and anyone who disagrees hates America, freedom and the military.

Personally I think the NRA has spun itself into its own web, stoking the paranoia of gun-owners to boost their own coffers and influence.
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-90ad5e2fb59c04e6eed027b1753e4bce.webp
Not sure why the chart is backwards, but boosting revenue from $150m to $350m in ten years is a fair acheivement.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2018-02-21 03:12:13)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,597|4063|eXtreme to the maX

AussieReaper wrote:

Dilbert I think what you wrote is too reasonable to be accepted.

They did nothing after Sandy Hook. Nothing after Vegas.

The only way this could be different is if the NRA stop buying off politicians.
Trump is planning to ban bump stocks and similar devices, that does make sense and is better than nothing.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2018 Jeff Minard