Banning AR-15s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

Video shows a black man saving an Indian man from a robber armed with a knife, using his handgun. Didn’t even have to put down the six pack of light beer.

Do you not understand anecdote vs. empirical research? Your video is anecdote. Research is different. Let me guess, now you go to cherry pick some research by the infamous and disproven John Locke? I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

US will never ban nor rid AR15s or any firepower out en masse in public hands now. It's too late to bring back the genie in the bottle.

The lobby is too strong and too rich to defeat. What we may do short of "banning" is to enact slow (very slow) progressive changes by way of ammunition/background checks/safety laws/training and education checks in order to use firearms. It would be very slow road and very small changes that would be able to pass however.

It is the same as the healthcare system in US I have said - it's impossible to change to what makes sense because it's now reality. Too many are used to the system established. Tailoring it is our only chance but any change is going to be miniscule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

Ah, so you ARE saying you don't care about the constitution. Thanks for at least being honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

Video shows a black man saving an Indian man from a robber armed with a knife, using his handgun. Didn’t even have to put down the six pack of light beer.

Do you not understand anecdote vs. empirical research? Your video is anecdote. Research is different. Let me guess, now you go to cherry pick some research by the infamous and disproven John Locke? I'll wait.

We found during Covid how research could be very skewed, even suppressed and/or falsified. Research is only as good as those behind it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

Video shows a black man saving an Indian man from a robber armed with a knife, using his handgun. Didn’t even have to put down the six pack of light beer.

Do you not understand anecdote vs. empirical research? Your video is anecdote. Research is different. Let me guess, now you go to cherry pick some research by the infamous and disproven John Locke? I'll wait.

We found during Covid how research could be very skewed, even suppressed and/or falsified. Research is only as good as those behind it.

You mean like when multiple studies were found to have falsified data making it seem as though Ivermectin is helpful for COVID? Oh yes, remember that, I work in healthcare.

Aggregate research findings matter. John Locke is one person who has disproven by numerous other researchers. If you ONLY believe one person and don't review the totality of research findings, you're likely prone to conspiracy type thinking and little will help you. So I'll stop arguing because it's generally useless to argue with someone who can't think critically and is prone to conspiracy type thinking. Will only believe what you're biased to believe, will move the goalposts if anyone posts anything contrary to what you are predetermined to believe.

[Anonymous]

you aren't going to be able to ban guns when trust in society is fraying and distrust of centralized institutions is leading to more and more gun sales.

people are buying exponentially (look at it, it is an exponenital curve) more guns, like i am talking 50+ million sold since covid, somewhere around 30 million handguns and 20 million rifles and shotguns.
To put that into perspective, the entire US military procures less than 80k/rifles per year. More arms were sold in the last 2-3 years than in probably 100 years of the US military procurement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you aren't going to be able to ban guns when trust in society is fraying and distrust of centralized institutions is leading to more and more gun sales.

people are buying exponentially (look at it, it is an exponenital curve) more guns, like i am talking 50+ million sold since covid, somewhere around 30 million handguns and 20 million rifles and shotguns.
To put that into perspective, the entire US military procures less than 80k/rifles per year. More arms were sold in the last 2-3 years than in probably 100 years of the US military procurement.

Don't own a gun and never will, but the bolded is very salient.

And while international colleagues (usually UK or European) sometimes make very pointed comments about US gun culture etc., a Canadian colleague who was pretty appalled at certain government actions during their trucker protests shared that he didn't think that would ever happen in the US because the citizenry is so armed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

Universal mandatory background checks, a persistent searchable database, et cetera are not unconstitutional. Background checks have been upheld, restrictions on felons have been upheld, a database is not an infringement. It can and should be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you aren't going to be able to ban guns when trust in society is fraying and distrust of centralized institutions is leading to more and more gun sales.

people are buying exponentially (look at it, it is an exponenital curve) more guns, like i am talking 50+ million sold since covid, somewhere around 30 million handguns and 20 million rifles and shotguns.
To put that into perspective, the entire US military procures less than 80k/rifles per year. More arms were sold in the last 2-3 years than in probably 100 years of the US military procurement.

sorry my numbers are off, it is closer to 110+ million guns sold since covid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you aren't going to be able to ban guns when trust in society is fraying and distrust of centralized institutions is leading to more and more gun sales.

people are buying exponentially (look at it, it is an exponenital curve) more guns, like i am talking 50+ million sold since covid, somewhere around 30 million handguns and 20 million rifles and shotguns.
To put that into perspective, the entire US military procures less than 80k/rifles per year. More arms were sold in the last 2-3 years than in probably 100 years of the US military procurement.

sorry my numbers are off, it is closer to 110+ million guns sold since covid

We can have better, more consistent restrictions still in line with the constitution, rather than the swiss cheese implementation we currently have where as many as half of guns used in urban crime are straw purchased in bulk in red states and illegally trafficked all over the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you aren't going to be able to ban guns when trust in society is fraying and distrust of centralized institutions is leading to more and more gun sales.

people are buying exponentially (look at it, it is an exponenital curve) more guns, like i am talking 50+ million sold since covid, somewhere around 30 million handguns and 20 million rifles and shotguns.
To put that into perspective, the entire US military procures less than 80k/rifles per year. More arms were sold in the last 2-3 years than in probably 100 years of the US military procurement.

Don't own a gun and never will, but the bolded is very salient.

And while international colleagues (usually UK or European) sometimes make very pointed comments about US gun culture etc., a Canadian colleague who was pretty appalled at certain government actions during their trucker protests shared that he didn't think that would ever happen in the US because the citizenry is so armed.

My spouse and I bought two handguns in 2020 as an act of prudence; couldn’t really tell whether social winds might justify violence (and against who), and whether government agencies would even intervene if violence was happening. Seemed best to have a fighting chance if everything went off the rails. Seems like lots of other people felt the same.

[Anonymous]

Yup, buy a gun and start training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to buy another just because of this hyperventilation. The first I have kitted ip over my fireplace in Fairfax.

Great, unsecured and visible from a window. But at least you'll have the other one to mount over your commode. Then you'll be ready to chase down the guy who tries to snatch the first one if you don't trip over your own pants.

Realistically, he's going to stay hidden in the bathroom. That's how these things typically go.

Really? https://youtu.be/IFhkcgdkrY8?si=tmmAZH_9j50cF7s6

NP, but not even watching whatever BS this is, every post about actual data, research, and solutions about reducing gun homicides is met with middle school level talk and deflection.

Republicans are NOT serious about focusing on the number one cause of death for children in America. Instead, it's about deflection re: Gender which (last I checked) doesn't show up as a leading statistical cause of death on any list. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Stop and Frisk is the only supposedly serious solution offered, but the research on Stop and Frisk was not remotely definitive and many studies (when you don't cherry pick one to prove your point) found it didn't actually do anything, on top of the potential for constitutional infringement of rights (which 2a activists should take seriously or they are hypocrites).

NYC says hi

NYC implementation of Stop and Frisk was found to be unconstitutional and numerous studies did NOT find that it impacted crime. One did, others didn't. Do you not understand how research works?

As liberals say, constitution is flexible. Studies said one thing, but Times Square was sure as hell safer, as were other areas

Universal mandatory background checks, a persistent searchable database, et cetera are not unconstitutional. Background checks have been upheld, restrictions on felons have been upheld, a database is not an infringement. It can and should be done.

Just curious, but what benefit do you see with a searchable database? Searchable for what exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:US will never ban nor rid AR15s or any firepower out en masse in public hands now. It's too late to bring back the genie in the bottle.

The lobby is too strong and too rich to defeat. What we may do short of "banning" is to enact slow (very slow) progressive changes by way of ammunition/background checks/safety laws/training and education checks in order to use firearms. It would be very slow road and very small changes that would be able to pass however.

It is the same as the healthcare system in US I have said - it's impossible to change to what makes sense because it's now reality. Too many are used to the system established. Tailoring it is our only chance but any change is going to be miniscule.

In your dreams NRA. Blah blah all you want. At some point, if the money and power on the other side gets control of SCOTUS then you will be pushed back. You showed even exactly how it is done so thank you for that I suppose.