Another day, another mass shooting in DC
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| We won’t stop and frisk for illegal guns and you and you have people who want to seize legal guns. Madness. |
Anonymous
This is not a problem with "understanding". This is a problem of ideology and not abandoning it when human nature and character actually shows it doesn't work. DC displays heavy gun control. It's almost impossible to get a gun legally. They make sure of that. Yet, this continues. |
Anonymous
Ok. Thanks. Yes stop and frisk was effective tho not without its own set of problems. |
Anonymous
I don't understand what world you live in. You aren't changing the Constitution without three-fourth's of the states?! More than that, have you heard how many sheriffs have said I'm not enforcing X? They've said it again and again every time some politician says they're going to do Y. They are the law. More than that, you assume that the army is on your side. Do you really think that? "Oh, they'll follow orders!" REALLY? The army couldn't control a bunch of backwater taliban in the hills. What do you think bubba and his redneck friends, who are former military and armed tot he teeth will do? What will happen is we'll never find out, because the people on base aren't going to do a damn thing you tell them WRT to firearms. You want them, you go door to door and get shot. You're living in a dream world. This is not Australia or the U.K. |
Anonymous
DC isn’t an island. All of the states with crappy gun control laws contribute to the gun violence. |
Anonymous
Brady (Republican) also has some great common sense gun control proposals. https://www.bradyunited.org/the-brady-plan Any legal gun owner should support these. |
Anonymous
My concerns about NICS checks being expanded to cover private sales is that it's essentially meaningless since most states don't require registration of long guns. The only way to actually enforce it would be to require some sort of federal legislation (or all states doing it in state law) that requires registration of all firearms. One could certainly argue in favor of federal registration, but let's not pretend it's just about expanding background checks to cover things like private sales. I do actually support quite a few of Brady's recommendations, FWIW. |
Anonymous
The first two proposals are ok with me, but then they go off the rails after that. That’s the problem with Brady. Banning “assault weapons”? The problem is the definition of “assault weapon” has been made so broad by groups like Brady and EveryTown that it encompasses most of the guns in existence. That’s both absurd AND disingenuous. Stick with the pentagon’s definition of an assault weapon - they’re the experts. Repealing lawful commerce in arms protection? The only purpose of that is to allow unending lawfare tactics to drive gun manufacturers out of business. You can’t sue Honda or Budweiser because a drunk driver hit you. If you could, we wouldn’t have cars, alcohol, or anything else after a few years of ridiculous lawsuits. Bump stocks? Trump banned them. Done. “Smart gun” mandates? So what happens when the gun firmware gets hacked and it’s bricked? What if the tech malfunctions and keeps it from being used and the owner is harmed because they couldn’t defend themselves? Sounds like a great way to be sued out of business (see point 2) It goes on and on…. Sure, background checks on private sales? Great. Expand prohibition to intimate partners? Sure. Have the CDC study why people get shot? Ok, I suppose…but we already tend to know the reasons people get shot, and it’s not really a mystery most of the time, so I’m not sure what that’s supposed to accomplish other than spending money…. Beyond those, I can’t really support the rest of that list. And I say that as a slightly left-of-center independent. If I can’t get down with that stuff, how do you possibly sell it to the larger majority of Americans who are to the right of me? You can’t. |
Anonymous
If only the dads hadn’t been thrown away by the zero tolerance policy |
Anonymous
This is nonsense. The things you want laws against (straw purchases, interstate sales, criminal misuse of firearms) are already unlawful. There is an unlimited supply of firearms waiting all over the world for it to be smuggled instead of or with drugs and other contraband. And “gun violence” is a political buzzword. Guns are inanimate. They do nothing. The most powerful firearm in the world, fully loaded, will harm no one without criminal misuse. The problem is criminal psychopaths and the quislings in government who continue to blame decent people and restrict their rights instead of holding criminals accountable. |
Anonymous
The problem with missing fathers dates back to the Stone Age, but was vastly accelerated by, among other things, the cynical “great society” programs of the 60’s onward, which encouraged family abandonment by making the manufacture of illegitimate children a profitable enterprise. The “Sexusl Revolution” and associated abandonment of any sense of moral responsibility associated with sexual relations made things even worse. The dehumanization of the poor and their exploitation by ruthless self-serving politicians finished the job. By the time “zero tolerance” came along to end the cocaine wars in the streets, fatherless homes were the norm in some communities. |
Anonymous
Jim Brady was a Republican. The organization founded by his wife after he was shot by a madman attempting to take the life of Ronald Reagan certainly is not. Nothing about the enduring and raft of additional gun restrictions complied with “common sense.” “Gun control” has been around since the Civil War, when it was implemented to disarm free Blacks as part of Jim Crow policies. The present day gun restrictions in the US began in the 30’s in response to criminal gang warfare, and expanded from the 60’s onward, modeled on the laws the Nazis used to render their opponents helpless. None of these laws have reduced criminal violence because they punish decent people instead of criminals. But angry, violent people, afraid of what they might do if armed, continue to press for more pointless, ineffective restrictions and object to putting criminals where they can do no more harm. That is “wishcraft,” not common sense. |
Anonymous
Criminals don’t register guns any more often than they use only prescribed narcotics, precisely in accordance with label directions, or respect property rights. Long guns are used in an infinitesimal number of crimes. |
Anonymous
|
I'm in favor of gun control. But D.C. already has tons of gun control laws, the problem is they aren't being enforced. Many of the people who don't want them to be enforced go around complaining that we need more gun control laws, which they'll then come out and say shouldn't be enforced either. It's madness.
You can complain all day about the NRA, but if you don't care that D.C. doesn't enforce it's gun laws, you're honestly as bad as they are. https://www.slowboring.com/p/why-most-gun-arrests-in-dc-dont-lead |
Anonymous
Then why do we have souch more gun violence than other countries with much stricter gun control? I tend to agree that the problem is ALSO cultural, but think one reason our culture is so violent is the glorification of guns. These things go hand in hand. All cultures have people who are impulsive, mentally unstable, and violent. But in our culture, those people have a lot of access to guns (legal and illegal, once you have lots of guns in the population, there will inevitably be a thriving illegal gun trade) and this we have lots of gun deaths. Other countries deal with violence, but less of it and it's less deadly because the weapons people have access to are less deadly. |