Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

That’s a false equivalency though. Driving has multiple prosocial purposes. Guns have one purpose: killing.

Mass shootings aren’t an accidental byproduct of some other activity, they are the activity.

I wouldn't call driving a prosocial activity though. Not on an individual or social level. The car has led to the destruction of the American landscape, the isolation of people from their communities and a crushing financial burden. The car kills people, cities and nations. Guns only kill people.

Let’s not conflate metaphorical killing of cities with literal killing of people. That’s irrelevant.

Guns are designed to murder, and marketed as such. Cars are not advertised based on how many pedestrians they can mow down.

Guns are no more "designed to murder" than cars are designed to kill other drivers and pedestrians. Both can be used for legal and valid purposes, or abused. The variable is the operator, and that's where the focus should be, not on the instrument they use improperly.

Of course guns are designed to murder. I guess you could use one as a paperweight, but that isn’t its primary function.

Does a hunter murder or kill a deer?

Doesn’t make any difference from the deer’s point of view

It does from a human point of view.

Killing and murder isn't the same thing.

Who cares? The end result is the same.

Not at all true.

Murder involves evil intent. Killing doesn't always involve evil intent.

For example you can kill the deer to put meat on the table allowing a family to survive a harsh winter.

You can have an accidental discharge that kills someone unintentionally.

You can kill justifyably:

You can be a member of the military who kills someone to defend your nation.

You can kill someone in self defense and save your kid/wife.

Who cares? The end result is the same.

No, the end result is not at all the same.

If a hunter kills a deer and has a deer permit, they have a trophy, or a story, or a freezer full of food and they don't go to jail.

If a human murders another human because they had evil intent, they may go to jail.

If a human kills another human while following the rules of war, they don't go to jail.

Don't be delibrately obtuse.

The end result is death. Dead deer. Dead human. Both are dead. Caused by the gun, which is designed to make them dead. You’re the one being deliberately obtuse by claiming that they are not in fact both dead.

Anonymous wrote:It sadly won’t change until it’s a bunch of private schools and churches and rural white communities (think county fair) Until then folks will believe it can’t happen to them and that they are safe. Also as the calls get louder for the country to split into two.

It won’t happen then either. It will only happen when people elect Pro-Gun safety candidates and after serious SCOTUS reform. Which means not in my lifetime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To get a little gun control, Democrats have to abandon the idea that they want lots of gun control.

But their end goal is lots of gun bans.

One of the most insidious tactics employed by the left today is when they use the violence carried out by one of their favored demographics as a pretext to disarm White law abiding males who tend to be the most vigorous 2nd amendment defenders.

Then those white law abiding males turn into more bitter clingers who hold their guns and ammo more and more tightly, but never actually use them and thus loose power.

This thread is a masterclass in deflection. While children are being gunned down in churches and schools, the author wants you to believe the real crisis is that “White law-abiding males” feel bitter. Let’s be clear: the most urgent and undeniable threat to American lives today is gun violence, not imaginary disarmament campaigns.

Fact Check: Mass Shootings Are a National Emergency

In 2025 alone, there have been 268 mass shootings, leaving 262 dead and over 1,100 wounded.

Here we are in this thread, because yet another gunman opened fire on children, this time during a church mass in Minneapolis, killing two and injuring 17.

Guns are now the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States.

This isn’t a partisan talking point, it’s a public health catastrophe.

The “Favored Demographics” Lie: The claim that Democrats exploit violence “by favored demographics” to target White males is not only baseless, it’s racially inflammatory. Gun violence affects all communities, and mass shootings have occurred in rural towns, urban centers, churches, synagogues, grocery stores, and schools. The victims span every race, religion, and income level.

The PP laments that White gun owners “never actually use” their weapons and “lose power.” That’s not just paranoid, it’s dangerous. The Second Amendment protects ownership, not vigilantism. Power in a democracy comes from civic engagement, not stockpiling ammo.

Most mainstream gun control proposals, of universal background checks, red flag laws, limits on high-capacity magazines are strongly supported by a majority of Americans, including gun owners. These are targeted, evidence-based policies aimed at reducing preventable deaths, not disarming law-abiding citizens.

The disingenuous posters above try to reframe a national tragedy as a culture war grievance. It ignores the bodies piling up in classrooms and churches. It weaponizes racial resentment while deflecting from the real issue: America’s gun violence epidemic. If your response to mass shootings is fear of losing symbolic power, not fear for the lives of children, then you’ve lost the plot and along with it, your moral compass. Sorry, PP, you've lost the debate. It only continues to exist in the rarefied atmosphere of well funded gun lobbyists and corrupt GOP politicians, not among the mainstream of America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

That’s a false equivalency though. Driving has multiple prosocial purposes. Guns have one purpose: killing.

Mass shootings aren’t an accidental byproduct of some other activity, they are the activity.

I wouldn't call driving a prosocial activity though. Not on an individual or social level. The car has led to the destruction of the American landscape, the isolation of people from their communities and a crushing financial burden. The car kills people, cities and nations. Guns only kill people.

Let’s not conflate metaphorical killing of cities with literal killing of people. That’s irrelevant.

Guns are designed to murder, and marketed as such. Cars are not advertised based on how many pedestrians they can mow down.

Guns are no more "designed to murder" than cars are designed to kill other drivers and pedestrians. Both can be used for legal and valid purposes, or abused. The variable is the operator, and that's where the focus should be, not on the instrument they use improperly.

Of course guns are designed to murder. I guess you could use one as a paperweight, but that isn’t its primary function.

Does a hunter murder or kill a deer?

Doesn’t make any difference from the deer’s point of view

It does from a human point of view.

Killing and murder isn't the same thing.

Who cares? The end result is the same.

Not at all true.

Murder involves evil intent. Killing doesn't always involve evil intent.

For example you can kill the deer to put meat on the table allowing a family to survive a harsh winter.

You can have an accidental discharge that kills someone unintentionally.

You can kill justifyably:

You can be a member of the military who kills someone to defend your nation.

You can kill someone in self defense and save your kid/wife.

Who cares? The end result is the same.

No, the end result is not at all the same.

If a hunter kills a deer and has a deer permit, they have a trophy, or a story, or a freezer full of food and they don't go to jail.

If a human murders another human because they had evil intent, they may go to jail.

If a human kills another human while following the rules of war, they don't go to jail.

Don't be delibrately obtuse.

Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:

Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.

Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.

California (under Ronald Reagan) was real quick to enact gun control laws once the Black Panthers started arming up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To get a little gun control, Democrats have to abandon the idea that they want lots of gun control.

But their end goal is lots of gun bans.

One of the most insidious tactics employed by the left today is when they use the violence carried out by one of their favored demographics as a pretext to disarm White law abiding males who tend to be the most vigorous 2nd amendment defenders.

Then those white law abiding males turn into more bitter clingers who hold their guns and ammo more and more tightly, but never actually use them and thus loose power.

It is noteworthy that a 2a enthusiast in a different thread revealed himself to be a proponent of repealing the 19th. Seems to go hand in hand.

ok Jan

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

That’s a false equivalency though. Driving has multiple prosocial purposes. Guns have one purpose: killing.

Mass shootings aren’t an accidental byproduct of some other activity, they are the activity.

I wouldn't call driving a prosocial activity though. Not on an individual or social level. The car has led to the destruction of the American landscape, the isolation of people from their communities and a crushing financial burden. The car kills people, cities and nations. Guns only kill people.

Let’s not conflate metaphorical killing of cities with literal killing of people. That’s irrelevant.

Guns are designed to murder, and marketed as such. Cars are not advertised based on how many pedestrians they can mow down.

Guns are no more "designed to murder" than cars are designed to kill other drivers and pedestrians. Both can be used for legal and valid purposes, or abused. The variable is the operator, and that's where the focus should be, not on the instrument they use improperly.

Of course guns are designed to murder. I guess you could use one as a paperweight, but that isn’t its primary function.

Does a hunter murder or kill a deer?

Doesn’t make any difference from the deer’s point of view

It does from a human point of view.

Killing and murder isn't the same thing.

Who cares? The end result is the same.

Not at all true.

Murder involves evil intent. Killing doesn't always involve evil intent.

For example you can kill the deer to put meat on the table allowing a family to survive a harsh winter.

You can have an accidental discharge that kills someone unintentionally.

You can kill justifyably:

You can be a member of the military who kills someone to defend your nation.

You can kill someone in self defense and save your kid/wife.

Who cares? The end result is the same.

Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:

Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.

Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.

The R position is bullshit.

The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"

Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?

Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To get a little gun control, Democrats have to abandon the idea that they want lots of gun control.

But their end goal is lots of gun bans.

One of the most insidious tactics employed by the left today is when they use the violence carried out by one of their favored demographics as a pretext to disarm White law abiding males who tend to be the most vigorous 2nd amendment defenders.

Then those white law abiding males turn into more bitter clingers who hold their guns and ammo more and more tightly, but never actually use them and thus loose power.

It is noteworthy that a 2a enthusiast in a different thread revealed himself to be a proponent of repealing the 19th. Seems to go hand in hand.

Anonymous wrote:To get a little gun control, Democrats have to abandon the idea that they want lots of gun control.

But their end goal is lots of gun bans.

One of the most insidious tactics employed by the left today is when they use the violence carried out by one of their favored demographics as a pretext to disarm White law abiding males who tend to be the most vigorous 2nd amendment defenders.

Then those white law abiding males turn into more bitter clingers who hold their guns and ammo more and more tightly, but never actually use them and thus loose power.

To get a little gun control, Democrats have to abandon the idea that they want lots of gun control.

But their end goal is lots of gun bans.

Anonymous wrote:There are too money people making money in the gun industry for that to happen. “Deeply violent or disturbed people should be prevented from buying firearms” is a common sense statement and not a politically charged one. Gun manufacturers lose money on regulation, so here we are. This is a big part of the problem in America, everyone is after their money before anything else. Our government is owned buy corporate and financial interests on both sides of the aisle, even if it is against public safety. Until we beat that, there will be no changes around here.

Gun manufacturers do not have a lot of money. It is why the law firms that sued tobacco lost interest.

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

Obama said the children of Newtown deserve a vote, but Harry Reid held up the vote.

The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:

Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.

Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

That’s a false equivalency though. Driving has multiple prosocial purposes. Guns have one purpose: killing.

Mass shootings aren’t an accidental byproduct of some other activity, they are the activity.

I wouldn't call driving a prosocial activity though. Not on an individual or social level. The car has led to the destruction of the American landscape, the isolation of people from their communities and a crushing financial burden. The car kills people, cities and nations. Guns only kill people.

Let’s not conflate metaphorical killing of cities with literal killing of people. That’s irrelevant.

Guns are designed to murder, and marketed as such. Cars are not advertised based on how many pedestrians they can mow down.

Guns are no more "designed to murder" than cars are designed to kill other drivers and pedestrians. Both can be used for legal and valid purposes, or abused. The variable is the operator, and that's where the focus should be, not on the instrument they use improperly.

Of course guns are designed to murder. I guess you could use one as a paperweight, but that isn’t its primary function.

Does a hunter murder or kill a deer?

Doesn’t make any difference from the deer’s point of view

It does from a human point of view.

Killing and murder isn't the same thing.

Who cares? The end result is the same.

Not at all true.

Murder involves evil intent. Killing doesn't always involve evil intent.

For example you can kill the deer to put meat on the table allowing a family to survive a harsh winter.

You can have an accidental discharge that kills someone unintentionally.

You can kill justifyably:

You can be a member of the military who kills someone to defend your nation.

You can kill someone in self defense and save your kid/wife.