Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Exactly.

The only people who should concerned about common sense gun control are the people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Exactly.

The only people who should concerned about common sense gun control are the people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.

That "shouldn't have guns in the first place" may however include some of the folks who run around ranting things like "THeY WaNT To TAkE OuR GuNS aND ThATs JuST ThE FiRSt STeP ToWArD MuRKa BeCOmINg A CoMMiE DiCTaToRShIP" who would probably ping hard on the DSM-5 criteria for paranoid personality disorder and other things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations OP, there are probably over 10,000 DC residents like yourself that now have concealed carry permits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Exactly.

The only people who should concerned about common sense gun control are the people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.

That "shouldn't have guns in the first place" may however include some of the folks who run around ranting things like "THeY WaNT To TAkE OuR GuNS aND ThATs JuST ThE FiRSt STeP ToWArD MuRKa BeCOmINg A CoMMiE DiCTaToRShIP" who would probably ping hard on the DSM-5 criteria for paranoid personality disorder and other things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Exactly.

The only people who should concerned about common sense gun control are the people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

Ok, serious question: do you really think that these people with permits only go to a range once in their lives, to qualify for their permit?

If you really DO believe that, then say so. But if you suspect otherwise, and are just implying that for purposes of snark, then that’s a pretty bad-faith way to argue.

A huge number of them do not go to the range. They go a few times when they first get it and that's about it.

And you have data to support this assertion?

Or just your anecdotal feelz?

That absolutely is my anecdotal experience based on all of the people I know who own guns, and there are many. Very few of them regularly go to a range or keep their skills up. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that any meaningful percentage of gun owners do. The reality is that even a lot of professionals who carry a gun for their job, like police officers lack adequate skills and trainings.

Now your turn - Do you have data to support your notion that gun carriers are all highly skilled and proficient? Or just your anecdotal feels?
Just kidding - Of course you don't have any such data.

I’m not the one making a claim. You are. And without data to support it. So it’s pretty much as worthless as everything else you’ve bleated about here.

Yes you are making claims, because throughout this thread you were claiming that the random people who own guns are somehow protecting themselves and that they are somehow trained, capable and qualified to do so, despite never offering up any legitimate evidence of this.

But now you're whining about "worthless bleating" which is exactly what you were doing all along. Such irony.

Do you just camp out on this thread? I’m replying to you from like 10 hrs ago, and you responded in 2 minutes?


Are you being paid to post on this thread? We’re you hired by Everytown or some other group to just make forum posts all day and night? I’m genuinely curious. I know such people exist, I knew a person who did this type of work during the pandemic - I’ve just never encountered it “in the wild” until now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.