If only there was something we could do...

[leroy jenkins]

The devil is in the details, of course. I just know for certain the goal must be to get weapons, especially weapons that making mass killings very easy, out of the hands of people like this nut in Maine. Yes, that means gun control. My knowledge ends there. I don't profess to be a gun expert.

Ok, so its 'current status+n' in perpetuity.

[leroy jenkins]

“Solving” the problem vs addressing the problem dramatically

Hang your hat on absolutes, if that is easiest for you to rationalize your mindless support of the gun industry as some perverted badge of “patriotism”, “independence”, “law & order”, “individualism”, “toughness”, whatever

Actual facts & policy indicate that gun control does reduce gun violence and can reduce it dramatically

I didn't hang my hat on any absolutes. I'm not saying that because it can't be solved it can't be improved. I'm just asking for honesty about the long term objectives. Make the world safe? Yea great, nice absolute. But when that doesn't happen? Is there a point where it would be a good place to stop pursuing more gun control?

[J. Barron DeJong]

Seems like a new law here would be good:

”Federal officials have said that Mr. Card legally bought some guns just days before the shooting. The F.B.I. said there was nothing to prevent him from legally purchasing weapons.”

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com...y-views-differ

[::: :::]

I didn't hang my hat on any absolutes.

Your words were:

because gun control won't ever solve the problem.

Do you want to reword that?

I'm not saying that because it can't be solved it can't be improved. I'm just asking for honesty about the long term objectives. Make the world safe? Yea great, nice absolute.
But when that doesn't happen? Is there a point where it would be a good place to stop pursuing more gun control?

yes, when the prevalence of accidents & violence and suicide drops to some level of being unusual -- i don't have a specific metric for you. I wish we could consider the numbers from 40 yrs ago as some sort of baseline, but the data is poor at best.

similar to vehicles, the metrics for improvement of regulations should be tracked. Regs can be changed and improved or dropped if they are ineffective. The issue being that they need to show value for public safety.

there is not any published acceptable threshold criteria for car deaths and yet we all still drive

and we continue to review the ways that car travel can be made more safe without artificial capping

i'm in the licensed privilege camp for regulation

guns are too dangerous to not be regulated if we want to keep them -- instant lethality with little recourse for correcting an "accident" or "mistake": the stakes are too high


the frustration expressed by this specific thread is that we can do something but we continually refuse

imagine if your preferred strategy of do-nothing-because-there's-no-lower-cap-for-acceptable-car-deaths was applied to car safety

the red line is deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled
compare it to the blue line indicating the volume of vehicle use {note it's in 10s of billions}



at no point did we ban cars outright or regulate them out of existence

[The AD]

Ok, so its 'current status+n' in perpetuity.

I would hope not. That approach hasn't seemed to accomplish much.

[ex-powderbroker]

Leroy’s tried nothing and he’s all out of ideas.

[riser4]

Leroy’s tried nothing and he’s all out of ideas.

This.

[schuss]

I didn't hang my hat on any absolutes. I'm not saying that because it can't be solved it can't be improved. I'm just asking for honesty about the long term objectives. Make the world safe? Yea great, nice absolute. But when that doesn't happen? Is there a point where it would be a good place to stop pursuing more gun control?

Yes you do. You refuse any solution that involves a level of gun control and state it doesn't work with zero evidence. Stop being so dishonest.

[skaredshtles]

Just another regular Halloween weekend in 'Murica.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/29/12093...hicago-atlanta

[J. Barron DeJong]

Leroy’s tried nothing and he’s all out of ideas.

Dang. I thought all of these might have been Leroy finally laying out his case for common sense but comprehensive gun laws:



Not so?

[bennymac]

Because “more gun control” apparently can’t be trusted by people incapable of anything beyond binary thought patterns the only other two options are status quo or less gun laws.

If status quo or less laws/restrictions is what one takes away from Maine (and a hundred other similar incidents) then that person is beyond reason.

You can’t reason with someone who didn’t use reason to form their own ideas.

[SumJongGuy]

What I want is what's best for everyone because it's what I want..

[Buzzworthy]

Leroy literally gets off on mass shootings because he knows we will discuss our disgust here and he can come argue in circles. Stop giving him attention. Like altasnob he will disappear.

[bennymac]

What I want is what's best for everyone because it's what I want..

But what if what’s best for everyone means that a minority of individuals can no longer get 100% exactly what they want when they want it and without any inconveniences at all…that sounds #unamerican

[PNWbrit]

Like altasnob he will disappear.

I'm not convinced that fucker isn't coming back.

He may just have had a difficult parking ticket he's been litigating.

... but yes let's not quote Leroy

[leroy jenkins]

Because “more gun control” apparently can’t be trusted by people incapable of anything beyond binary thought patterns the only other two options are status quo or less gun laws.

If status quo or less laws/restrictions is what one takes away from Maine (and a hundred other similar incidents) then that person is beyond reason.

You can’t reason with someone who didn’t use reason to form their own ideas.

Well, if it is ALWAYS just a few more laws, then that isn't formed in reason.

If there is a certain state of laws that you find reasonable, and would be willing to stop there and not continually push for ever more gun control, then perhaps we could discuss that. But there is no such place. It is always just more laws that you want. Its civilian disarmament.

[leroy jenkins]

Leroy literally gets off on mass shootings because he knows we will discuss our disgust here and he can come argue in circles. Stop giving him attention. Like altasnob he will disappear.

Lol. Thats pretty silly, especially considering you guys sure seem to get off on that disgust. Outrage dopamine is a powerful drug.

I stop by every few weeks to point out the obvious lunacy and dishonesty in your guys stances. Its crazy that you get people posting back to back with one saying how they want to get rid of basically all guns and the next person saying " no ones coming for your guns, no one wants to take your guns away"

[leroy jenkins]

I'm not convinced that fucker isn't coming back.

He may just have had a difficult parking ticket he's been litigating.

... but yes let's not quote Leroy

It boggles my mind how fragile to opposing viewpoints you guys are.

[m2711c]

his mind been boggled…






fact.

[::: :::]

Well, if it is ALWAYS just a few more laws, then that isn't formed in reason.

If there is a certain state of laws that you find reasonable, and would be willing to stop there and not continually push for ever more gun control, then perhaps we could discuss that. But there is no such place. It is always just more laws that you want. Its civilian disarmament.

Utterly missing the car safety point as a direct example of not “coming to take your cars”

Are you purposefully ignoring that?

Or you don’t understand beyond the binary you keep setting up?
[unfettered gun access vs civilian disarmament]

[and again with the absolutes as a strategy for arguing against something, even when it’s not what has been said. Keep patting yourself on the back that you’re delivering truth bombs in here upsetting delicate sensibilities, or that you are willing to have a conversation when you clearly are not]

[thebirdhunter]

Just another regular weekend in da hood.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/29/12093...hicago-atlanta

Fify

[The AD]

I think the car safety comparison is good, but not perfect. For one thing not many people would argue (though some still would) that making cars safer is a worthy goal. On the other hand, guns are designed to kill. It's a bit of an oxymoron to make them safe. Reducing their killing potential is anathema to many gun owners.

[::: :::]

We restrict chemical access, whether as fertilizer or as scientific research. But we make it available to the relevant good-faith uses.

Guns do have good-faith uses, but largely not the way they are considered currently.

We need to get to those good faith uses and limit gun access beyond that where they function more as a burden on society than a benefit.

Tribal lifestyle signifier is not a good faith use.
Display carry is not a good faith use.
Shooting up elementary schools is not a good faith use.
Stocking arsenals, training private militias & prepping for the fall of civilization is not a good faith use.
Plotting against a state governor is not a good faith use.
Road rage resolution is not a good faith use.
Going to another town where you don’t know anyone to defend property is not a good faith use.
Parading strapped in public as a “counter protest” is not a good faith use.

[ex-powderbroker]

lewiston, maine. bird brain.

[::: :::]

I think the car safety comparison is good, but not perfect. For one thing not many people would argue (though some still would) that making cars safer is a worthy goal. On the other hand, guns are designed to kill. It's a bit of an oxymoron to make them safe. Reducing their killing potential is anathema to many gun owners.

makes sense
safing the item itself may be different than safing the user group
as we all know by now, it's the people who are the issue