If only there was something we could do...

[leroy jenkins]

Do you see a reasonable cause for concern right now for not trying something different? My mind can be changed on the things I posted. Can your mind be changed that something needs to change? If you don't agree that we're in a bad spot with guns currently and you can't change your opinion, probably not much to talk about.

Yes of course I see cause for concern, but not to the extent I lose all long sightedness, knowledge of history, or value of the induvial right to self defense.

Also, again, for like the tenth time, lets just say I agree with your ideas, how are you going to enforce it? The more radically restrictive idea you're espousing, the fewer people would comply and the larger force would be needed to enforce it. How would that work? Are you absolutely 100% certain this would make our society safer, and not make it less safe? You are certain it wouldn't cripple cops ability to actually handle existing crime ? No you're not sure of those things at all.

I also see, that while I can see a reasonable cause for concern, most of the people in this thread seem to exist in a fantasy land where just a few more laws will solve everything, and absolutely cannot see any validity to anyone who could possibly disagree with them. Those aren't the kind of people you can compromise with. Like half my comments in this thread are just correcting disinformation or outright gaslighting. Someone said theres no good reason anyone would ever want an ar pistol with a brace, I listed several, but thatsjust the whole thing, is oh theres NO reason anyone would disagree with me. Except there are. Smugness doesn't convince anyone, and a lot of this country supports the 2a.

I'm actually not even hoping to convince any of you on guns. I'm just hoping perhaps to convince someone tobe less myopically focused on them. It goes nowhere and keeps us all distracted and divided.

[bennymac]

No one is saying “just a few more laws will solve everything” and you claiming that shows it’s you that lives in the fantasy land.

[Cisco Kid]

You sure use a lot of words to say nothing to see here.

[Conundrum]

I can't ultimately predict the outcome and sure, as with any US constitutional change, I would hope that the ultimate ruling wouldn't initially be thought out with an implementation plan, budget, source of budget, operational plan etc coming from a guy typing a couple paragraphs in a web forum titled "The Padded Room" on a ski forum. They're ideas to be discussed. Sure there can be unintended consequences with any major change like I'm presenting.

Is there any data or ideas that could be presented to you that would have you consider doing nothing and more guns with little to no regulation is the path forward to the preservation of life, & liberty, & pursuit of happiness?

[Conundrum]

4.2m new gun owners in the US in 2022.

https://www.nssf.org/government-rela...rs%20in%202022.

With 42% of households already in possession of a firearm that seems like pretty decent growth.

Most studies state 50+% of gun owners in the US have at least one firearm stored not in safe nor trigger locked.

Are less people dying from firearms whether being ND, suicide, or homicide as the number of guns increases and ease of acquisition remains the same? As we look to the future long term as you like to do, should things change in terms of regulation or are we safer with a couple million new users a year with on average 50% of them not storing them securely? Bridge too far? Maybe that's just a couple million extra people per year to protect themselves and my constitutional freedoms by being vetted and equipped with the skillset to responsibly own a firearm so when they need to use they know how and someone hasn't already lifted it.

Keep on keepin' on brother.

PS. You didn't answer one of my questions. Did the rich white guys do all the compromising when #13 was enacted? They were the folks that had to give up more than any other party to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[leroy jenkins]

I can't ultimately predict the outcome and sure, as with any US constitutional change, I would hope that the ultimate ruling wouldn't initially be thought out with an implementation plan, budget, source of budget, operational plan etc coming from a guy typing a couple paragraphs in a web forum titled "The Padded Room" on a ski forum. They're ideas to be discussed. Sure there can be unintended consequences with any major change like I'm presenting.

Is there any data or ideas that could be presented to you that would have you consider doing nothing and more guns with little to no regulation is the path forward to the preservation of life, & liberty, & pursuit of happiness?

We're already struggling to meet the numbers of cops we need. How the fuck could we pull this off? You saying you'd hoping its wel thought out with implementation plan budget etc is nothign more than hope. ITs wishful thinking. You can't ski avy terrain on hop and wishful thinking and you shouldn't base geopolitical choices off it either, the potential negative consequences have to be considered and taken into account.

The vast majority of the rheotirc in this thread basically amounts to gun owners should just think like we do then things would be better. And the government ought to make them. There is no more thought for unintended consequences or practicality or feasibility of any of it.

So maybe, you know, come up with something that isn't so radical that it would need a brand new army to enforce, not because compromising is good, but because you'll never accomplish shit if you don't.

If they're ideas to be discussed, lets discuss the consequences too shall we?

[leroy jenkins]

No one is saying “just a few more laws will solve everything” and you claiming that shows it’s you that lives in the fantasy land.

You're right, it was described as 'a decent place to start'.

the slippery slope is now said out loud and not just alluded to or denied.

[bennymac]

I know I’m right. You don’t have to tell me when I catch you being full of shit.

You constantly put bullshit claims in your walls of words. Thanks for admitting it this once that you’re disingenuous and dishonest. Nice pivot though - don’t hurt your back.

Just keep posting bullshit and contradicting yourself (like you did here, like you did earlier today when you said antigun people don’t want to address anything and only want to atrack gun people, and like you did before when I quoted you). And no before you ask I’m not gonna go back and point out where - you can figure it out.

[Conundrum]

We're already struggling to meet the numbers of cops we need. How the fuck could we pull this off? You saying you'd hoping its wel thought out with implementation plan budget etc is nothign more than hope. ITs wishful thinking. You can't ski avy terrain on hop and wishful thinking and you shouldn't base geopolitical choices off it either, the potential negative consequences have to be considered and taken into account.

The vast majority of the rheotirc in this thread basically amounts to gun owners should just think like we do then things would be better. And the government ought to make them. There is no more thought for unintended consequences or practicality or feasibility of any of it.

So maybe, you know, come up with something that isn't so radical that it would need a brand new army to enforce, not because compromising is good, but because you'll never accomplish shit if you don't.

If they're ideas to be discussed, lets discuss the consequences too shall we?

I mentioned enforcement but you glazed over that. Require insurance as a stipulation of ownership. Part of those premiums go to funding enforcement. Of course I don't know what the numbers look like. We have a SNAP program for people that can't afford food. Maybe we create a SNAP program for gun insurance for the underpriveleged. Because you definitely need guns to survive more so than eating to prevent starvation. Before you go there, I know eating in America isn't constitutionally protected.

Back to enforcement... Maybe enforcement doesn't mean anything other than similar to my suppressors. If LEO asks to see the stamp (or copy of) for one of my suppressors which I'm required to have in almost all cases if I have my suppressor with me, I present the stamp. If I don't, they can take it and criminally charge me. Sure, there are certain states and state regs that this is not the case but I still play by the federal laws.

Maybe you have a copy of your registration and proof of insurance if you have your gun with you. Sound famaliar? If you don't, some type of charge. Do we need more cops checking cars? Not in my opinion. Does LEO regularly pull someone over to check license and registration? No, you have to be breaking some law more often than not. I'm not asking for a stop and frisk or in home inspections for firearms. I was hoping for a conversation on what a private/public co-op could do. Maybe- 1. Create some type of financing for what may or may not be a huge cost for enforcement. 2. Put both public and private oversight (increased cost for unsafe practices) as to not overburden the government. 3. Build a retribution mechanism for the innocent injured by those not operating firearms safely.

Another question you don't seem to want to answer-what data would change your stance on gun regulations? If you can't answer that, not much point to continuing the chat. I know, others are going to say I'm wasting time. I'm genuinely interested if there is anything you could hear or read that may get you to think some regulations could work. There are plenty of skeptics that can only tell you why something won't work. Try being a goldfish.

Last question. When you say "gun owners should just think like we do". Please elaborate. I won't say how many firearms I own or have owned but the number puts me in the top third of number of firearms owned by in most studies. Which camp do you think I fall in? A gun owner or the people who think gun owners should think like I do? The answer is yes. I think something needs to change and I wish more gun owners would think like I do.

Put that in your wall of words and smoke it.

[leroy jenkins]

I know I’m right. You don’t have to tell me when I catch you being full of shit.

You constantly put bullshit claims in your walls of words. Thanks for admitting it this once that you’re disingenuous and dishonest. Nice pivot though - don’t hurt your back.

Just keep posting bullshit and contradicting yourself (like you did here, like you did earlier today when you said antigun people don’t want to address anything and only want to atrack gun people, and like you did before when I quoted you). And no before you ask I’m not gonna go back and point out where - you can figure it out.

Point out some of these bullshit claims why don't you?

The 1.5 million uses of a gun in self defense is admittedly inflated. But the real number is still far far higher than the zero you guys seem to think it is.


Truth is, all civilian murders in developed nations in the last century still don't come close to what happens when governments victimize unarmed populations. The latter numbers are in the hundreds of millions during that time period. This is not a bullshit stat.

[Conundrum]

Leroy, does registering a firearm make it useless for self defense? Does insuring it make it not operational? Does having a stricter background check and longer wait time make it unusable to defend oneself?

Again, do you think rich white people had to do all the compromising on #13? What are your thoughts on #18 and #22?

Keep dodging and deflecting brother. The world needs more freedom fighters.

[Meadow Skipper]

I know I’m right. You don’t have to tell me when I catch you being full of shit.

You constantly put bullshit claims in your walls of words. Thanks for admitting it this once that you’re disingenuous and dishonest. Nice pivot though - don’t hurt your back.

Just keep posting bullshit and contradicting yourself (like you did here, like you did earlier today when you said antigun people don’t want to address anything and only want to atrack gun people, and like you did before when I quoted you). And no before you ask I’m not gonna go back and point out where - you can figure it out.

Just a reminder that somewhere back in this thread Leroy admitted that he is not interested in compromise, which goes a long way toward explaining his wild-assed, foolish, and desperate retorts.

[exsparky]

I gave you a safe place to live and no one wanted to move there.

I thought the gun free utopia, safety bio dome had potential.

Why are you too close minded to try it?

[::: :::]

the slippery slope is now said out loud and not just alluded to or denied.

Your assessment of a “slippery slope” is wrong on its face

The evidence to the contrary:
We regulate many things that are dangerous if misused. And we continue to learn & revise. And the country is better for it.
Lab chemicals
Medical prescriptions
Transportation safety - land, air & water, from regional infrastructure to individual vehicle components
Building safety - processes to physical structures
Sanitation
Air quality
Just as a start

None of these important regulations ramped to the point of obviating the continued usefulness of the regulated items. Nor are they used punitively to target citizens.

Re government tyranny [cuz you’re going to bring it up] We have a long history of not being armed in public and the last 30 years is suddenly problematic? Laughable how transparent it is when the topic comes up…because it’s always someone arguing why guns are essential to american lifestyle.

Guns are a recreational lifestyle at this point. Playacting tough guys more often misusing than not. Coming up with reasons to find some use in modern society. Antifa busing to your town? Doomsday prepping? Kidnap a governor? Prevent someone crossing an invisible boundary in the backcountry? Incite insurrection? Protect buildings in another town that you don’t own? Threaten voters at polls? Bust into a pizza place’s basement to free the kids? Shout down public officials & parents in school board meetings? Anger at a driver flipping you off in traffic? Shoot up a school or concert venue or a nightclub?

It’s just dumb. Statistics continually show that where there are guns there are more gun injuries and deaths, not a unique absence of crime or increased public safety. It’s just asinine that we even have to argue it at all.

[bennymac]

^LOLz dude. JFC. Thanks for the laugh and for the window into how entitled you are.

I suspect the issue may be that you don’t actually read other posts (see proof above). You are not here to listen. You are just looking for the next opportunity to talk. The next opportunity to vomit a wall of words.

I’ve posted proof you’re full of shit at least three times over the last week. You even admitted I was right this most recent time. I was about to consider that progress but then here we are.

Before you panic and ask me to point out where else you’ve been posting bullshit (other than the time you admitted I was right) refer back to the top of this post for a reminder.

[oldnew_guy]

Some ideas have been floated as acceptable by people opposed to additional gun control in this thread and nationally and there are some obvious things politicians should do in response to these requests.

- Gun violence is a mental health crisis. Increase the ability for guns to be removed from people in a mental health crisis, etc, etc. Increase access to mental health resources. Since mental health resources are perpetually underfunded, in addition to increasing funding from other sources we will need to increase taxes on guns and firearm sales to support this effort.

- Make schools a harder target by modifying access. In my state there are ~1200 schools, so at $500,000 a pop minimum to make these modifications that's $6,000,000,000 in improvements that should be paid for by taxes on firearm and ammunition sales. We can probably exclude the schools that are slated for remodel or replacement already. Since mental health is top of mind, we will need to make sure these security improvements are architecturally appropriate and do not lend themselves to inducing the feeling of being in a prison, so costs may go up.

- Most gun owners are responsible. This is a good claim, but we should make sure all firearm purchasers have the correct training and knowledge to at a minimum operate, fire, transport and store their firearm in accordance with state and federal law and established best practices. This will require a firearm education system that can be self supporting via license fees. There is already a wide variety of commercially available firearm training that can be leveraged to accomplish this. As Conundrum has suggested, require liability insurance for gun ownership. Since most gun owners are responsible, this should be a low cost for each owner. Verify all firearm sales are to responsible, trained, law abiding citizens by leveraging a universal permit and background check system.

- Enforce the existing laws. Increase the number of LEO dedicated to gun crimes. This will require additional funding that again can be paid for via taxes on firearm and ammunition sales.

I'm sure there are some other ideas that can be similarly instituted.


IMO these seem like an easy lift. Then we can tackle the bigger issues.

[oldnew_guy]

^LOLz dude. JFC. Thanks for the laugh and for the window into how entitled you are.

I suspect the issue may be that you don’t actually read other posts (see proof above). You are not here to listen. You are just looking for the next opportunity to talk. The next opportunity to vomit a wall of words.

I’ve posted proof you’re full of shit at least three times over the last week. You even admitted I was right this most recent time. I was about to consider that progress but then here we are.

Before you panic and ask me to point out where else you’ve been posting bullshit (other than the time you admitted I was right) refer back to the top of this post for a reminder.

He ducked out of the CoVID thread pretty quick as soon as he was asked to provide some very simple information regarding his claims about vaccine data. It's the same thing over and over.

[oldnew_guy]

Just a reminder that somewhere back in this thread Leroy admitted that he is not interested in compromise, which goes a long way toward explaining his wild-assed, foolish, and desperate retorts.

Well hey, at least that's better than Bobby and TNKen owning up to the fact they were intentionally trolling in a thread that's genesis was the slaughter of kids in a school in Texas.

[jackstraw]

I gave you a safe place to live and no one wanted to move there.

I thought the gun free utopia, safety bio dome had potential.

Why are you too close minded to try it?

Clearly you were shocked too many times and now have a wire down in that cranium of yours. Neuro pathways take time to reroute, so hopefully yours will get there soon. All the best as you move forward.

[nickwm21]

m
The 1.5 million uses of a gun in self defense is admittedly inflated. But the real number is still far far higher than the zero you guys seem to think it is.

According to that 1997 study you linked that number is extrapolated from a 1994 Florida resident phone survey asking “have you ever used your firearm, discharged or not, to defend yourself or your property.” So essentially any old fart who thought about waving their gun at their neighbor walking their dog past their house would answer yes….

There’s also a 2022 study out there that says you are more likely to discharge a firearm at a family member, at yourself, or accidentally in your own home than you are to discharge one in self defense. That data is more compelling and more logical to me than asking the elderly to prove why they own a gun…




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[J. Barron DeJong]

https://www.eschatonblog.com/2024/02...ns-of.html?m=1

[singlesline]

- Gun violence is a mental health crisis. Increase the ability for guns to be removed from people in a mental health crisis, etc, etc. Increase access to mental health resources. Since mental health resources are perpetually underfunded, in addition to increasing funding from other sources we will need to increase taxes on guns and firearm sales to support this effort.

IMO these seem like an easy lift. Then we can tackle the bigger issues.

This is very true, but I think this one is actually a harder lift than you'd expect.

Couple big issues i've noticed (my wife is a mental health professional):

1. True "gun nuts" won't seek mental health care or will jut lie to their provider if they think it could lead to their guns being taken away. It seems irrational if you clearly have issues, but taking care of your own brain is a nebulous conceptual thing while the pew-pew toys are a concrete part of your lifestyle--so the people most wrapped up in gun culture will be the least likely to get help. Rather literally lose their minds than risk their guns.

2. People in treatment tend to react VERY POORLY to having their gun access removed (even if they know they have suicidal thoughts or other issues that really shouldn't be combined with easy access to a firearm). It can completely destroy the relationship and trust they have built with their therapist. They'll probably just discontinue treatment, but even if they stick around or find a new provider, it is unlikely to be productive as the built up resentment is very hard to get through.

To be clear--some people are able to react rationally here. They will recognize their issue and voluntarily get rid of their access to guns (maybe hand them off to a trusted relative). Or they will agree to harm-reducing accommodations like better locks/safes that delay access or storing ammunition locked on the complete opposite side of the house away from the guns (amazing what introducing a little bit of delay and extra effort can do for someone in a fragile and variable mental state). But as soon as the behavior has to be forced, the trust is gone.

3. Don't underestimate the level of non-owner firearm access that's present here. The question is "do you have any guns in the house?" or "do you have access to a firearm?" not "do you personally own a gun?". If people don't react well to having their own guns removed...picture how well that goes when the guns in question belong to a spouse, partner, or parent? Especially if you are talking about relationships that may already have emotional (or physical) abuse or very imbalanced power dynamics. Imagine trying to remove guns from a situation where you've got a wannabe alpha-male husband and a depressed and wine-addicted housewife or a troubled teen in the house...doesn't go well, especially if that guy is one of those toughen-up, doesn't-believe-in-therapy types.


I think there absolutely needs to be more funding and better access to resources (the whole situation surrounding insurance and mental health care is a mess...good luck finding a provider that has a spot for you if you aren't able to pay cash), but there also need to be pretty big cultural shifts around what's acceptable behavior both for mental healthcare and gun ownership.

[Cisco Kid]

Most likely scenario for me to cross paths with gun violence. About 50 times a year someone driving the interstate within 15 mile of me is shot at by passing cars or snipers. Are those 50 shooters mentally I'll or doing it for shits and giggles?

[waxman]

Most likely scenario for me to cross paths with gun violence. About 50 times a year someone driving the interstate within 15 mile of me is shot at by passing cars or snipers. Are those 50 shooters mentally I'll or doing it for shits and giggles?

"snipers" huh? Random nutjobs taking pot shots at cars are not snipers.

[exsparky]

Clearly you were shocked too many times and now have a wire down in that cranium of yours. Neuro pathways take time to reroute, so hopefully yours will get there soon. All the best as you move forward.

You don't want any new ideas.

You want to say the other side is crazy.

You haven't done anything but complain.