Biden going after semi-automatics?

[Peerie Maa]

I have said so many times. Our system works, for the most part. We don’t actually need more regulations or bans.

So what are you trying to add to this thread about the US?
Why don't you just describe what you have and recommand it to your southern neighbours?

[McMike]

If President Biden were truly interested in harm reduction via reducing mass shootings, he could focus on domestic violence. About half of all mass shootings, per the FBI, are the end stage of domestic violence. If that were addressed and reduced, not only would there be fewer mass shootings, but the ancillary damage of years and years of physical and emotional prodrome that led up to the shooting would be avoided.

How?

[Decourcy]

So what are you trying to add to this thread about the US?
Why don't you just describe what you have and recommand it to your southern neighbours?

Because there is no point and there will be no changes for the better in the US


Ive explained our system a thousand times on a hundred similar threads already

[Peerie Maa]

If Democrats want to win in 24 and 26 and 28 . . . They would do well to leave guns alone. 21% of Democrats own firearms and 27% of Independents. It's like the abortion issue, the golden rule is to never take away rights. Mass shootings are horrifying, but hardly a prolific cause of death. But hey, Go ahead, Dems will lose in 24, Reds will nullify the EO, because an EO is the only way to do it, and we'll be back at square one with nothing gained and everything lost. Good luck with that . . . remember that last time you all were so adamant? She lost . . . and then the country lost.

Mass shootings are defined for these statistics as four or more people shot in one incident.

Under the definition used by the Gun Violence Archive, by the end of 2019, there were 417 mass shootings; by the end of 2020, there had been 611; and by the end of 2021, 693.^[37] By mid-May 2021, there were 10 mass shootings per week on average; by mid-May 2022, there was a total of 198 mass shootings in the first 19 weeks of the year, which represents 11 mass shootings a week.[

So you are content that 44 people are shot every week, plus those shootings that only kill or would three or less?
Seriously?

[McMike]

Mass shootings are defined for these statistics as four or more people shot in one incident.

So you are content that 44 people are shot every week, plus those shootings that only kill or would three or less?
Seriously?

Do you not read? I'm not content with any violence or premature death. Get it through your think head, if the USA goes fascist, you're next. If The dems ban guns, effectively removing a right, they will lose, if they lose, you lose. Are you good with that? Or are you simply having too much fun blindly arguing a lost cause? Because that's the definition of stupid, in case you didn't know.

WTF even makes you think an EO banning semi-autos will make it past SCOTUS? It would represent so much lost political capital, credibility, and simply not bring in or turn over any votes. We're fighting for our GD democracy over here, STFU and figure it out.

[Peerie Maa]

Do you not read? I'm not content with any violence or premature death. Get it through your think head, if the USA goes fascist, you're next. If The dems ban guns, effectively removing a right, they will lose, if they lose, you lose. Are you good with that? Or are you simply having too much fun blindly arguing a lost cause? Because that's the definition of stupid, in case you didn't know.

WTF even makes you think an EO banning semi-autos will make it past SCOTUS? It would represent so much lost political capital, credibility, and simply not bring in or turn over any votes. We're fighting for our GD democracy over here, STFU and figure it out.

So you are against even trying?
Mind you, your much published paranoia about the US going Fascist and starting shooting people at random goes along way to explain why you don't want to try.

Yes, the need for personal firearm ownership. If Trump had his way, the only good Democrat was going to be a dead one. Still a threat too. The tyranny of government is a real possibility, especially since it looks like way to many people couldn't be bothered to vote. I've concede to Pearl Dog, Phillip Allen, Donn-nanaaaa, and others.

[McMike]

So you are against even trying?
Mind you, your much published paranoia about the US going Fascist and starting shooting people at random goes along way to explain why you don't want to try.

Right now; YES!

No progress will occur in this country until we reach some kind of political stability. The gun issue is inflammatory and will only lead to more polarization. We can't even get popular things like Universal Healthcare or even abolishing daylight savings time done . . . JFC, you pick the thing that is literally written into our constitution, no matter how poorly interpreted, to sit there and bitc4 about and bust my balls about? This goal is not feasible and will lose democrats votes which will cause our country to regress even more. You act like I make the rules . . . I'm just along for the ride man.

As for your indictment of my judgement, lol, if that's all you have left to try to win this argument . . . well, that says more about you than me. How many fu24ing times do I have to tell you that if I could snap my fingers and make all guns in the USA go away . . . I would in a heartbeat, even if it meant my instant death, but that's a fu34ing bullsh17 fantasy, just like yours.

[Bob Adams]

that ban had zero effect on violent crime

Exactly correct.

[David W Pratt]

How?

Well, not by EO. I would seek out expert guidance. In his position, I would: Task the CDC to analyze the causes and treatments of domestic violence and use those findings to craft relevant laws and social services; Further I would invite heads of major religions to the Whitehouse for a conference on same and challenge them to come up with internal programs to deal with DV; Similarly, recruit representatives from NASCAR, MLB, NFL, et al. for the same mission.
Treat it like drunk driving, or smoking both of which have become much less socially acceptable in the last couple of decades.
Fro a start

[Joe (SoCal)]

It had an effect on mass shootings.

[McMike]

Well, not by EO. I would seek out expert guidance. In his position, I would: Task the CDC to analyze the causes and treatments of domestic violence and use those findings to craft relevant laws and social services; Further I would invite heads of major religions to the Whitehouse for a conference on same and challenge them to come up with internal programs to deal with DV; Similarly, recruit representatives from NASCAR, MLB, NFL, et al. for the same mission.
Treat it like drunk driving, or smoking both of which have become much less socially acceptable in the last couple of decades.
Fro a start

Yeah, so you don't know either . . . I'd start by criminalizing bad parenting. If your kid is fat, jail. If your kid sucks in school, jail. Children need a bill of rights, like the right to grow up in a household that is loving and supportive and if a parent can't provide that, work camp to pay someone else to do it. Awwww fu34, I forgot, this is America, land of the freedom to raise sh177y people. This country sucks giant moose wang.

[Joe (SoCal)]

McMike's dog

[McMike]

McMike's dog

Huh?

[Joe (SoCal)]

Its a joke Mike, relax.

You were going off on all sorts of things, bad parenting, civil war, and we all need a gun to solve all the upcoming problems, I saw this cartoon and thought of your avatar and about bad dog parenting

[Paul Pless]

It had an effect on mass shootings.

the clinton era assault weapons ban had zero effect on any forms of gun violence
because the ban was entirely meaningless - this has been well studied
manufacturers simply removed the cosmetic features described in the ban and continued selling the same guns less items like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and folding stocks; folding stocks remained available through the aftermarket as did high capacity magazines

there was a decrease in violent crime rates during the clinton administration but that decrease is attributable to better economic conditions

[McMike]

Its a joke Mike, relax.

You were going off on all sorts of things, bad parenting, civil war, and we all need a gun to solve all the upcoming problems, I saw this cartoon and thought of your avatar and about bad dog parenting

I'm totally relaxed . . .it's 8:30 here, feet up, jammies on, hoodie up. I truly had no idea what you were talking about. And Paul is right.

[Decourcy]

the clinton era assault weapons ban had zero effect on any forms of gun violence
because the ban was entirely meaningless
manufacturers simply removed the cosmetic features described in the ban and continued selling the same guns less items like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and folding stocks; folding stocks remained available through the aftermarket as did high capacity magazines

there was a decrease in violent crime rates during the clinton administration but that decrease is attributable to better economic conditions

No no no Paul. Correlation must always equal causation. Hence why the decline in violence is actually due to the decline of pastel paint colours in houses during those years.

[Nicholas Carey]

All I know is that the differences between this semi-auto rifle, Browning BAR (comes stock with a 10-round detachable box magazine)





And these semi-auto rifles (Smith & Wesson M+P 15 and Daniel Defense DDM4 V7)





Are largely cosmetic. And the Browning is probably built to a higher standard, and is cheaper (the Browning lists at c. $1300-$1800, depending on variant and dress; the Daniel Defense rifle lists at $2100)

But the Browning BAR has not been used, as far as I know in a mass shooting. And the AR variants tend to be the preferred weapon for mass shootings.

Those latter two are the weapon models used by the killer in Uvalde, Texas.

[McMike]

All I know is that the differences between this semi-auto rifle, Browning BAR (comes stock with a 10-round detachable box magazine)

Are largely cosmetic. And the Browning is probably built to a higher standard, and is cheaper (the Browning lists at c. $1300-$1800, depending on variant and dress; the Daniel Defense rifle lists at $2100)

But the Browning BAR has not been used, as far as I know in a mass shooting. And the AR variants tend to be the preferred weapon for mass shootings.

Those latter two are the weapon models used by the killer in Uvalde, Texas.

Yup, and take the fancy "AR" style away and crims will start buying "hunting" rifles.

[Decourcy]

You can buy an AR for less than $400

[Joe (SoCal)]

the clinton era assault weapons ban had zero effect on any forms of gun violence
because the ban was entirely meaningless - this has been well studied
manufacturers simply removed the cosmetic features described in the ban and continued selling the same guns less items like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and folding stocks; folding stocks remained available through the aftermarket as did high capacity magazines

there was a decrease in violent crime rates during the clinton administration but that decrease is attributable to better economic conditions

So it's useless ? Just give up and stack the innocent bodies like cordwood ?

[Joe (SoCal)]

You can buy an AR for less than $400

$300

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/fire.../ar-15-rifles/

How much does an AR go for on the black market in countries that have banned them ?

[McMike]

So it's useless ? Just give up and stack the innocent bodies like cordwood ?

Or you can start holding shi77y parents responsible for their spawn . . . which is against freedoms . . . . so yea, nothing of significance changes. And I can promise, if the Dems try to ban semis, they will not only fail, but will lose at the voting booth. Which will have a negative effect on education because Republicans like their citizens dumb as a box of rocks, and education and a good economy, which the Republicans also suck at, are our only hope to combating all of this nonsense.

[Paul Pless]

So it's useless ? Just give up and stack the innocent bodies like cordwood ?

you know that i'm for increased gun regulation
lets do something that is actually meaning-full though

[McMike]

you know that i'm for increased gun regulation
lets do something that is actually meaning-full though

In your estimation; what's possible in this polarized political climate?

[Joe (SoCal)]

Or you can start holding shi77y parents responsible for their spawn . . . which is against freedoms . . . . so yea, nothing of significance changes. And I can promise, if the Dems try to ban semis, they will not only fail, but will lose at the voting booth. Which will have a negative effect on education because Republicans like their citizens dumb as a box of rocks, and education and a good economy, which the Republicans also suck at, are our only hope to combating all of this nonsense.

Like this father of the year ?

https://mobile.twitter.com/NoLieWith...19454900805649

That shooting earlier this week at a gay bar in Colorado Springs, where a guy donned body armor, took his AR and a pistol, and killed 5 while wounding others?

Yeah. CBS News found the perp's father. When informed that his son had gone to a gay bar and opened fire, he was hugely concerned that his son could maybe be gay, and was relieved to hear that wasn't true. Because (as he tells the interviewer ... as the camera rolls) he's a Mormon, and a Conservative Republican voter. "And "we don't do gay."

It seems that the father does do methamphetamine though, and seems to be on it during the interview. He'd been on (Season 6, episode 8) of the reality TV show "Intervention" in an attempt to deal with it. And the father's also got a history as a porn movie actor. Twitter is kind enough to give the names of two of the films he's done, but I'd rather not be banned here, so ...

Go to the twitter address above, and on the thread you'll find a few clips showing portions of the interview. There's more there that's odious, like the father commenting how he'd raised his son to get violent early in a conflict, to be most effective. Etc.

Makes me feel physically ill.

Attachment 124053

[McMike]

Like this father of the year ?

I have an idea. Take the panhandle of Florida, wall it off, Like Escape from NY. Put all the sh17-heads like this guy, all the MAGAs, all the Nazis, and molesters, and Trump, make him king. Make sure they have the means to make food, support themselves within the . . . ehem, community. They can leave whenever they want out of one door. The door leads to a school, educate them, teach them a trade, clean up the addicts, tame the looser mentality . . . and if they're civil enough, let them out. The rest can stew there for their entire lives. Live out their "libertarian" fantasies . . . die of the sh17s.

[CWSmith]

I have an idea. Take the panhandle of Florida, wall it off, Like Escape from NY. Put all the sh17-heads like this guy, all the MAGAs, all the Nazis, and molesters, and Trump, make him king. ...

You do realize that Florida will be under water in 30 years, right?

That idea has a certain appeal!

[McMike]

You do realize that Florida will be under water in 30 years, right?

That idea has a certain appeal!

Yeah, that's part of the game. . . they'll think we just handed them paradise and before long they'll all be wading in a mix of low tide and their own fecal matter. Because, you know, they don't believe in the EPA and climate science... haha.

[CWSmith]

^ Brilliant!

[Jim Bow]

Roy Rogers trained his horse. He disciplined Trigger.

[skuthorp]

In your estimation; what's possible in this polarized political climate?

Establish federal reserves where the law doesn't apply. Several gun owning participants are inserted into the reserve with whatever weaponry they fancy and the game continues till only one is left alive. Repeat as often as necessary until only one gun owning person (other than those with a legitimate purpose) is left alive. That person can carry what they like where they like, including USSC hearings and congress.
All other weaponry, except that with a strict legitimate purpose, is outlawed. Anyone found with illegal weapons will be required to participate in the program.

Such a program will likely result in less deaths by gunshot than at present.

[Paul Pless]

dang, the pan handle is the best part of florida. . .

I have an idea. Take the panhandle of Florida, wall it off, Like Escape from NY. Put all the sh17-heads like this guy, all the MAGAs, all the Nazis, and molesters, and Trump, make him king. Make sure they have the means to make food, support themselves within the . . . ehem, community. They can leave whenever they want out of one door. The door leads to a school, educate them, teach them a trade, clean up the addicts, tame the looser mentality . . . and if they're civil enough, let them out. The rest can stew there for their entire lives. Live out their "libertarian" fantasies . . . die of the sh17s.

[Canoeyawl]

you know that i'm for increased gun regulation
lets do something that is actually meaning-full though

Like a motor vehicle, the other deadly weapon
License to operate, registration and insurance seems simple enough

[Paul Pless]

In your estimation; what's possible in this polarized political climate?

nothing

we are currently at the point along a thirty year trend line moving steadily towards more relaxed gun rights verus increased regulation; this trend in my estimation, gained its first bit of accelerating momentum with the aforementioned ill conceived clinton era federal assault weapons ban

i've watched, crisis and tragedy, time after time, come and go, and each time a 'national' discussion on the issue occurs, a few months to a year later, gun regulation is further eroded in the law - whether that be through 'shall issue' laws, open carry, reciprocal rights to carry, stand your ground, etc. etc.

in all that time what has the left gained? a ban on bump stocks? ineffective red flag laws in three states? it's entirely ridiculous, dumbest **** ever

it was ever a losing issue politically for democrats, unfortunately too late for the to do anything about it now, they are married to it

where do you rank gun control in importance compared to the following:

• woman's rights to reproductive health choices
• income inequality
• effective and responsible management of the economy
• tax policy
• voting rights
• education policy
• lgtbq rights and marriage equality
• right wing and white supremist radicalization
• the green economy and a move towards clean energy sources
• environmental and sustainability issues

advocating for gun control compromises your ability to address all of the above issues in a progressive manner

and, as the chart in post #21 shows, where it counts, when you put your money where your mouth is, liberals are not committed to truly committed to changing gun control policy