Biden going after semi-automatics?

[Nicholas Carey]

I absolutely lock my doors. Sure someone could kick them in but I'd hear that and have my bear spray and stout diamond willow hiking staff at the ready. And I wouldn't be the least bit hesitant to use them. Bet I wouldn't accidentally spray myself in the foot or hit myself with the stick, either.

And almost any dog is almost certainly going to alarm and, likely, take a piece of, unauthorized personnel entering the premises off-hours.

For "home defense", a dog, any dog, is going to be more effective than a gun.

Our dog, Scout, alarms when the postman drops Mail in the box. Never mind that Scout was asleep in the back of the house at the time.

And if our neighbor Ann brings her 2 dogs out to play (usually silently), Scout makes it very clear to us that he wants out to hang with his friends. That's usually about 0700, when he's usually sound asleep.

[JimD]

And almost any dog is almost certainly going to alarm and, likely, take a piece of, unauthorized personnel entering the premises off-hours.

For "home defense", a dog, any dog, is going to be more effective than a gun.

Our dog, Scout, alarms when the postman drops Mail in the box. Never mind that Scout was asleep in the back of the house at the time.

And if our neighbor Ann brings her 2 dogs out to play (usually silently), Scout makes it very clear to us that he wants out to hang with his friends. That's usually about 0700, when he's usually sound asleep.

Alas, we just lost our cat of 19 years and have decided no more pets. A dog could be very helpful, to be sure, but still, I'd be afraid of the dog getting injured.

[Henning 4148]

A strange discussion if you live in Europe.

The average burgler is not going to kick in your door - too much noise - he wants to enter and leave undetected. Someone who kicks in a door is angry and aggressive, possibly drunk or on drugs, at least highly unreasonable and dangerous. Avoiding a fight with such a person might be the better idea if at all possible. The average burgler will also not try to kill you in your sleep - he will try to get out of the house as fast as possible when he realizes someone is in the house or even awake. At least here in Europe.

Shootings as a last stage of relationship issues - I guess there is a point to this, a cultural issue in the US as other countries where people have guns at home seem to have less of a problem, but to effectively address this will likely take one or two generations if it is seriously addressed.

As is, I have had my training on automatic guns as a young adult. I know that a gun is either safe or ready for immediate use. One solution proposed for a gun ready to use but at the same time safe is a gun safe with fingerprint sensor. Even that solution will not help you at the door on a nice sunday morning when the safe is in your bedroom and your neighbor has gone berserk because your cat has littered in his garden again. You won't have the time to get your safely stored gun from the bedroom. It is not immediately available. Ready for immediate use means within immediate reach and a round in the chamber. And a gun within immediate reach (immediate means no time to run into another room or type in codes on a lock) and with a round in the chamber is not safe.

Obligatory gun training before being able to own a gun, gun registrations, gun insurance, police record checks before granting the right to gun ownership, withdrawal of gun permits for people who have shown mental issues - that sounds more promising. And just might falll within the concept of a well regulated militia.

But - as is, I think I have read gun discussions here since the late 1990's and nothing really has happened in the US. So, I would be surprised if something would happen in the near future.

[Henning 4148]

Perhaps that might be an approach for the anti gun lobbyists - become pro second amendment! Demand your second amendment rights of having your militia well regulated!!!! No need to change the constitution ... just request what your forefathers put in the constitution.

[WX]

Perhaps that might be an approach for the anti gun lobbyists - demand your second amendment rights of having your militia well regulated!!!! No need to change the constitution ...

Isn't that the National Guard?

[Jim Mahan]

A gun thread like this is sorta like taking a long walk to the dump without taking anything with you.

Aside from that, what is most obvious is that there are essentially just two positions, everyone posting to the thread has one, and no one is going to change theirs based on the thread.

Even with all the very most eloquent and highly reasoned and nuanced arguments against guns.

Smiley on that last line.

[Paul Pless]

as with most issues important to progressives, the most that one can hope for is positive incremental change

A gun thread like this is sorta like taking a long walk to the dump without taking anything with you.

Aside from that, what is most obvious is that there are essentially just two positions, everyone posting to the thread has one, and no one is going to change theirs based on the thread.

Even with all the very most eloquent and highly reasoned and nuanced arguments against guns.

Smiley on that last line.

[McMike]

A gun thread like this is sorta like taking a long walk to the dump without taking anything with you.

Aside from that, what is most obvious is that there are essentially just two positions, everyone posting to the thread has one, and no one is going to change theirs based on the thread.

Even with all the very most eloquent and highly reasoned and nuanced arguments against guns.

Smiley on that last line.

What I find interesting is certain posters proclivity to neglecting reality and their absolute demonetization of gun owners. I've posted, many times, that I would have all guns, including ones owned by the police, go poof if I had god-like powers, but I recognize that I live in a different reality and feel compelled to act based upon that reality. They are raging at the sun for being bright and warm and then for setting everyday. It's not going to change any time soon, and certainly not in many of their lifetimes. And the most frustrating part is that they are willing to throw away the entirety of the left of center agenda on a pipe dream. Stupidest sh17 ever.

[McMike]

anybody that really wants in is simply gonna kick the door down anyways

It's easy to create conditions that prolong that effort for when you're home and make it prohibitively hard for when you're not. We live in a moderately to heavily populated area and my house had been broken into prior to me moving in and there have been attempts to case the joint since, but my dogs informed them to reconsider. I'm hoping to move soon, but where I'm looking to go, you still have drug addicts looking for an easy score and the last thing I want is my dogs let out by one of these ass-hats and get hit by a car when I'm not home. There's plenty of sense in hardening your doors and locking them, it will thwart most attempts and give you enough warning if someone decides to try a home invasion. You do you, but I've never lived in a place where I didn't have to lock sh176 up. Currently, I can't leave my lawnmower in my front yard without it getting swiped.

Again, you're privileged and your simple dismissivness of the rest of us who don't live where you do is bullsh17.

[McMike]

I absolutely lock my doors. Sure someone could kick them in but I'd hear that and have my bear spray and stout diamond willow hiking staff at the ready. And I wouldn't be the least bit hesitant to use them. Bet I wouldn't accidentally spray myself in the foot or hit myself with the stick, either.

Any kind of defensive spray in an enclosed area is a really bad idea, you will always get yourself. You can purchase the gel stuff, which is a bit better, but I'd stick with a good ol claw hammer, short, so it's easy to swing in a hall way, and no one, and I mean no one will enjoy getting even a glancing blow from one. At work, we have a rowdy bunch, we don't allow guns in house but each of the office workers has a gel pepper spray at their desk. We've had two cases of workplace violence, more than likely a few we don't know about, and it's nice to have an option other than letting them fight it out.

[Paul Pless]

my intent, especially with regards locking of doors, has never been to be divisive
fwiw, i own and have owned many guns, never have i carried nor kept one for the purpose of self defense

also, i keep rottweilers as pets and consider them family members, no doubt they might warn some folks off,
but they just as easily be incapacitated or killed by an intruder with a gun or a baseball bat* - and i would mourn that event deeply

privileged, maybe
i prefer to consider myself to have been blessed by good fortune, but that is perhaps a cop out, still i think i try to recognize all of us live in different circumstances

* i'd put most of my rotties up against a guy with a pencil any day though. . .

[L.W. Baxter]

What I find interesting is certain posters proclivity to neglecting reality and their absolute demonetization of gun owners. I've posted, many times, that I would have all guns, including ones owned by the police, go poof if I had god-like powers, but I recognize that I live in a different reality and feel compelled to act based upon that reality. They are raging at the sun for being bright and warm and then for setting everyday. It's not going to change any time soon, and certainly not in many of their lifetimes. And the most frustrating part is that they are willing to throw away the entirety of the left of center agenda on a pipe dream. Stupidest sh17 ever.

interesting *cough* to see you express this sentiment. i feel this way about any number of progressive pipe dreams dreamt in the context of our hot culture war. the stupidest of all perhaps being promotion of an avowed socialist and democratic party critic for potus.

regarding guns in our society i agree that real progress is not possible through lawmaking. any gains that are possible are inconsequential, and serve mostly to deepen our already deep cultural divide.

and we have come to the point where serious people are no longer working on gun control legislation, so anything proposed is driven by pandering (by and for the dedicated martyrs of the left) and marked by ignorance.

[RCRVRP]

At work, we have a rowdy bunch, we don't allow guns in house but each of the office workers has a gel pepper spray at their desk. We've had two cases of workplace violence, more than likely a few we don't know about, and it's nice to have an option other than letting them fight it out.

What sort of place do you work at where the office workers must arm themselves with pepper spray?
A penal institution or what?
Seriously, why would management employ people they are scared of?
Why would you work at a place where employees feel the need to keep pepper spray at their desk?

[John Smith]

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.

I'm not sure anything is possible, especially without GOP support.

[John Smith]

If you are a current owner of an AR type weapon, for whatever reason, and they become illegal, would you turn yours in, and would you then find a different way to legally own some kind of firearm or take up another hobby?

And if you would be put out by that infringement on your interests, do you think your being put out is more or less important than that a significantly larger group of people than gun owners feel at least as put out over death toll of the continued school and church and town council meetings being shot up by kids with ARs?

Is it more of a hardship for you to give up your AR than it is for parents to let their kids go to school knowing that some wound up teenager with an AR might show up and make your kid's school the latest in an obscenely long list of school shootings?

More directly, if it were shown to be the case, incontrovertibly, that your giving up your AR would lessen the number of kids dying by that kind of firearm, would you then be willing to let go of your AR?

If at some point in our collective future the US has turned this fiasco around and we end up with fewer gun violence deaths than, say, Denmark or New Zealand, would you gun owners feel like it was worth it, or would you want to revert to the way things are now, so you could have your interest back?

I doubt anyone turns one in for free. If the gov. would give them a fair price for the weapon, maybe some would turn them in.

My question is one of when the gun owner dies. Guns don't die with them. If his heirs don't want the guns, they ought to be able to sell them to local police, or other government agency, and get a fair price for them. Otherwise they'll sell them 'under the table'.

[CWSmith]

as with most issues important to progressives, the most that one can hope for is positive incremental change

Sad, but true.

For the record, living someplace where you do not lock your doors is not privilege. There are rural communities where they do not lock their doors that are no better off than the inner city. It's culture. Flame me for saying that if you want, but it's true.

As for Rottweilers not discouraging a man with a gun, they sure as hell would discourge me!

[John Smith]

The same argument applies about target shooting at ranges, Long guns with three round magazines or air pistols are still legal for target shooting. Semi autos are unnecessary.

More popular than living relatives or school kids?

Kudos to Canadians for being less murderous and homicidal than US Citizens. If your gun fatality rate were as high, would you still be supporting unregulated gun ownership?

All I can think of is Tim Taylor (Home Improvement) and his constant need for more power, but for no practical reason.

[John Smith]

You are all for regulating Drones but not High Capacity Semi Auto Guns - I’m gonna have to call weird on that one

“ very popular for ………, smaller men, and younger adults”

Like …..

Columbine High School massacre: 18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold, students at Columbine High School, killed 12 students and one teacher.

15-year-old student Thomas "T.J." Solomon Jr. wounded six students at Heritage High School. A 15-year-old girl was hospitalized in critical condition,

13-year-old Victor Cordova Jr. fatally shot 13-year-old Deming Middle School schoolmate Araceli Tena. Cordova said he had intended to commit suicide but was jostled by others and his gun moved.He could not be charged as an adult as he was under 14, so he received the maximum sentence for a juvenile: a minimum of two years in prison, with a maximum of being held until his 21st birthday. In December 2003, he was released to his aunt and uncle to live with them in Colorado.

<sup>13-year-old Seth Trickey opened fire in the courtyard of his middle school using a gun brought from home. While there were no fatalities, several students felt sparks
from the bullets hitting the building walls. Five were injured, including a girl who was shot in the face. He was tried as a juvenile and released in March 2005.

Shooting of Kayla Rolland: At Buell Elementary School, a 6-year-old boy fatally shot 6-year-old classmate Kayla Rolland. To date, the boy is the youngest documented
fatal school shooter

13-year-old honor student, Nathaniel Brazill was sent home for throwing water balloons, but returned to his Lake Worth Middle School with a family pistol.
He fatally shot teacher Barry Grunow, who was popular at the school</sup>

13 year-olds Darrel Johnson and Alfred Anderson were initially charged with attempted first-degree murder, in the shooting of 15 year-old William Pennington. Pennington, after being shot, gained control of the gun and shot Johnson in the back
A 15-year-old Junipero Serra High Schoolstudent who showed off a handgun on campus and threatened to shoot a classmate, ended up accidentally shooting himself, causing minor injuries

Santana High School shooting: 15-year-old student, Charles Andrew Williams, killed two students, 14-year-old Bryan Zuckor, and 17-year-old Randy Gordon, at Santana High School. In total, he wounded thirteen others.

17-year-old Donald Ray Burt Jr., fatally shot Neal Boyd IV, with one bullet to the head in a parking lot outside Lew Wallace High School.
A 15-year-old student was shot in the abdomen and wounded inside the basement of Lincoln High School during an argument with another student. Another 15-year-old student was arrested and charged with attempted murder.

John McDonogh High School shooting. 18-year-old Steven Williams, and 17-year-old James Tate, opened fire with an AK-47 and a handgun in the gymnasium of John McDonogh High School, killing a 15-year-old student and wounding three female students.

^{LOTS and LOTS more here}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...(2000–present)

I've gotten NOWHERE simply suggest a tax on ammunition to pay for funeral/medical expenses of those shot. I see little hope for this way of life changing.

[WI-Tom]

we have come to the point where serious people are no longer working on gun control legislation, so anything proposed is driven by pandering (by and for the dedicated martyrs of the left) and marked by ignorance.

Interesting. "Pandering" and "ignorance"--those are the hallmarks of the New England Journal of Medicine, is it?

The prevention of future mass killings should begin with making it far more difficult to obtain semiautomatic firearms, especially ones that can be easily converted into automatic weapons.3,4 The federal government strictly controls fully automatic weapons, but many semiautomatic weapons can be turned into fully automatic machine guns by their owners. And it was, in part, fully automatic weapons capabilities that seem to have made it possible for the shooter in Las Vegas to mow down hundreds of innocent people, and he still had thousands more rounds of ammunition. If semiautomatic weapons are to continue to be sold, they should be manufactured in a way that prevents their conversion to automatic firing mode. There should be stricter limits on the size of magazines for assault rifles and limits on purchases of huge ammunition stores for these weapons of war. A background check did not stop this killer, but tighter background checks can keep war weapons out of the hands of those who are known to be mentally unstable.For years under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Congress has been afraid to do anything about regulating guns, even those that are designed for mass shootings. What will it take to get some legislative action? A shooting of 1000? 5000? Such mega-horror scenes are now clearly feasible. Continued acceptance of the status quo is unacceptable. Congressional legislation to promote greater health and safety for the American public is possible.5,6 Our current political leadership is apparently not willing to promote gun-violence prevention of any kind. And yet no one in America wants more mass shootings.
A public consensus can have an effect, even against the will of the leadership.

Or maybe it's the CDC that is "ignorant"?

Gun violence is an American public health crisis decades in the making. The latest Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC) data show that 39,707 people, 86% of whom were male, lost their lives togun violence in 2019. It was the third consecutive year of nearly 40,000 gun deaths, and part of a threeyear cluster with a higher gun death rate than any other time in the last two decades. Further, almost onein ten (3,390) gun deaths in 2019 were children and teens, the second-highest number of annual childand teen gun deaths in twenty years. In 2019, firearms were the leading cause of death for Americanchildren, teens, and young adults ages 1 to 24.

Or maybe it's the American Academy of Pediatrics?

Injuries and death

• 4,500 children under 21 died from firearm violence in 2015.
• 20,000 children present to EDs for firearm-related injuries annually.
• 90% of those ED visits are by children ages 12-19.
• Firearm injuries are more likely to be accidental for younger children and intentional among older children.
• Among adolescents ages 15-19, homicide by firearms is the second leading cause of death and suicide by firearms is the third leading cause.

Access

• Roughly 18% to 64% of homes have firearms, varying by location.
• 39% of parents erroneously believe their children do not know where their gun is stored, and 22% wrongly believe their child never handled their gun.
• In 2011, about 5% of high school students recently carried a gun.
• 65% of high school seniors had a gun in their household.

Or maybe it's Education Week?

In 2021, based on data collected by Education Week, there were 35 school shootings—a record high since we began tracking school shootings in 2018. Most of the incidents—25—have occurred since August, when schools reopened for in-person schooling on a wide scale. It’s an alarming pace of gun violence.

So yes, thousands of children are being killed by guns every year. Tens of thousands of suicides happen by gun. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons make it possible for a single shooter to rack up kill scores in the double digits.

But treating guns like the public health emergency they are, and controlling them the way we control other dangerous things, might make the poor old gun owners scared that someone's going to take their fun away. So anyone who still thinks taking action to control guns is "ignorant" and "pandering" to some "pipe dream."

So rather than make those poor old right-wing gun owners mad at us, let's just let thousands of children be murdered with guns every year. Because if we pass laws that might prevent it, someone somewhere might lose an election. And we can't have that. We mustn't risk "deepening our cultural divide" even if the alternative is letting thousands of children be murdered every year.

I'm sure their friends and families would rather everyone just get along and not have any "divides"--so let's sweep the elephant under the rug. Again. And pretend that there's nothing that can be done.

After all, only 58 people were killed in Vegas. Fewer than that at Sandy Hook. It's a small price to pay so we don't "deepen the cultural divide" and drive those poor gun owners deeper into the Republican party than they already are.

Tom

[John Smith]

The fact you don’t seem to know that a background check is done for every license issued, even for one that allows hunting rifles, says almost as much as not knowing what an SKS is. That would be like someone saying “I’m a car guy. What this “Fiat” that you’re talking about?”




Also FYI, the machine guns? The owners still have them. The change in law just meant they weren’t allowed to transport them to a range.

Not sure if background checks are all that important. Might help some, but, as I've said many times the person who buys that gun will not live forever. The gun he buys will live on for generations who will inherit the gun.

[John Smith]

If someone wants to harm a large group of people there are many ways they could do it. I am not convinced restricting certain types of guns is the answer. Identifying potentially violent mentally ill people and treating them and or restricting their access to guns seems like it would be more productive. The vast majority of owners of all types of guns are law abiding citizens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If one guy with a gun cannot shoot bullets as rapidly as he used to, it would help in the cases of multiple victims.

[CWSmith]

All I can think of is Tim Turner (Home Improvement) and his constant need for more power, but for no practical reason.

Taylor.

[Decourcy]

Not sure if background checks are all that important. Might help some, but, as I've said many times the person who buys that gun will not live forever. The gun he buys will live on for generations who will inherit the gun.

Here, you get a background check when you get your licence, not when you buy a gun. And the licence needs renewing every 5 years. No licence? Can’t legally own any gun, even if inherited.

Ive explained our system before, including that as a restricted licence holder, I actually go through a background check every. Single. Day.
Restricted license owners are statistically the least criminal group in the country. So of course we get a bit pissed that we are the group our government has chosen to target with its new legislation

[L.W. Baxter]

jayzus tom.

taking gun violence seriously, measuring its effects, trying to do something about it, is not pandering or ignorance.

i was referring to the actual measures being proposed in the current culture-war environment.

oregon ballot measure 114 is a perfect example. written by people actually ignorant of current law. written by and for emotional impact rather than practical application or effect.

[John Smith]

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.

I suppose those kids would have prefer to have been aborted, had they the choice.

[John Smith]

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

Let us not forget how making something illegal allows the crooks to get more money.

[John Smith]

You can buy an AR for less than $400

When they're illegal, they'll cost a good deal more; perhaps $800.

[John Smith]

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.

Maybe '****ty parenting' comes from the family needing several jobs to make ends meet. Maybe constant worries about money contribute to bad parents. Any WANT to be a bad parent?

[John Smith]

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

Nothing worthwhile will get enough support in congress.

[John Smith]

It's a good damn thing the US Constitution wasn't ever amended to include the God-given right to automobiles.

The thing that needs to be done, is for someone like the president—not Biden because he's already well on the record for wanting sensible gun legislation—but for a subsequent president or someone else equally highly visible and in an election affecting position, like a Senate majority leader or Speaker of the House, to say out loud, publicly, that wanting to make such legislation is "just too hard because there are too many guns already and too many people like having them whether they use them or need them or just like them, and," and this is the key part—"people should just shut up about it and stop whining about a handful of kids in schools getting wasted on a frequent, almost regular basis. Just quit whining about kids and church-goers dying of gunshots because, after all, they're all going to die eventually anyway, and they're such a small part of the electorate. So let's talk about something important instead, like stopping people from murdering unborn babies."

The point of being publicly so callous would be to cause even more hot outrage from the general public, enough to swell up and overwhelm the real and unspoken limits to gun legislation. To make it so everyone in federal office just can't go to work without encountering seriously angry parents and other concerned citizens hounding them about a genuine effort to make substantial changes.

Whoever led the way in this calculated outrage baiting would be a sort of stalking horse and be willing to leave office in disgrace and sacrifice a reasonable legacy. (But he or she would be a hero.) Thus pointing the way forward for the rest of gun lobby kowtowers and big donor suckups, and leaving them only one option for ending that boiling outrage.

The country, according to polling, is in favor of the kind of legislation that other, more civilized countries enjoy, by a significant majority. If we didn't have such a dysfunctional system of special interest money in government, it would already be done. Even though there are three times [ninety percent of statistics on internet forums are just made up no the spot to make a point] as many guns in private hands in the US than there are citizens, the actual gun owners are in the minority. So fixing the school shooting problem, by in large part vastly reducing the availability of guns—as well as seriously legislating enough social and economic changes to obviate the usual reasons for gun violence—what we really need, is more of those citizens, the ones who would be stirred up to the point of actually going out and voting their conscience, and their righteous outrage.

My question: The 2nd Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the maintenance of a free state.........

WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO REGULATE THAT MILITIA?

[John Smith]

Taylor.

oops

[WI-Tom]

jayzus tom.

taking gun violence seriously, measuring its effects, trying to do something about it, is not pandering or ignorance.

i was referring to the actual measures being proposed in the current culture-war environment.

oregon ballot measure 114 is a perfect example. written by people actually ignorant of current law. written by and for emotional impact rather than practical application or effect.

What specific objections do you have to that law? I wasn't familiar with it, but Wikipedia says this:

nder the new law, purchasing a firearm requires a completed criminal background check, no different than before it’s passage, and paying for a permit (of a maximum amount of $65) from either the county sheriff or police where the buyer resides. Buyers also have to pass a gun safety education course that demonstrates they know how to properly store and handle a gun. Permits are issued per person, not per gun, and are valid for five years. Law enforcement will have the ability to deny a permit to those they subjectively believe to be a danger to themselves or others, while those denied a permit are able to appeal in court at extra legal expense.^[2]

Additionally, the law makes the purchase, sale, or possession of any magazines holding more than ten rounds a Class A misdemeanor. Current owners of high capacity magazines are able to keep them legally, but use is limited to their property or other private property such as a shooting range.^[4]

Do you think any of these regulations are unreasonable? If so, which ones? Why?

Your entire objection seems to be that trying to enact gun control legislation will "deepen our cultural divide." But, news flash: that divide is not going to be magically healed by ignoring the ongoing national health crisis/epidemic of gun deaths.

So the choice seems to be:

1. Rely on gun owners and right-wing voters to just, I guess, be reasonable. And not use their AR-15s and semi-auto weapons to kill dozens of people. Because God knows we better not make them mad or "pander" to the people who want to end gun deaths, right? That would only "deepen our cultural divide" and we can't have that. Even if thousands of kids need to be murdered every year instead.

2. Treat gun deaths as the epidemic they are, and deal with them through legislation. And if voters don't like it, be willing to take the political consequences.

You like option 1. I like option 2. There don't seem to be many politicians with the courage or moral compass to back option 2, so you probably win. Hurray.

I wonder: if we could rewind to February 2020, would you be advocating that government NOT try to require masks or vaccines? After all, those things sure enough "deepened our cultural divide" which I know you just don't like.

Tom

[Breakaway]

can't remember the last time we locked our doors
couldn't even tell you where the keys to the house are

Ditto


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[L.W. Baxter]

tom, your characterization of the "seeming" choice between two positions is sufficiently lame that i have no interest in actually reading to the end of your post.

[WI-Tom]

tom, your characterization of the "seeming" choice between two positions is sufficiently lame that i have no interest in actually reading to the end of your post.

What else is new? I think it's your sweeping characterization:

anything proposed is driven by pandering (by and for the dedicated martyrs of the left) and marked by ignorance.

that is "lame."

Even lamer is your attempt to deny it by saying "No, no, it's only Oregon 114 I was talking about!"--and then avoiding the simple questions I asked about Oregon 114: Do you find any of its requirements unreasonable? If so, why?

But what it comes down to seems painfully clear, whether you like the way I word it or not:

1. Prioritize avoiding all risk of "deepening the cultural divide" by attempting reasonable gun control measures.

OR

2. Prioritize reasonable gun control measures to prevent tens of thousands of gun deaths per year, even if it means "deepening the cultural divide" (which I'm not sure can BE any deeper than it already is, but whatever).

But, when challenged, you won't (can't?) defend your position. And are probably offended that I pointed out the moral/ethical implications of your position.

Yep. "Lame" sums it up pretty well so far.

Tom