House votes to loosen background checks rules?

[Back]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38853390


The US House of Representatives has voted to scrap regulations that require background checks for people purchasing guns with mental health issues.

The checks, introduced under the Obama administration, are believed to affect an estimated 75,000 people.

The bill now needs to the approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump.

Are you fucking kidding me?

[drauz]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/02/house-gop-aims-to-scrap-obama-rule-on-gun-background-checks.html


The agency that advises the president and Congress on government policy, the National Council on Disability, said there is no connection between the inability to manage money and the ability to safely possess and use a firearm.

No, no one is kidding you. You are assuming everyone is a raging psychopath that is on that list, but you would be wrong.

[Back]

Republican lawmakers criticized the regulation for reinforcing a negative stereotype that people with a mental disorder are dangerous.

What???? Republicans being PC? Does someone need a safe space?

[drauz]

Does someone need a safe space?

From you initial reaction, sounds like it's you.

http://i.imgur.com/Il886RH.gif

[Back]

From you initial reaction, sounds like it's you.

http://i.imgur.com/Il886RH.gif

Funny gif.

But seriously, this is some bullshit hypocrisy that's going to make us less safe.

[drauz]

Funny gif.

But seriously, this is some bullshit hypocrisy that's going to make us less safe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/#__sec1title

The issue is more complex than you are making it seems, I suggest reading the whole thing.


Gun crime narratives that attribute causality to mental illness also invert the material realities of serious mental illness in the United States. Commentators such as Coulter blame “the mentally ill” for violence, and even psychiatric journals are more likely to publish articles about mentally ill aggression than about victimhood.5 But, in the real world, these persons are far more likely to be assaulted by others or shot by the police than to commit violent crime themselves. In this sense, persons with mental illness might well have more to fear from “us” than we do from “them.” And blaming persons with mental disorders for gun crime overlooks the threats posed to society by a much larger population—the sane.

You should just come out and say "I don't like guns, so I think you shouldn't have them".

[Back]

Sorry. If the law as it stands stops even .05% of gun related deaths it is worth keeping and rescinding it is less safe for the public.

[time4fun]

From you initial reaction, sounds like it's you.

http://i.imgur.com/Il886RH.gif

Actually it's all of us given that we're putting even more guns in the hands of people who are more likely to do bad things with them.

They're not toys. They kill people. They kill people who don't own them. They kill people who do own them.

And over 30,000 people a year in this country are dying from them for no discernible benefit.

[drauz]

Sorry. If the law as it stands stops even .05% of gun related deaths it is worth keeping and rescinding it is less safe for the public.

You would stop a lot more violence if you banned people who were abused as a child, or are alcoholics/drug addicts.

You should just come out and say "I don't like guns, so I think you shouldn't have them". Start from your honest position and people might take you more seriously.

[drauz]

Actually it's all of us given that we're putting even more guns in the hands of people who are more likely to do bad things with them.

They're not toys. They kill people. They kill people who don't own them. They kill people who do own them.

And over 30,000 people a year in this country are dying from them for no discernible benefit.

Read the NIH article, its well done.

[Neveragain]

Actually it's all of us given that we're putting even more guns in the hands of people who are more likely to do bad things with them.

They're not toys. They kill people. They kill people who don't own them. They kill people who do own them.

And over 30,000 people a year in this country are dying from them for no discernible benefit.

Guns are inanimate objects, much less destructive than your ideology.

[Ceyrin]

I don't like opinions, and I don't think people should have them.

[Neveragain]

More proof Time4fun and Back would have defended slavery.

8348

[Back]

You would stop a lot more violence if you banned people who were abused as a child, or are alcoholics/drug addicts.

You should just come out and say "I don't like guns, so I think you shouldn't have them". Start from your honest position and people might take you more seriously.

Your assumption about me is inaccurate. I do believe we need more regulation not less. Loose regulation is what allows weapons to get into the hands of the bad guys. Someone will of course use the flimsy argument that they will get them anyway. Well, that's no reason not to try to stop them and with tighter regulations they will get less.

[Neveragain]

Your assumption about me is inaccurate. I do believe we need more regulation not less. Loose regulation is what allows weapons to get into the hands of the bad guys. Someone will of course use the flimsy argument that they will get them anyway. Well, that's no reason not to try to stop them and with tighter regulations they will get less.

Funny they said the same thing about black people owning guns, because you know, black people were dangerous.

Ever purchased a gun?

[Back]

More proof Time4fun and Back would have defended slavery.

The African American community should by all means arm themselves considering all the closet KKK racists running around with guns.

[Neveragain]

The African American community should by all means arm themselves considering all the closet KKK racists running around with guns.

Oh so what you're saying is all white people who don't think like you are dangerous and shouldn't own guns.

But I must be a closet KKK racist because I just defended black people owning guns.

This just gets better and better.

[drauz]

The African American community should by all means arm themselves considering all the closet KKK racists running around with guns.

If Chicago is any indication, they are way ahead of you.

[Back]

Oh so what you're saying is all white people who don't think like you are dangerous and shouldn't own guns.

But I must be a closet KKK racist because I just defended black people owning guns.

This just gets better and better.

Read what I post at face value. I made no judgments about you in my post. I simply responded to your crazy attempt at trolling that failed miserably.

[Axhinde]

Oh so what you're saying is all white people who don't think like you are dangerous and shouldn't own guns.

But I must be a closet KKK racist because I just defended black people owning guns.

This just gets better and better.

That's not how I read it.

[drauz]

I'm going to assume you didn't read the article, so theres no point in debating this with you.

You have the idea in your head and no amount of new information will change that.

[Neveragain]

Read what I post at face value. I made no judgments about you in my post. I simply responded to your crazy attempt at trolling that failed miserably.

How does Drauz put it? it was implied.

I love when you use the KKK argument with it's whopping 5,000 members and your ability to predict their future membership. Yet when it's pointed out that Hillary's self declared mentor actually was a KKK member it suddenly falls on deaf ears.

8349

[Tgo01]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38853390



Are you fucking kidding me?

I love how Democrats claim to give a shit about "differently abled" people yet try to make them out to be the people responsible for all gun violence in this country.

Yes, Back, just because one has some medical issues does not mean you should lose one of your most basic rights as an American.

[Ceyrin]

Your assumption about me is inaccurate. I do believe we need more regulation not less. Loose regulation is what allows weapons to get into the hands of the bad guys. Someone will of course use the flimsy argument that they will get them anyway. Well, that's no reason not to try to stop them and with tighter regulations they will get less.

As someone who's pretty hip to gun control, you're just flat out wrong.

Loose regulation isn't what gets guns into the hands of 'bad guys'. It's money, plain and simple.

Let me draw you a simple line.

Criminal A steals guns. Criminal A sells guns to organization B. Organization B 'cleans' the guns and resells them to criminals C-Z. There is no part of this that actually has anything to do with regulation aside from how guns are stored and shipped, which ought to be with MORE GUNS PROTECTING THEM.

[Tgo01]

The African American community should by all means arm themselves considering all the closet KKK racists running around with guns.

Back has now gone full retard with Trump's victory.

Well, he was already full retard, so this is some sort of new super full retard breed.

[Ceyrin]

Back has now gone full retard with Trump's victory.

Well, he was already full retard, so this is some sort of new super full retard breed.

https://i.imgur.com/ZXsEHZW.jpg

[Back]

As someone who's pretty hip to gun control, you're just flat out wrong.

Loose regulation isn't what gets guns into the hands of 'bad guys'. It's money, plain and simple.

Let me draw you a simple line.

Criminal A steals guns. Criminal A sells guns to organization B. Organization B 'cleans' the guns and resells them to criminals C-Z. There is no part of this that actually has anything to do with regulation aside from how guns are stored and shipped, which ought to be with MORE GUNS PROTECTING THEM.

If that were true wouldn't that mean there is a whole hell of a lot of guns being stolen? Are you really trying to make gun theft the issue?

[Back]

Back has now gone full retard with Trump's victory.

Well, he was already full retard, so this is some sort of new super full retard breed.

Actually this notion goes way back before Trump. Hard to believe.

[Wrathbringer]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38853390



Are you fucking kidding me?

/clowns

[Tgo01]

The African American community should by all means arm themselves considering all the closet KKK racists running around with guns.

So Back, you think blacks should arm themselves because of all of the KKK members running around with guns who want to shoot all blacks on sight...but you think a black person receiving SSI for anxiety or bipolar should have a harder time purchasing a gun? I guess black lives DON'T matter to Back.

[Maerit]

Personally, my belief and opinion, is that criminal gun violence has nothing to do with weak regulations. Many guns, illegal guns, are brought into the country or stolen. A large amount of the gun violence in this country is due to illegally obtained weapons - not because the regulation for legally purchasing a gun was too limited.

An example - high school kids bringing their parents' gun to school with them. No matter how long the waiting period, or how many medical examinations they had to pass, or any number of reasons to limit gun ownership would have prevented their delinquent child from stealing the weapon and taking it to school.

Another example of stupid regulation that does nothing to protect lives is how many states put specific limits on magazine size, or how to eject the magazine -- yadda yadda. At the end of the day, if you're intention is to use a weapon illegally, none of those regulations matter because a criminal is just going to modify the weapon -- illegally -- to you know, be a more effective criminal.

The reality is, you can regulate all you want, and it all it truly does is limit the benefits of owning a firearm for personal protection. Do I believe people should have easy access to automatic weapons and massive magazines? No, it's overkill, and there's no benefit to equipping the populace with something that's unnecessary and makes the weapons criminals steal more effective. However, there's also no benefit to limiting the rights of the citizens because that limitation does not impact the criminal violence by a meaningful margin.

[Back]

I'm going to assume you didn't read the article, so theres no point in debating this with you.

You have the idea in your head and no amount of new information will change that.

I did read it. It did not convince me that saving even one more life with that law in place is worth losing one life if the law is rescinded. Thanks for playing.

[Methais]

Funny gif.

But seriously, this is some bullshit hypocrisy that's going to make us less safe.

You have mental issues and still own a gun.

What's the problem again?

[Ceyrin]

If that were true wouldn't that mean there is a whole hell of a lot of guns being stolen? Are you really trying to make gun theft the issue?

Are you only interested in dealing in absolutes?

[Tgo01]

Actually this notion goes way back before Trump. Hard to believe.

Really? When have you ever said blacks need to arm themselves because of all of the KKK racists running around?

[Ceyrin]

Personally, my belief and opinion, is that criminal gun violence has nothing to do with weak regulations. Many guns, illegal guns, are brought into the country or stolen. A large amount of the gun violence in this country is due to illegally obtained weapons - not because the regulation for legally purchasing a gun was too limited.

An example - high school kids bringing their parents' gun to school with them. No matter how long the waiting period, or how many medical examinations they had to pass, or any number of reasons to limit gun ownership would have prevented their delinquent child from stealing the weapon and taking it to school.

Another example of stupid regulation that does nothing to protect lives is how many states put specific limits on magazine size, or how to eject the magazine -- yadda yadda. At the end of the day, if you're intention is to use a weapon illegally, none of those regulations matter because a criminal is just going to modify the weapon -- illegally -- to you know, be a more effective criminal.

Yes, exactly. Thank you.

[time4fun]

Personally, my belief and opinion, is that criminal gun violence has nothing to do with weak regulations. Many guns, illegal guns, are brought into the country or stolen. A large amount of the gun violence in this country is due to illegally obtained weapons - not because the regulation for legally purchasing a gun was too limited.

An example - high school kids bringing their parents' gun to school with them. No matter how long the waiting period, or how many medical examinations they had to pass, or any number of reasons to limit gun ownership would have prevented their delinquent child from stealing the weapon and taking it to school.

Another example of stupid regulation that does nothing to protect lives is how many states put specific limits on magazine size, or how to eject the magazine -- yadda yadda. At the end of the day, if you're intention is to use a weapon illegally, none of those regulations matter because a criminal is just going to modify the weapon -- illegally -- to you know, be a more effective criminal.

We have 25% of the world's guns, and we have one of the worst gun violence problems in the world. These two facts are not unrelated to each other. Don't buy into this whole idea that gun regulation doesn't work- ask Japan how well it works. And don't mistake the fact that the regulations we DO pass in the US are generally weak as evidence that real gun reform wouldn't absolutely save lives. Most of the gun-related violence in the US is from legally acquired guns.

And fundamentally I think it would be a lot easier to take stupid shit like making sure mentally ill people have guns seriously if the GOP were as gung ho about making sure they had housing and medical care.

What kind of nation finds the notion of caring for the mentally ill questionable but not the notion of arming them?

[Back]

Really? When have you ever said blacks need to arm themselves because of all of the KKK racists running around?

I may never have said it but you don't think some black folks armed themselves the first chance they could against white violence?

[drauz]

I did read it. It did not convince me that saving even one more life with that law in place is worth losing one life if the law is rescinded. Thanks for playing.

So, we should ban alcohol and cars too, right? Since your only goal is to save lives, right? It is exactly comments like this that make me think you want to ban all guns.

[Neveragain]

I suggest we continue to push an ideology that refuses to admit that single parent homes make for criminal children and wants to ban guns in an attempt to hide the bloody outcome.

[drauz]

We have 25% of the world's guns, and we have one of the worst gun violence problems in the world. These two facts are not unrelated to each other. Don't buy into this whole idea that gun regulation doesn't work- ask Japan how well it works. And don't mistake the fact that the regulations we DO pass in the US are generally weak as evidence that real gun reform wouldn't absolutely save lives. Most of the gun-related violence in the US is from legally acquired guns.

And fundamentally I think it would be a lot easier to take stupid shit like making sure mentally ill people have guns seriously if the GOP were as gung ho about making sure they had housing and medical care.

What kind of nation finds the notion of caring for the mentally ill questionable but not the notion of arming them?

Yes, lets compare an island nation to a nation with one of the largest unmanned borders in the world. Makes sense.

[Wrathbringer]

We have 25% of the world's guns, and we have one of the worst gun violence problems in the world. These two facts are not unrelated to each other. Don't buy into this whole idea that gun regulation doesn't work- ask Japan how well it works. And don't mistake the fact that the regulations we DO pass in the US are generally weak as evidence that real gun reform wouldn't absolutely save lives. Most of the gun-related violence in the US is from legally acquired guns.

And fundamentally I think it would be a lot easier to take stupid shit like making sure mentally ill people have guns seriously if the GOP were as gung ho about making sure they had housing and medical care.

What kind of nation finds the notion of caring for the mentally ill questionable but not the notion of arming them?

You're uber retarded.

[drauz]

I did read it. It did not convince me that saving even one more life with that law in place is worth losing one life if the law is rescinded. Thanks for playing.

So by this logic we should close off immigration from all Middle Eastern countries, since if we could potentially let in just one terrorist who succeeds and they kill just one person its worth it. Even though the overwhelming majority wouldn't. Since we are looking to Japan for guidance, they have a closed door immigration policy and haven't had a jihadist attack yet.

Glad to see you supporting the immigration ban.

See, you only apply you logic where you have been told to apply it. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[Ceyrin]

To be fair, I'm not really sure I'd say an island nation is any more or less secure along the borders than not, they just require a different kind of smuggling/infiltration operation.

What I will say about Japan though, is they don't have gun regulation, they have something more akin to prohibition. Their society is so stigmatized by any notion against the concept of law and order that often 'unexplained deaths' are considered suicides unless there's overwhelming evidence to bring an accusation forward and generate a conviction (which most accused then readily admit their guilt to). Most people in Japan don't want a gun because they have no use for it.

[Neveragain]

So, we should ban alcohol and cars too, right? Since your only goal is to save lives, right? It is exactly comments like this that make me think you want to ban all guns.

It's because they do, they just can't admit it.

[drauz]

To be fair, I'm not really sure I'd say an island nation is any more or less secure along the borders than not, they just require a different kind of smuggling/infiltration operation.

What I will say about Japan though, is they don't have gun regulation, they have something more akin to prohibition. Their society is so stigmatized by any notion against the concept of law and order that often 'unexplained deaths' are considered suicides unless there's overwhelming evidence to bring an accusation forward and generate a conviction (which most accused then readily admit their guilt to). Most people in Japan don't want a gun because they have no use for it.

I'm not an expert by any means on the subject but I feel like if all you need is a car or two legs, its going to be easier.

You are correct to point out that their culture is very different from ours. It is truly apples to oranges.

[Tgo01]

Also according to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm) gang homicides make up a "substantial proportion" of homicides among youth in the US.

In 5 cities with high gang homicides they found 856 homicides were gang related and 2,077 were non-gang related. 0.4% of the population in the US belong to a gang yet in these 5 cities they made up almost 33% of all homicides. The CDC report goes on to state that most gang related homicides involve a gun. What is more gun regulation going to do to keep guns out of the hands of gang members?

But liberals love to ignore the fact that the US has a serious gang problem because it's much easier to "fix" the gun "problem" by pointing to people with mental health issues and saying they're the bad guys rather than tackling the issue of gang violence. After all the latter would require them to actually put their money where their mouth is and help people in poor inner city neighborhoods where education is usually sorely lacking. They just want to pay lip service to the people who want these problems fixed.

[Methais]

I love when you use the KKK argument with it's whopping 5,000 members and your ability to predict their future membership. Yet when it's pointed out that Hillary's self declared mentor actually was a KKK member it suddenly falls on deaf ears.

8349

"But but that was a long time ago so it doesn't matter! Now let me tell you about this lawsuit Trump had in the 70s..."

[Methais]

I did read it. It did not convince me that saving even one more life with that law in place is worth losing one life if the law is rescinded. Thanks for playing.

If making it easier to purchase a gun saves even one mother's life from an intruder that otherwise would have raped and/or killed her and her children, then it's worth it.

By golly would you just look at how easy that was. Why does Backlash hate single mothers and women and children in general so much that he wants them to be raped and murdered by home invaders?

[Shaps]

Sorry. If the law as it stands stops even .05% of gun related deaths it is worth keeping and rescinding it is less safe for the public.

If the Immigration Travel Ban stops even .05% of terrorist related deaths, it is work keeping and rescinding it is less safe for the public.

Glad you finally agree with us on something there Back.

[Methais]

Really? When have you ever said blacks need to arm themselves because of all of the KKK racists running around?

Pretty sure he meant he was already full retard before Trump.

[Shaps]

Actually it's all of us given that we're putting even more guns in the hands of people who are more likely to do bad things with them.

They're not toys. They kill people. They kill people who don't own them. They kill people who do own them.

And over 30,000 people a year in this country are dying from them for no discernible benefit.

Just think of it as a reaaalllyyy late term abortion. So there are benefits right?

[Shaps]

The African American community should by all means arm themselves considering all the closet KKK racists running around with guns.

Holy shit.. LOL.. I don't even have anything except a big LOL for this.

[Shaps]

I did read it. It did not convince me that saving even one more life with that law in place is worth losing one life if the law is rescinded. Thanks for playing.

So in essence you hate Muslims, because by banning them it could save even one more life with the law in place is worth losing life if the law is not put in place.

Damn, didn't realize you hated Muslims so.

You sure you didn't vote Trump or a KKK member yourself?

[Tisket]

What???? Republicans being PC? Does someone need a safe space?

You know what I use my gun for? I shoot people who abuse punctuation.

[Shaps]

This is what happens when Liberals try to argue policy instead of just name calling. Going to be interesting.

[Neveragain]

You know what I use my gun for? I shoot people who abuse punctuation.

If you were my neighbor I would look like a sieve.

[Tisket]

If you were my neighbor I would look like a sieve.

Well, to be honest, I never need much reason to want to put us all out of our misery by plugging Backlash full of holes.

[Methais]

If you were my neighbor I would look like a sieve.

If she were my neighbor...

https://s.mlkshk.com/r/G7X8

[Pin]

So, we should ban alcohol and cars too, right? Since your only goal is to save lives, right? It is exactly comments like this that make me think you want to ban all guns.

I think the main liberal argument is that maybe we should treat guns the way we treated alcohol and cars we could bring down the gun violence rate by 2/3rds over a few decades the same way we did drunk driving.

Most of us are not claiming there is one magic fix-all rule or law that can be passed. But what I and most would argue is there is more than likely a series of steps from different angles we can take that would possibly stem the tide of gun violence.

[Pin]

But liberals love to ignore the fact that the US has a serious gang problem because it's much easier to "fix" the gun "problem" by pointing to people with mental health issues and saying they're the bad guys rather than tackling the issue of gang violence. After all the latter would require them to actually put their money where their mouth is and help people in poor inner city neighborhoods where education is usually sorely lacking. They just want to pay lip service to the people who want these problems fixed.

As we sit here waiting to see if DeVos will get to gut public schooling or not - which side of the fence do you think is opposed to her?

[Tgo01]

I think the main liberal argument is that maybe we should treat guns the way we treated alcohol and cars we could bring down the gun violence rate by 2/3rds over a few decades the same way we did drunk driving.

But the right to bear arms is a constitutional right so it should be treated differently than alcohol and cars.


As we sit here waiting to see if DeVos will get to gut public schooling or not - which side of the fence do you think is opposed to her?

See what I mean? All of the times Democrats have been in control, the complete control Democrats have in some major cities, but how do they pay lip service to their base? By attacking Trump's secretary of education pick.

[Maerit]

I enjoyed reading up on the varying differences between Japan and the U.S. that contribute to the difference in why gun control "works" in that country vs the U.S. Definitely the reduction of military power in Japan after WWII is a major contributing factor to the lack of access to firearms, as the country barely produces any munitions of note - while the U.S. must continue to develop munitions to maintain the (necessary) substantially larger military force. As such, private sellers have significant stocks of firearms for sale to both private buyers, and government bodies to support that demand. This isn't the case in Japan.

One of the primary factors in Japan is their extremely strict immigration policies, and the country has a declining population. This prevents many people from entering the country, and bringing weapons into the country illegally - especially since they don't have to protect their borders where a lot of illegal firearms are smuggled into U.S.

On top of this, they have incredibly strict penalties for illegally owning and firing a gun. Much more severe penalties than the U.S. You can be imprisoned for years for illegally carrying a firearm. You can be given a 3 years to a life sentence (probably depending on the area where the weapon was discharged) for firing a firearm illegally in Japan. In the U.S., most states will only fine a person for having a gun illegally, or give them ~6months in prison. Yes, the Yakuza still illegally carry firearms, but if one of them is caught with a firearm, the boss of that syndicate can be imprisoned by association. It creates a massive incentive to be extremely careful and cautious, as a criminal, when to actually use these weapons. It's said that many crime bosses will actually have subordinates killed after they are released from prison rather than risk being associated with someone who had been arrested for illegal possession of a firearm.

I would 100% support increasing the penalties for illegally owning and firing firearms in the U.S. That would actually help combat criminals - the primary source of gun violence - but our culture does not support removing firearms as a legal right from the general populace as that would have a massive impact on both the economy of the country, and the safety of it's citizens. Making it harder to obtain firearms legally, does not make it harder to obtain firearms illegally. Increasing the penalty for a criminal to possess a firearm illegally, absolutely does addresses that concern.

[Pin]

But the right to bear arms is a constitutional right so it should be treated differently than alcohol and cars.

Which is why I'm not an advocate for taking gun away completely - the most agreed upon thing that most people are for are universal background checks; it doesn't infringe upon Constitutional rights.




See what I mean? All of the times Democrats have been in control, the complete control Democrats have in some major cities, but how do they pay lip service to their base? By attacking Trump's secretary of education pick.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, school funding is a federal and state issue - Who is in control of some cities and not others is largely irrelevant.

[Tgo01]

Which is why I'm not an advocate for taking gun away completely - the most agreed upon thing that most people are for are universal background checks; it doesn't infringe upon Constitutional rights.

This story is about targeting people because they are receiving SSI for certain reasons.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, school funding is a federal and state issue - Who is in control of some cities and not others is largely irrelevant.

Actually local funding is the biggest financial contributor to education, federal funding is by far the least. State funding is almost as much as federal funding.

This is why rich areas tend to have really nice schools and poor (or poorly governed) areas have really shitty schools; the rich areas have more funding (usually via property taxes) and the state is supposed to help make up the difference to the poor areas with increased funding, but this usually doesn't cut it.

[Warriorbird]

Also according to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm) gang homicides make up a "substantial proportion" of homicides among youth in the US.

In 5 cities with high gang homicides they found 856 homicides were gang related and 2,077 were non-gang related. 0.4% of the population in the US belong to a gang yet in these 5 cities they made up almost 33% of all homicides. The CDC report goes on to state that most gang related homicides involve a gun. What is more gun regulation going to do to keep guns out of the hands of gang members?

But liberals love to ignore the fact that the US has a serious gang problem because it's much easier to "fix" the gun "problem" by pointing to people with mental health issues and saying they're the bad guys rather than tackling the issue of gang violence. After all the latter would require them to actually put their money where their mouth is and help people in poor inner city neighborhoods where education is usually sorely lacking. They just want to pay lip service to the people who want these problems fixed.

The US has a deeply flawed drug war and deeply flawed drug laws. Reform those and you might find some ability to address the "gang problem."

[Tgo01]

The US has a deeply flawed drug war and deeply flawed drug laws. Reform those and you might find some ability to address the "gang problem."

Right. The gang problem is really a drug problem caused by the US government.

Oh boy.

[Pin]

This story is about targeting people because they are receiving SSI for certain reasons.

Understood - I get the vibe we're actually not to far apart on our stances with this.




Actually local funding is the biggest financial contributor to education, federal funding is by far the least. State funding is almost as much as federal funding.

This is why rich areas tend to have really nice schools and poor (or poorly governed) areas have really shitty schools; the rich areas have more funding (usually via property taxes) and the state is supposed to help make up the difference to the poor areas with increased funding, but this usually doesn't cut it.

Oh I'm not arguing with how schools are funded, you're pretty spot on; I'm not understanding how you're drawing a line from property value (via property tax) to which party happens to control an area.

[Tgo01]

I'm not understanding how you're drawing a line from property value (via property tax) to which party happens to control an area.

I don't understand what the confusion is about. If about half of school funding comes from local sources then how is not apt to blame the local politicians for how shitty the schools are in a given city?

If local and state sources account for over 90% of school funding how is it not apt to point out in some major cities with shitty schools both the state and local government is almost completely controlled by the same party?

[Pin]

I don't understand what the confusion is about. If about half of school funding comes from local sources then how is not apt to blame the local politicians for how shitty the schools are in a given city?

If local and state sources account for over 90% of school funding how is it not apt to point out in some major cities with shitty schools both the state and local government is almost completely controlled by the same party?

Well - property value isn't something that a politician can control, so a smaller pool of money is a smaller pool of money, regardless of who decides what to do with it.

Comparing school ranking to which party controls the governorship of the state shows no real correlation between democratic and republican leadership and school system rankings that I can see.

The main deciding factor seems to be is there is a state tax, and if so, how much of one is there.

Side note, the list I'm using has Florida ranked as the 21st best school system in the country; which, as a resident, really surprises me.

[Tgo01]

Well - property value isn't something that a politician can control

Of course they can. When Detroit started it's downward trend towards shitville the local government could have encouraged growth of another industry, could have tried to attract businesses via tax incentives, they could have started to invest in infrastructure or something, they could have started to get serious about budget cuts and generous city employee retirement benefits. Or at the very least not be a bunch of corrupt pieces of shit politicians that steal a lot of the city's money. Lots of things they could have done.

But instead the people kept voting in the same people over and over again because they had a D after their name and over and over again these people kept stealing and stalling the eventual financial collapse of the city.

[Warriorbird]

Of course they can. When Detroit started it's downward trend towards shitville the local government could have encouraged growth of another industry, could have tried to attract businesses via tax incentives, they could have started to invest in infrastructure or something, they could have started to get serious about budget cuts and generous city employee retirement benefits. Or at the very least not be a bunch of corrupt pieces of shit politicians that steal a lot of the city's money. Lots of things they could have done.

But instead the people kept voting in the same people over and over again because they had a D after their name and over and over again these people kept stealing and stalling the eventual financial collapse of the city.

Obviously they should support people who'd do even less for them.

[Pin]

Of course they can. When Detroit started it's downward trend towards shitville the local government could have encouraged growth of another industry, could have tried to attract businesses via tax incentives, they could have started to invest in infrastructure or something, they could have started to get serious about budget cuts and generous city employee retirement benefits. Or at the very least not be a bunch of corrupt pieces of shit politicians that steal a lot of the city's money. Lots of things they could have done.

But instead the people kept voting in the same people over and over again because they had a D after their name and over and over again these people kept stealing and stalling the eventual financial collapse of the city.

Even if they did everything you prescribed, they can't dictate land value; nor can they control where people decide to live.

[Tgo01]

Even if they did everything you prescribed, they can't dictate land value; nor can they control where people decide to live.

Of course they can't dictate land value, my point was they could have tried to keep the city a worthwhile place to live so houses wouldn't lose so much value people can't even sell them for 1000 dollars.

[Back]

I think the main liberal argument is that maybe we should treat guns the way we treated alcohol and cars we could bring down the gun violence rate by 2/3rds over a few decades the same way we did drunk driving.

Most of us are not claiming there is one magic fix-all rule or law that can be passed. But what I and most would argue is there is more than likely a series of steps from different angles we can take that would possibly stem the tide of gun violence.


Which is why I'm not an advocate for taking gun away completely - the most agreed upon thing that most people are for are universal background checks; it doesn't infringe upon Constitutional rights.

Nicely said. As much as people make this about me it is about being sensible about guns. Repealing regulations does not seem to me to be a good course of action if as the administration claims America is in "carnage".

Someone asked if we regulate guns what about cars and alcohol? Well, we do. Thats why there are seat belts, safety standards, age limits, and BACs to name just a few.

[Tgo01]

Repealing regulations does not seem to me to be a good course of action if as the administration claims America is in "carnage".

This article is about someone receiving SSI for not being able to handle their own finances being affected. It's arbitrary and bullshit. This is no different than telling someone "Hey your lost your index finger on your dominant hand, now you're a liability with a gun so no more guns for you."


Someone asked if we regulate guns what about cars and alcohol? Well, we do. Thats why there are seat belts, safety standards, age limits, and BACs to name just a few.

I think you got that backwards; the argument made was since we do regulate cars and alcohol why don't we regulate firearms more, to which the answer is because owning a gun is a constitutional right.

Do it the proper way and get a new amendment that does away with second amendment and I won't bitch about these kinds of laws anymore. Well, not as much.

[Thondalar]

The US has a deeply flawed drug war and deeply flawed drug laws. Reform those and you might find some ability to address the "gang problem."

Agreed 100%. The internal "war on drugs" accounts for the vast majority of the "gun violence" statistics.

The average US citizen will never witness a gun being directly fired at themselves or someone else in their lifetime. People in certain areas will hear about it happening in their local area, and a fewer number of people will actually see it more than once in their lifetime. We will never be able to stop all of it...your petty magazine restrictions and "assault weapons" bans have proven time and again to have absolutely zero impact on anything.


I think the main liberal argument is that maybe we should treat guns the way we treated alcohol and cars we could bring down the gun violence rate by 2/3rds over a few decades the same way we did drunk driving.

Gun Violence, and crime in general, has already fallen by nearly that rate across the board over the last 2 decades. In places that have instituted more strict local gun laws but NOT instituted better policing practices, like Chicago, we see an increase in these violent crimes. In places like NYC that have instituted more strict local gun laws AND better policing practices, we see a drastic decrease in crime. In most other places that do not have more strict local gun laws, but do have better policing practices, we see a strong decrease in crime.

The "Universal Background Check" is a red herring. MOST people buy their guns from reputable dealer businesses, and you already have to jump through 100 hoops to buy a gun legally. Even being former law enforcement and a concealed carry permit holder, I still have to have a background check to buy a firearm...I just get to waive the idiotic waiting period once my check comes back.

The issue raised is the "private seller" situation, because private citizens are allowed to sell guns to each other without a background check. This is the gun equivalent of voter fraud. The number of crimes that come directly from these transactions is such a tiny fraction of the overall, and no law you could pass would change it in any way.

[Thondalar]

Actually it's all of us given that we're putting even more guns in the hands of people who are more likely to do bad things with them.

I bet I could kill more people with a rented U-haul than I could with an Ak-47. Where's the regulation on renting U-hauls?


They're not toys. They kill people. They kill people who don't own them. They kill people who do own them.

So do the chemicals under your sink. I bet you teach your kids not to drink those, right?


And over 30,000 people a year in this country are dying from them for no discernible benefit.

This is...a rather complex situation, but I'll try.

Firstly, I think a distinction MUST be drawn between gun homicides and gun suicides. While both result in death, only one of these things is something YOU should be worried about as a non-gun owner. I get that your heart bleeds for all and whatnot, and I get that having a firearm available makes suicide really easy, and you're stastically more likely to succeed at suicide if you have a gun...so what? You're perfectly fine with abortion, killing people before they have the chance to tell you if they want to be alive or not...why would you take that away from someone who has made that choice for themselves? Everything you're trying to "prevent" with the legislation you want is gun homicides...people using guns against other people. So, let us focus on that.

Gun homicides: 3.4 per 100,000. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) Opiod Overdose deaths: 5.9 per 100,000 (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)

Fact is, TOTAL gun deaths are a tiny fraction, less than 2%, of deaths in the US...gun HOMICIDES are less than half a percent, and 75% of those are focused in a few small areas of the Country.

Now that we have a better understanding of the "30,000 people" stat, let us move on to the next part of your statement..."no discernible benefit".

I can imagine it would be hard for you, in your ivory tower, to understand why anyone would want or need a gun. So, let us start on the macro level and work our way down. We'll start with the founding of the US, and the Constitution, and specifically the 2nd Amendment. I know you never learned this over the course of obtaining your 14 degrees, but the majority of the World used to be controlled by actual monarchies, oligarchies, totalitarian dictatorships...you had the people up top with all the armies and weapons, and the people at the bottom who served them, under force of arms.

The US was born in revolution, specifically a revolution against the British Empire, the largest and most powerful the world had ever seen. The Framers had a solid grasp of World History, and understood that a Nation of free peoples had to have arms to maintain their freedom...as much as I'm against the Bill of Rights, this was a driving force behind the 2nd Amendment...Free Peoples cannot maintain their freedom without force of arms, to fight the tyrants that would attempt to subjugate them.

This all sounds rather far-fetched in our Modern American world, but these sorts of armed conflicts occur in other Countries as I'm typing, and have occurred throughout human history. To imagine they couldn't occur in the US ever is pure ignorance...we're only 150 years removed from our last such incident. Although the "revolutionaries" of the Civil War lost that conflict, I agree wholeheartedly with some of the things that they were fighting for...but I also believe we came out stronger as a Nation because of it. Though it cost a great many lives, I wouldn't "take back" the Civil War if I could...it was a necessary watering of the tree of Liberty. On the flip side, we have well-documented examples of absolutely horrendous things committed by totalitarians against their own unarmed populace...situations that simply CAN NOT occur in the US now, BECAUSE of our armed populace.

In a similar vein, let us move on to the potentiality of a foreign invasion of US soil. I know you have full trust in US Military dominance, but if our military ever were to be defeated, it would fall on US citizens to defend the Home Turf. We can do that, because we're armed. I can hear you already..."what are you gonna do against tanks and bombs?" The Vietcong fought us to a standstill with flintlock rifles and punji pits. There are countless historical examples of armed citizens defending their home turf against a superior military force...and, according to you, we have "assault rifles", "military-grade weapons", etc etc...a Land War on US soil would be a complete nightmare for any foreign power...because of our armed populace.

Let us go a little more micro now, and talk about a personal right to self defense. I'm not sure if you believe in that, but I do. I believe that my body, my life, is sacred to me, and I have a right to defend my body and my life...a right that is inherent to my existence, and is not "granted" by any government or any other person. This should sound familiar to you, as I believe it is the same basis upon which you've formed your "choice" opinion.

Guns are a thing. They exist. Because they exist, and because someone else might have one, I should also have a right to have one, for the purpose of defense against others who have them. This is an equality issue, and a core tenet of freedom.

We'll move now to the topic of hunting. Believe it or not, a huge percentage of America doesn't get all of their meat from Alberstons and CostCo. While bow hunting is a thing, it limits range and is a much less efficient way of hunting, for many reasons. In many cases, especially with novice bow hunters, the animal in question suffers a great deal before they finally die...a well-placed neck or chest shot with a high-caliber rifle is almost instant death. I'm assuming you're a fan of animal rights, as I am...you would actually find a very strong ally in that with the hunting community, believe it or not. Hunters, as a whole, are dedicated conservationists. We would much rather cleanly kill and harvest these beautiful animals for personal consumption rather than let them starve to death over weeks of misery, and if the left would just throw out an olive branch or two, we could get together against the greater problem of Institutionalized Animal Cruelty otherwise known as Corporate Farming.

A very pressing issue right now in the Southeast US is the exploding feral hog population. Nature isn't all rainbows and Unicorns, its pretty fucking brutal. I'm considering purchasing a suppressed AR-platform in .300 BLK and starting a side-business culling local feral hog populations, and then using those hogs for event catering whole-hog BBQ...this gun I want to buy would be a necessary tool to accomplish this goal, but would be the poster-child for your anti-"big black gun" campaign. It even has a "silencer"!

The most micro of all, and my final argument...guns are fun. That's right, I said it. Guns are fucking fun. It is fun to go shooting, and it is fun not having to reload every 2 rounds. It is fun hitting a watermelon with a .357. It is fun hitting milk jugs filled with water with a .40. It is fun shooting bowling pins with a .45. It is fun shooting skeet with a 20 gauge. It is fun setting up random targets with your buddies and making bets on who can hit what with what. Don't try to take away my fun because a comparatively few can't handle the responsibility.

[Thondalar]

I didn't even bother pointing out the number of times guns have been used by private citizens to deter crime...mainly because nobody keeps statistics on that. We have the highly controversial Kleck study, and of course the NCVS...as much as I'd love the Kleck study to be accurate, I'm not even going to bother riding that pony. The NCVS has its own issues, but the numbers reported are at least more plausible than those from the Kleck study...let us go several steps further and assume that only 10% of the NCVS reports are true and accurate. That would still be over six thousand physical/property crimes prevented by defensive use of guns in that year.

[Neveragain]

Hunters, as a whole, are dedicated conservationists.

Not to detract from the conversation at hand but this caught my eye more than anything, mostly because it's a subject that's been on my mind lately. I really do tire of the self righteous attitude that the left takes on the environment when I know myself and many conservatives are avid conservationists. I just got done spending 7 months out in the Northwestern US and was appalled at the amount of resources that are being locked up under federal protection. There was a forest fire that burnt up ungodly amounts of timber and locals were complaining that the fire would have never spread like it did if more clearing had been done but federal law prevented it.

I would drive through these near abandoned logging and mining towns who's industry has been cut off by Federal land protection acts. What locals that did remain in these towns have been left near jobless, now mostly reliant on the occasional tourist that may need to stop in for gas or a bite to eat. The larger towns have had their housing prices explode because of people from the coastal cities buying up homes that they use 4 months out of the year but not adding to the local economies for the remaining 8 months, leaving only low wage service industry jobs.

Sorry man this is one subject that fucking pisses me off, we need to give these people back this land so they can get back to work. The whole "oh the environment" sob story is so blown out of proportion it nears on fiction.

Rant over, guns.

[Warriorbird]

Not to detract from the conversation at hand but this caught my eye more than anything, mostly because it's a subject that's been on my mind lately. I really do tire of the self righteous attitude that the left takes on the environment when I know myself and many conservatives are avid conservationists. I just got done spending 7 months out in the Northwestern US and was appalled at the amount of resources that are being locked up under federal protection. There was a forest fire that burnt up ungodly amounts of timber and locals were complaining that the fire would have never spread like it did if more clearing had been done but federal law prevented it.

I would drive through these near abandoned logging and mining towns who's industry has been cut off by Federal land protection acts. What locals that did remain in these towns have been left near jobless, now mostly reliant on the occasional tourist that may need to stop in for gas or a bite to eat. The larger towns have had their housing prices explode because of people from the coastal cities buying up homes that they use 4 months out of the year but not adding to the local economies for the remaining 8 months, leaving only low wage service industry jobs.

Sorry man this is one subject that fucking pisses me off, we need to give these people back this land so they can get back to work. The whole "oh the environment" sob story is so blown out of proportion it nears on fiction.

Rant over, guns.

This makes sense to some degree. Naturally I'm not thrilled with the idea of National Forests being sold.

[Neveragain]

This makes sense to some degree. Naturally I'm not thrilled with the idea of National Forests being sold.

Nobody is suggesting going in and clearing the entire Northwest out. They have test areas where they go in and partially clear, these areas look amazing and leave plenty of habitat. In Butte there is 1 mountain called the richest hill one earth, it has supplied something like 20% of the worlds copper and that's just one little tiny speck of land in the grand scheme of things. We haven't touched on the exploration of these areas because they are so remote and with today's technology we can get into these areas and safely exploit these resources without any impact on the habitat or environment.

The amount of jobs that would be created and the flood of resources on the market we would easily see an economic boon. If you have not seen the vastness of these areas and the resources just sitting there waiting to be harvested, one can not even imagine. I honestly had no idea until I was out there that it was such a large amount of land, we wouldn't even be anywhere near our National parks.

This is a google earth image of some of that area and you can see it's all been blocked from usage. Even with this image it doesn't put into scale how much land this is. We are fucking stupid if we don't do this, this is shovel ready jobs.

8352

If you want a closer look, use your own google earth and you can bring up the borders of these lands and zoom in.

[Warriorbird]

Nobody is suggesting going in and clearing the entire Northwest out. They have test areas where they go in and partially clear, these areas look amazing and leave plenty of habitat. In Butte there is 1 mountain called the richest hill one earth, it has supplied something like 20% of the worlds copper and that's just one little tiny speck of land in the grand scheme of things. We haven't touched on the exploration of these areas because they are so remote and with today's technology we can get into these areas and safely exploit these resources without any impact on the habitat or environment.

The amount of jobs that would be created and the flood of resources on the market we would easily see an economic boon. If you have not seen the vastness of these areas and the resources just sitting there waiting to be harvested, one can not even imagine. I honestly had no idea until I was out there that it was such a large amount of land, we wouldn't even be anywhere near our National parks.

This is a google earth image of some of that area and you can see it's all been blocked from usage. Even with this image it doesn't put into scale how much land this is. We are fucking stupid if we don't do this, this is shovel ready jobs.

8352

If you want a closer look, use your own google earth and you can bring up the borders of these lands and zoom in.

It varies by region. Some of our local conservatives have proposed clearing out the George Washington National Forest... which would be devastating to all that sportsmen love about our state.

I've also seen what development can do to Montana. I was a little kid in Grant Creek and it was wonderful. Now it is awful suburban crap.

[Neveragain]

It varies by region. Some of our local conservatives have proposed clearing out the George Washington National Forest... which would be devastating to all that sportsmen love about our state.

I've also seen what development can do to Montana. I was a little kid in Grant Creek and it was wonderful. Now it is awful suburban crap.

You're joking right? It's not crap at all, it's actually a nice little neighborhood. It opened some area for economic development, the Harley shop is pretty cool right there. What is that like a 5 mile stretch of land that's right next to the Rattlesnake which is pretty much untouched beyond that, clear up to the Canada border? I spent a lot of time in that area, there's mule deer all over the place. I mean I know you guys love trees more than humans.

I do know that families that have lived in that area for generations are none to pleased with the homeless shelter they built that has brought in a criminal element they never experienced in the past. None to pleased at all that junkies and bums gather around the courthouse all day waving their Bernie signs while holding their hands out for spare change.

[Warriorbird]

You're joking right? It's not crap at all, it's actually a nice little neighborhood. It opened some area for economic development, the Harley shop is pretty cool right there. What is that like a 5 mile stretch of land that's right next to the Rattlesnake which is pretty much untouched beyond that, clear up to the Canada border? I spent a lot of time in that area, there's mule deer all over the place. I mean I know you guys love trees more than humans.

I do know that families that have lived in that area for generations are none to pleased with the homeless shelter they built that has brought in a criminal element they never experienced in the past. None to pleased at all that junkies and bums gather around the courthouse all day waving their Bernie signs while holding their hands out for spare change.

You clearly don't know the difference.

[Ardwen]

Something like 70 percent of animals are expect to be endangered or extinct over the next 20 or so years, the vast majority due to habitat loss, we have far more available natural resources then we currently need destroying millions of acres of wilderness so multinational corporations can get richer is idiotic. Hell oil companies and miniing companies have millions of acres of leases already that they aren't working, how bout they use those first.