Tulsa shooting

[Dos Perros]

Now, in practical terms, the 2A became obsolete for that purpose the minute planes started carrying bombs and tanks were roaming around.

The Taliban disagrees lol.

 

[Newtosavage]

Maybe I was wrong to assume. But you asked me if I thought Trump was more pro gun control than Biden, so I assumed you didn't think that he was.

All I can do is pay attention to what people say. What Trump said was as directly anti-2A as literally anything I've heard Biden say at any point in his political career. There's really not a way to read into it. He said "take the guns first, go through due process second."

That's not an ambiguous statement.

Yup, he said that. Early in his presidency before he was "educated" to speak otherwise.

 

[Newtosavage]

The Taliban disagrees lol.

Perfect example actually. I'm glad you brought that up.

They can only "disagree" because our military didn't use all their available tools and we accepted different standards of warfare than they did. If we operated under "Tyranny" rules, as a true tyrannical government would, then the Taliban would have been made into glass at some point.

Next point.

 

[Eltigreblanco]

How can Canada have a high freedom index when they closed borders, and imprisoned citizens with Covid hotel/jails to quarantine incoming citizens. Laughable

Not to mention Basically went martial law over a traffic jam with truckers lol

Again I've done no research except for quick Google searches.

 

[Btaylor]

And I’m saying that some weapons were specifically designed for war and some are not. Wether we should be allowed to own them is another argument. I own several.

And I am not arguing that point. He specifically mentioned AR15 and 1911's both semi-auto's. So is that the definition? Why so much avoidance of specifically defining what he means with his argument?

 

[CoStick]

So when a doe with antlers is harvested, did she lack a strong family unit? Did she choose to grow horns? Kinda curious based on the discussion thus far.

 

[Wyobohunter]

Are you asserting that Trump was more 'gun control' than Biden?

Yes. He was.

 

[Macintosh]

Guess it's not clear to me why anyone is talking about weapons of war versus any other weapons--again, I think its distracting from the real solutions--and I'm not talking about data from any news outlet, I'm talking about direct from the researcher in a peer-reviewed publication. The overwhelming evidence I have seen indicates that when a weapon of war is no longer available, people in large numbers turn to the next-most effective tool. When that is no longer available, they turn to option C, then D, etc--and in large numbers. All of which tells me that focusing on the tool is simply kicking the can down the road and causing all of us to avoid coming up with any real solutions. Since this blossomed an additional several pages and it seems to address several posts since then, I'll quote my own post from several pages pack:

England already does have a rate of knife violence that is HIGHER than the rate of mass shootings in the US. Based on the pew research link and the 2020 numbers from the knife-violence link I posted above, the rate of knife violence in london alone, spread over the entire population of the UK (which would under-estimate the prevalence of this crime), was 2.42 incidences per 10,000 people (15.9thousand incidences across a population of 66 million), while the rate of mass shootings in the US is .0012 per 10,000 people (40 mass shootings in 2020 across a population of 329 million). Even if we combine gun murders and suicides from the pew link it's still less than the rate of knife crime (13.2 per 100,000=1.32 per 10,000). So where is the evidence that banning guns in the UK has resulted in lowering the rate of violent crimes? I know this isnt necessarily a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, but this is the sort of logic I'm talking about--the evidence I see does not support banning guns being anything of a solution, nor does it support guns being anything other than correlated by virtue of being the currently most-effective tool. The evidence I see is that using guns as the common denominator is causing us to take our eye off the ball. I understand what you are saying, my point is simply that if we continue to frame the issue around guns, then the solutions will always be focused on guns, and the evidence I see does not support that being effective--so I think framing the issue around guns is actively harming our ability to address the problems.

edit: I used the term mass shootings--I believe the 40 number is for "active shooter incidents". Mass shooting is misleading since it is defined as any incident where more than 3 or 4 people are shot, so it includes both active shooter incidents as well as drive-by shootings, etc.

 

[Dos Perros]

Yes. He was.

Why?

 

[BjornF16]

-Mental health care has been significantly reduced. Mostly thanks to the 1981 GOP.

False.

Primarily thanks to ACLU and bipartisan politics and the law of unintended consequences

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/02/04/fifty_years_of_failing_america039s_mentally_ill_301246.html

 

[CoStick]

Guess it's not clear to me why anyone is talking about weapons of war versus any other weapons--again, I think its distracting from the real solutions--and I'm not talking about data from any news outlet, I'm talking about direct from the researcher in a peer-reviewed publication. The overwhelming evidence I have seen indicates that when a weapon of war is no longer available, people in large numbers turn to the next-most effective tool. When that is no longer available, they turn to option C, then D, etc--and in large numbers. All of which tells me that focusing on the tool is simply kicking the can down the road and causing all of us to avoid coming up with any real solutions. Since this blossomed an additional several pages and it seems to address several posts since then, I'll quote my own post from several pages pack:

England already does have a rate of knife violence that is HIGHER than the rate of mass shootings in the US. Based on the pew research link and the 2020 numbers from the knife-violence link I posted above, the rate of knife violence in london alone, spread over the entire population of the UK (which would under-estimate the prevalence of this crime), was 2.42 incidences per 10,000 people (15.9thousand incidences across a population of 66 million), while the rate of mass shootings in the US is .0012 per 10,000 people (40 mass shootings in 2020 across a population of 329 million). Even if we combine gun murders and suicides from the pew link it's still less than the rate of knife crime (13.2 per 100,000=1.32 per 10,000). So where is the evidence that banning guns in the UK has resulted in lowering the rate of violent crimes? I know this isnt necessarily a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, but this is the sort of logic I'm talking about--the evidence I see does not support banning guns being anything of a solution, nor does it support guns being anything other than correlated by virtue of being the currently most-effective tool. The evidence I see is that using guns as the common denominator is causing us to take our eye off the ball. I understand what you are saying, my point is simply that if we continue to frame the issue around guns, then the solutions will always be focused on guns, and the evidence I see does not support that being effective--so I think framing the issue around guns is actively harming our ability to address the problems.

I agree, I think gun control backfired, but also created a mess similar to the issues we have with drugs now. Question is what to do.