Might as well share this here. I did this thing, with a twitter friend.



It's a tribute of sorts.

Santorum shows he's still an asshole, to put it lightly. I have no idea why CNN puts this person on screen.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/03/25/rick-santorum-criticizes-gun-control-marches-sotu.cnn

Graphic violence isn't part of the problem. Neither is the toxic emotional atmosphere for some kids in many JR and high schools. Social media basically leaving no safe places for marginalized kids and being a safe place for resentful disaffected kids has nothing to do with it.

Nope it's guns that are the problem. Every 13-year-old in the country knows that. Guns and the NRA. If we get rid of them then it will all be better. There will be no more gun violence at schools. That there will be violence still, even deadly violence, is of little importance. It won't be gun violence.

The the protest wasn't about violence or even gun violence, it was about guns. A symbol of evil to liberal non gun owners.

At least 120,000 murders since 2012, over half the people, victims and killers, 14 - 24. Of those most are male and over half of those are black and killed with in expensive hand guns. But there is a massive movement because under 200 school age kids have been killed in schools since 2012, not nearly all of them with AR15s. But AR15s are the problem. Three-hundred-seventy-five people killed with rifles, , 475 with clubs and hammers, 635 with hands and or feet, and close to 10,000 killed with guns other than rifles and shot guns. But AR15s are the problem.

It's fun watching old Men, in real time, believe that the World as they know it will forever be and can't change.

Oldskeptic wrote:Graphic violence isn't part of the problem. Neither is the toxic emotional atmosphere for some kids in many JR and high schools. Social media basically leaving no safe places for marginalized kids and being a safe place for resentful disaffected kids has nothing to do with it.

Nope it's guns that are the problem. Every 13-year-old in the country knows that. Guns and the NRA. If we get rid of them then it will all be better. There will be no more gun violence at schools. That there will be violence still, even deadly violence, is of little importance. It won't be gun violence.

The the protest wasn't about violence or even gun violence, it was about guns. A symbol of evil to liberal non gun owners.

At least 120,000 murders since 2012, over half the people, victims and killers, 14 - 24. Of those most are male and over half of those are black and killed with in expensive hand guns. But there is a massive movement because under 200 school age kids have been killed in schools since 2012, not nearly all of them with AR15s. But AR15s are the problem. Three-hundred-seventy-five people killed with rifles, , 475 with clubs and hammers, 635 with hands and or feet, and close to 10,000 killed with guns other than rifles and shot guns. But AR15s are the problem.

Whoa Nelly! Don't blow all that straw on one post. Pace yourself.

Oldskeptic wrote:Graphic violence isn't part of the problem. Neither is the toxic emotional atmosphere for some kids in many JR and high schools. Social media basically leaving no safe places for marginalized kids and being a safe place for resentful disaffected kids has nothing to do with it.

Nope it's guns that are the problem. Every 13-year-old in the country knows that. Guns and the NRA. If we get rid of them then it will all be better. There will be no more gun violence at schools. That there will be violence still, even deadly violence, is of little importance. It won't be gun violence.

The the protest wasn't about violence or even gun violence, it was about guns. A symbol of evil to liberal non gun owners.

At least 120,000 murders since 2012, over half the people, victims and killers, 14 - 24. Of those most are male and over half of those are black and killed with in expensive hand guns. But there is a massive movement because under 200 school age kids have been killed in schools since 2012, not nearly all of them with AR15s. But AR15s are the problem. Three-hundred-seventy-five people killed with rifles, , 475 with clubs and hammers, 635 with hands and or feet, and close to 10,000 killed with guns other than rifles and shot guns. But AR15s are the problem.

Well why bother studying cancer. It won't make it all better. People will still die from it. If we can't fix the problem overnight, then it's no use trying to even make it slightly better. Why bother having any laws, people will just break them anyway. Why bother eating dinner, we'll just be hungry again tomorrow. Why bother having children, they're just going to die anyway. It's not the weapons that make the US military the most powerful on the planet, it's the training of the soldiers. They'd be just as deadly if they were armed with forks. We have the right to keep and bear arms. It's been written in stone. Amendments aren't prone to amending, after all. Nuclear weapons are arms, why not let Joe citizen have those as well? He deserves to protect himself. It's our right to have nuclear weapons. Banning them from law-abiding private citizens won't save any lives. They can just keep them under the bed, ready to fire at the push of a button. What could go wrong?

Oldskeptic wrote:Graphic violence isn't part of the problem. Neither is the toxic emotional atmosphere for some kids in many JR and high schools. Social media basically leaving no safe places for marginalized kids and being a safe place for resentful disaffected kids has nothing to do with it.

Just try to go down that road and the same dumb fucks who masturbate in public over the Second Amendment would be holding whole new circle jerks over the First.

The_Piper wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:Graphic violence isn't part of the problem. Neither is the toxic emotional atmosphere for some kids in many JR and high schools. Social media basically leaving no safe places for marginalized kids and being a safe place for resentful disaffected kids has nothing to do with it.

Nope it's guns that are the problem. Every 13-year-old in the country knows that. Guns and the NRA. If we get rid of them then it will all be better. There will be no more gun violence at schools. That there will be violence still, even deadly violence, is of little importance. It won't be gun violence.

The the protest wasn't about violence or even gun violence, it was about guns. A symbol of evil to liberal non gun owners.

At least 120,000 murders since 2012, over half the people, victims and killers, 14 - 24. Of those most are male and over half of those are black and killed with in expensive hand guns. But there is a massive movement because under 200 school age kids have been killed in schools since 2012, not nearly all of them with AR15s. But AR15s are the problem. Three-hundred-seventy-five people killed with rifles, , 475 with clubs and hammers, 635 with hands and or feet, and close to 10,000 killed with guns other than rifles and shot guns. But AR15s are the problem.

Well why bother studying cancer. It won't make it all better. People will still die from it. If we can't fix the problem overnight, then it's no use trying to even make it slightly better. Why bother having any laws, people will just break them anyway. Why bother eating dinner, we'll just be hungry again tomorrow. Why bother having children, they're just going to die anyway. It's not the weapons that make the US military the most powerful on the planet, it's the training of the soldiers. They'd be just as deadly if they were armed with forks. We have the right to keep and bear arms. It's been written in stone. Amendments aren't prone to amending, after all. Nuclear weapons are arms, why not let Joe citizen have those as well? He deserves to protect himself. It's our right to have nuclear weapons. Banning them from law-abiding private citizens won't save any lives. They can just keep them under the bed, ready to fire at the push of a button. What could go wrong?

Oldskeptic wrote:

I think that this may be something of an emotional issue for you. I see rationalizations instead of facts and statistics.

Our Uk, Canadian, and Australian friends have a valid point about gun violence in their countries compared to ours. They have very little and have very strict gun regulations. We have lax gun regulation compared to theirs and much higher gun violence.

That said, the homicide rate in the US by gun is 90 times higher than in the UK, but the overall homicide rate is only 4 times higher. I have to ask if the prevalence of guns has something to do with this? Less guns less murder? or is something else going on?

The suicide rates in the US and the UK are near to equivalent yet in the US 300% more are by gunshot than in the UK. What does this say?

I don't think that we can ignore our European, Canadian, and Australian friends when the say that something is wrong here. My question is how to fix it?

Just saying that the US has too many guns doesn't work

Oldskeptic wrote:

If anyone wants to really attack the gun violence problem in the US then they have to be on the side of some drastic measures that most social justice warriors would find completely unacceptable. I'm talking about a nationally implemented stop and search policy aimed specifically at illegal weapons and their illegal possession. We'd have to lower the standard of probable cause for searches of persons and vehicles and do away with a distaste for profiling. We'd also have to have much harsher penalties for illegal gun possession and a no dealing down policy. If you are carrying an illegal gun then you go to prison for a hell of a long time with no early parole.

Make the penalty for the crime of having an illegal gun and or carrying it illegally so harsh that the risk out weighs any other consideration, and make the chances of being caught with an illegal gun very high by stop and search and yes profiling. Make the commission of any crime involving a gun a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole.

Oh, but that would just make our prisons more crowded! So fucking what? You want less gun violence don't you? At first sure, more violent offenders and potential violent offenders in prison, but after the message is received maybe actually less people in prison because less people are carrying illegal weapons that they can commit violent crimes with.

One objection I can hear coming is that a policy like this would be racially biased because it would put more blacks in prison than whites. This assumption might be correct, but if so would it be a sign of racism or a sign that more blacks carry illegal guns than whites do?

Any objection that a policy like this would target minorities unfairly admits that minorities are more likely to be carrying illegal guns, and is therefore self refuting. Any argument that says, "Yeah, I had an illegal gun but I was searched unfairly," is refuted by the fact that an illegal gun was found. And if you make this policy specif to illegal guns where other contraband or illegal substances are not admissible in court for prosecution of other crimes then the objection of legal fishing is avoided.

Anyone that pontificates on gun control without these kinds of measures is just taking a piss in the wind. They are not serious about addressing the real problems with gun violence in the US. They are talking about making law abiding citizens into law abiding citizens adhering to more laws, not trying to get rid of illegal guns on the street which is where the problem is.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Requiring everyone that sells a gun to perform a background check before they sell a gun? Oh my!

What the fuck is the use of background checks if someone can avoid a background check simply by going to a gun show or a yard sale?

Anyone saying that they don't want background checks is admitting that it is perfectly fine with them for people with mental disorders or felony convictions or a history of family violence to buy as many guns as they want.

Oldskeptic wrote:

I'm in agreement with the Home Office's Damian Green at least on rights vs. privileges where guns are concerned. I don't think that there is a constitutional protected right to own guns in the US. It's a privilege that if abused can be taken away. The question is should that privilege be taken away from everyone because of the actions of a few?

Oldskeptic wrote:

That there is a constitutional right for private citizens to own a gun, even for personal protection, is not expressed anywhere in the constitution or the bill of rights. The 2nd amendment is ambiguous at best on this matter.

In Virginia we have fire marshals. They do routine inspections on public buildings as well as residential. If they notice anything peculiar about a private residence they can indeed request a warrant and search the building. In fact, apartments this happens twice a year. The fire department schedules a 6 month inspection with my apartment unit and makes sure the smoke detector is function and that the electrical components to the property are not faulty or likely to cause fire. It is a proactive work by the state to make sure I as a private citizen am not just unplugging my smoke alarm just because I dislike the noise. Violation of fire codes is serious.

We as a people tend to accept inspections like that as not violating the 4th amendment. There is a warrant and there is reasonable means of why they are doing the inspection. The same can be held true with firearms and storage laws.

Hell, Chesterfield County, my home county, has a license plate inspector who goes around and checks that a) all plates are current and registered and b) all personal property tax is paid on the vehicles. We accept these kind of regulations because they make sure that overall public domain is safer.

If I had firearms it would not be unreasonable nor unconstitutional to set up monthly, tri-monthly, or yearly inspections with a sheriff's deputy making sure all firearms are safe and secure in a state approved storage unit and that they are properly stored.

The paranoia that this would create a police state is rather unfounded. Generally the people against such things are worried the cops will find something else while doing the inspection: e.g. drugs, or illegal activity.

Yes, it can have the adverse affect on increase in racist cops disproportionately targeting minorities. That is also an issue that needs further addressing, but which I have noticed you tend to take a lax position on in relevant threads to that subject matter.

Yes, illegal gun possession should be a steeper punishment. It worked in Richmond, but the statistics are not clear cut. Violent crime did decline overall as the punishment was increased for illegal gun ownership. So correlation cannot equal causation.

Honestly, its just headache inducing. I have been listening to people oversimplify and overcomplicate this issue on social media and here. But for the most part the more liberal members on this site are not just saying, "America has too many guns"

But the more centrist members are saying, "Its too complex to fix so "

Oldskeptic wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote[i]:

I think that this may be something of an emotional issue for you. I see rationalizations instead of facts and statistics.

Our Uk, Canadian, and Australian friends have a valid point about gun violence in their countries compared to ours. They have very little and have very strict gun regulations. We have lax gun regulation compared to theirs and much higher gun violence.

That said, the homicide rate in the US by gun is 90 times higher than in the UK, but the overall homicide rate is only 4 times higher. I have to ask if the prevalence of guns has something to do with this? Less guns less murder? or is something else going on?

Yes, something else is going on: mathematics.

Imagine two countries both have non-firearm homicide of around 0.9 per 100,000 per year. On top of that the first country has gun homicide at around 0.05 per 100,000 per year for a total of around 0.95 per 100,000 per year, and the second has gun homicide at around 4 per 100,000 per year, for a total of around 4.9 per year. So in this example an 80 times higher gun homicide rate in the second country would lead to a total homicide rate around 5 times higher.

This is just simple mathematics.

It's also pretty close to the actual numbers for the UK and the US, certainly close enough to explain that what you're finding counterintuitive about the total homicide ratio not not approximating the gun homicide ratio. You wouldn't expect those two numbers to be similar unless the US's non-firearm homicide rate was also massively higher than the UK's, which it isn't.

Nice

Remington is going down the toilet?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-cana ... ow_twitter

Love the slogan "There should be a background check before the NRA is allowed to buy a senator"!

Looks like there's been an upswell of first time voters due to the marches.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa- ... KKBN1H00S0

Oldskeptic wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:

I think that this may be something of an emotional issue for you. I see rationalizations instead of facts and statistics.

Our Uk, Canadian, and Australian friends have a valid point about gun violence in their countries compared to ours. They have very little and have very strict gun regulations. We have lax gun regulation compared to theirs and much higher gun violence.

That said, the homicide rate in the US by gun is 90 times higher than in the UK, but the overall homicide rate is only 4 times higher. I have to ask if the prevalence of guns has something to do with this? Less guns less murder? or is something else going on?

The suicide rates in the US and the UK are near to equivalent yet in the US 300% more are by gunshot than in the UK. What does this say?

I don't think that we can ignore our European, Canadian, and Australian friends when the say that something is wrong here. My question is how to fix it?

Just saying that the US has too many guns doesn't work

Just saying that the US has too many guns does work. How in the hell does Maine have a higher homicide rate than the UK? Maine has one of the lowest homicide rates in the US. The UK has several large cities, and a shitload of suburbs. Maine has no large cities and only a handful of suburban-sized towns. The UK has shitloads of ethnic diversity, Maine has nearly none. The UK has a relatively high crime rate vs Maine. I don't find the minute "firearm homicide" rates in those countries very compelling either, I'm only interested in the total number, because dead is dead. Maine's rate is from a much smaller sample size, but over the past 20 years it's varied between 1.2-2.3.

I've heard some good ideas that will help us, without giving up people's blessed 2nd amendment rights. We can get that number lower in the US by
closing the gun show/yard sale loophole
adopting safe storage laws with strict penalties
registering guns and licensing gun owners like we do with automobiles
If the gun is stolen and used in a crime, charging the owner with a civil penalty or crime, if the gun was carelessly stored.
universally requiring background checks
raising the age to purchase or own any firearm to 21
making "assault-style weapons" more difficult to obtain

These aren't really much of an infringement on one's rights, in the name of safety.
Obviously there will still be illegal guns out there. Obviously there will still be gun homicides. Over time the amount of illegal guns will decrease, if it's harder to steal one, and harder to buy one legally without having a name tied to that gun.
If these measures only reduce the homicide rate by 15%, that's a lot fewer homicides. Worth it in my opinion. Lots of other people's too. I think the reduction will be much more substantial, personally.
I've never said to ban guns or knock on people's doors to take them back. But do these things above and it will help.
We've reached the requisite number of dead kids to think about doing some fucking thing to lower that number. Not just school shootings, but ones like I mentioned upthread: kid gets hold of daddy's gun and blows away sister/friend/mother, etc. This shit is unacceptable.

What is so magical about the age of 21? I’m expected as a US citizen to be a full adult with adult responsibilities at 18 and yet don’t have access to full rights and privileges until 21?

Like that will be full of legal complications. You cannot restrict someone their rights simply due to their age. That’s discrimination.

If you think teenagers are too immature/not mentally developed enough to own a gun at 18, but think they are mature enough to handle a motor vehicle, be tried as an adult in court for making stupid decisions, and able to make legal contracts such as signing a lease or purchasing a House then there are some arbitrary rules being tossed around.

If you make a right accessible at the age of 21 then it bears to folllw you should make the age of majority 21. Meaning you cannot sign up for the military until 21; you cannot smoke or drink until 21, etc.

willhud9 wrote:What is so magical about the age of 21? I’m expected as a US citizen to be a full adult with adult responsibilities at 18 and yet don’t have access to full rights and privileges until 21?

Like that will be full of legal complications. You cannot restrict someone their rights simply due to their age. That’s discrimination.

If you think teenagers are too immature/not mentally developed enough to own a gun at 18, but think they are mature enough to handle a motor vehicle, be tried as an adult in court for making stupid decisions, and able to make legal contracts such as signing a lease or purchasing a House then there are some arbitrary rules being tossed around.

If you make a right accessible at the age of 21 then it bears to folllw you should make the age of majority 21. Meaning you cannot sign up for the military until 21; you cannot smoke or drink until 21, etc.

I thought drinking age was 21 in most states.

Posted on the Facebook page of Iowan Republican, Steve King.