Guns are still America’s religion

[JayMysteri0]

Lets Hope they are sued into oblivion.​

Maker of rifle used by Texas school gunman posted ad featuring kid days before slaughter​

Maker of rifle used by Texas school gunman posted ad featuring kid days before slaughter

In the attached photo, a boy wearing a T-shirt that reads #Rascal is seen sitting cross-legged looking down at the scoped firearm with a full magazine lying in front of him. An adult’s finger is po…

nypost.com

View attachment 14421

But it's for sport, it's for hunting, it's for...

We know what it's for.

Part of what helped the Sandy Hook families win their suit, was based on Remington's marketing. Sue them into the pavement.

 

[SuperMatt]

This is one of those situations where you’re talking last me rather than at me… This isn’t the position I would have expected from you. I’m not surprised at totally twisting what I said into a pretzel, but I am surprised you would be against more restriction.

The government is spying on who? Themselves? They’re the ones already holding the records. Protecting citizens from what? Buying guns they shouldn’t have?

[Again, to be clear, my suggestion is only applies to guns, not employment or necessarily future prosecutions (BTW juvenile records can be unsealed for reasons including future prosecutions and jobs that require an FBI background check ie police officers, military, etc and of course the Patriot Act- there’s some legit spying for you)]

My primary suggestion essentially already exists in some states come to find out. In California people who commit certain juvenile offenses are barred from gun ownership until the age of 30. Apparently some states have laws barring offenders who committed crimes that would be considered a felony as an adult. Are these states spying- particularly when such restrictions are being applied proactively, when the person is convicted.

Regardless, such background check systems don’t have to divulge details of the records, only whether the applicant is eligible or not.

Also worth noting not all states automatically seal juvenile records at age 18 or will not seal all of them.

And no, I did not propose a “minority report system”. My point about using data to create “guidelines” means using statistics to determine what crimes or patterns of crimes lead to high risk and what amount of time or age is best to allow consideration for gun ownership to minimize risk that the gun would be used in a crime. Such guidelines would be used to inform policy. Not to create some algorithm that creates a individualized decision for each applicant. I didn’t realize using risk assessment to optimize and justify laws was such a radical and controversial idea.

When it comes to purchasing a gun why is it that all juvenile records should be more protected than mental health records (which are only disclosed to the NICS system in extremely limited cases).

So you want to make buying guns “as difficult as possible” but don’t think relevant juvenile records (at the least violence, threats, gun possession, gang involvement) should be relevant in the background process? So presumably a kid with a concerning record, turns 18 2-3 years later, record is wiped, and now he can buy a gun. That makes no sense to me.

How many of the mass shooters had a juvenile criminal record?

What is the racial demographic of those with juvenile criminal records? How many majority-black schools have police officers in the school vs how many majority-white schools have police in there?

Due to extreme racial disparities in the criminal justice system, Such a policy will disproportionately deprive black people of their 2nd amendment rights.

And it wouldn’t have prevented most mass shootings, done predominantly by white men with no criminal records.

Now, perhaps such a policy could reduce gun violence overall, since if we make the net wide enough, we could prevent millions of people from buying guns based on their actions as kids.

But all of it still leaves the elephant in the room: military-grade weapons can be bought freely by just about anybody. Kyle Rittenhouse borrowed a gun. Semi-automatic weapons shouldn’t be ubiquitous… and when they are? Well, we see the results on the news every single week.

Red flag laws might be a small part of a solution, but there are far better steps that don’t involve holding juvenile records over people’s heads until their 30s. Because we KNOW who that will target. A black kid who got in a fight at an overly-policed school and ended up with a criminal record… while at another school, a white kid in a similar fight got an afternoon in detention instead.

Gun violence is literally the #1 cause of death for children in America. The idea that we can fix that by keeping guns away from the ”bad guys” is a fantasy, meant to protect gun manufacturer profits.

 

[Spike]

Nope. It was to allow citizens to rise up against a tyrannical government. Remember, most of these colonists fled an oppressive King in England and were leery of government. Remember Paul Revere? He was riding to alert the citizens that the Redcoats were coming and the reason they were coming was to take the citizen's guns.

Here you go... https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment

 

[fooferdoggie]

But it's for sport, it's for hunting, it's for...

We know what it's for.

Part of what helped the Sandy Hook families win their suit, was based on Remington's marketing. Sue them into the pavement.

yep this is so blatant it should be easy.

 

[SuperMatt]

Here you go... https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment

A great reminder that conservatives and the NRA are FOR gun restrictions when enough black people are openly carrying them around.

And the police did not like having these aggressive Black men and women doing that work of policing the police. And the response was a thing called the Mulford Act, and the Mulford Act set out to ban open carrying of weapons. And it was drafted by a conservative assemblyman in California with the support and help of an NRA representative and eagerly signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan as a way to make illegal what the Panthers were legally doing.

 

[Yoused]

Red flag laws might be a small part of a solution, but there are far better steps that don’t involve holding juvenile records over people’s heads until their 30s. Because we KNOW who that will target.

Well, the thing about gun violence is that it involves guns. Who has the guns? We are not allowed to know that. The NRA has fought very had to make sure that this information is extremely difficult to obtain. Because, privacy. Or something.

If we all had access to gun ownership information as easily as we have access to gun ownership, it might be more practical to keep an eye on who the next shootemup nutcase might be. But the gun (manufacturers) lobby insists an the privacy of its customers. Because, reasons.

(And, yes, I understand the concern about being targeted for theft. On the other hand, it seems odd that you have purchased 46 AR-15s yet do not seem to own any and have never bought more than two small boxes of ammo.)

 

[Herdfan]

That’s not the stated purpose of the amendment… written into the amendment itself. The stated purpose is for the “security of the state,” not for armed rebellion. If you look beyond just the text and at a bit of history, the idea of the 2nd amendment was to give states the ability to defend themselves, as they questioned the ability of the federal government to protect them well enough by itself.

It was never meant as a way for a group of citizens to rise up against the American government. Such a belief is dangerous and contrary to history. In my opinion, that mentality, pushed by gun lovers for decades, directly led to a mob of people thinking it was their right and duty to storm the Capitol, which was, in their eyes, representative of a ”tyrannical government” because they voted for the minority candidate in the most recent election.

Republicans calling Biden a tyrant + NRA messaging that the 2nd amendment is meant for them to overturn a tyrannical government? Sounds like a recipe for armed rebellion. This nonsense, not based in history, needs to stop.

And don’t forget, until 2008, court precedent made the 2nd amendment officially a collective right, not an individual one. And that 2008 decision was the narrowest possible (5-4) SCOTUS vote.

You can interpret The Federalist 46 how you want and I will interpret it as I want. But one of the purposes of the 2A is to give local governments the power to rise up against a tyrannical federal government. It was written by Madison who also proposed the 2A.

And before anyone starts in on the citizens can't go against tanks, you must not know ANYONE in the military. There is no way they will turn on their own citizens. They will join the citizens.

 

[Herdfan]

A great reminder that conservatives and the NRA are FOR gun restrictions when enough black people are openly carrying them around.

I am not. The more legal minority gun owners, the better.

 

[JayMysteri0]

You can interpret The Federalist 46 how you want and I will interpret it as I want. But one of the purposes of the 2A is to give local governments the power to rise up against a tyrannical federal government. It was written by Madison who also proposed the 2A.

I don't think Madison being the guy who proposed 2A, is quite the counter against it's use to continue or for slavery you imagine it is.

And before anyone starts in on the citizens can't go against tanks, you must not know ANYONE in the military. There is no way they will turn on their own citizens. They will join the citizens.

Then what are the guns for? Politicians in business suits who go too far? That's a dangerous place to be.

Having known a few ( including family ) in the military, I know full well they may go against citizens. Some reluctantly, some not. Dependent on their interpretation of "their own citizens". Which for some differs from others. If you don't believe me, there's quite a few ex military ( oath keepers, 1%ers, and more for example ) who still have brothers actively serving. YOUR experience with the military & those in it, may differ than others.

 

[Yoused]

from the first draft
Art. 5. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.​

Kind of reads a little differently from what was adopted.

 

[SuperMatt]

But one of the purposes of the 2A is to give local governments the power to rise up against a tyrannical federal government

That‘s not what it says. The notion was that the state leaders were worried that the federal government wouldn’t do enough to protect them from other threats. Not that the federal government itself was a threat.

And we did once have a civil war, of local militias fighting against the “tyrannical” federal government who wanted to free their slaves. How did that work out? And is it a coincidence that there is a huge crossover of gun-rights activists and confederate flag flyers? Just something to consider.

But even if I were to buy into that interpretation, why shouldn’t all gun owners be required to join a local government militia if that’s the purpose of the 2A?

 

[Herdfan]

140,00/95,000* vs 45,000

Alcohol related deaths vs gun related deaths per year.

If everyone is actually concerned about gun deaths, then we need ban alcohol as well. And that number doesn't even take into consideration the number of families destroyed by alcohol which will far outnumber families destroyed by guns (for reasons other than death).

So I am looking forward to everyone explaining why these deaths are OK and alcohol shouldn't be banned but guns should be.

Both have legitimate reasons to exist when used properly and responsibly, and both can have tragic results when used improperly or irresponsibly. And just like guns, anyone can buy alcohol when they simply manage to breathe air for 7,665 days. For every argument about how easy guns are to get, substitute alcohol for guns.

So if you are truly concerned about the deaths of innocent people, then you should absolutely advocate for banning alcohol.

Some more numbers.

Of the gun deaths:

54% were suicides ( I wonder how many people would have simply found another way)
43% were murders (How many of these were criminal vs criminal and not innocent bystanders or other victims)
3% were accidental, police related or undetermined.


Of alcohol deaths (hard to use percentages here given the disparate number who die due to alcohol)

10,842 died in car accidents, of which 61% of kids who died in alcohol related crashes, were in the car with the drunk driver
69.7% died of liver disease while 23.4% died from neuropsychiatric disorders (27.4%), such as alcohol dependence
64.9% of deaths occurred in people under 60 years of age, so not older people who were going to die in a few years anyway

And how many gun deaths were the result of alcohol? I realize this is a chicken/egg scenario, but I would put my money on alcohol being more relevant factor.

One thing to note, our friends across the pond think the USA has a gun culture that they don't understand. We also have an alcohol culture they probably won't understand either. In cases where the deaths in which alcohol was a “necessary cause” occurred in three of the most populated countries: the United States (36.9%), Brazil (24.8%) and Mexico (18.4%). Why is the USA so much higher?

* CDC says 140,000, NIH says 95,000. Big discrepancy and no idea why.


So you want my guns, I want your alcohol. And if we both get our way, I will save more lives than you will.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I am not. The more legal minority gun owners, the better.

and the more the racists il freak out and attack them. and even in the right far more chance of losing to the law.

 

[SuperMatt]

140,00/95,000* vs 45,000

Alcohol related deaths vs gun related deaths per year.

If everyone is actually concerned about gun deaths, then we need ban alcohol as well. And that number doesn't even take into consideration the number of families destroyed by alcohol which will far outnumber families destroyed by guns (for reasons other than death).

So I am looking forward to everyone explaining why these deaths are OK and alcohol shouldn't be banned but guns should be.

Both have legitimate reasons to exist when used properly and responsibly, and both can have tragic results when used improperly or irresponsibly. And just like guns, anyone can buy alcohol when they simply manage to breathe air for 7,665 days. For every argument about how easy guns are to get, substitute alcohol for guns.

So if you are truly concerned about the deaths of innocent people, then you should absolutely advocate for banning alcohol.

Some more numbers.

Of the gun deaths:

54% were suicides ( I wonder how many people would have simply found another way)
43% were murders (How many of these were criminal vs criminal and not innocent bystanders or other victims)
3% were accidental, police related or undetermined.


Of alcohol deaths (hard to use percentages here given the disparate number who die due to alcohol)

10,842 died in car accidents, of which 61% of kids who died in alcohol related crashes, were in the car with the drunk driver
69.7% died of liver disease while 23.4% died from neuropsychiatric disorders (27.4%), such as alcohol dependence
64.9% of deaths occurred in people under 60 years of age, so not older people who were going to die in a few years anyway

And how many gun deaths were the result of alcohol? I realize this is a chicken/egg scenario, but I would put my money on alcohol being more relevant factor.

One thing to note, our friends across the pond think the USA has a gun culture that they don't understand. We also have an alcohol culture they probably won't understand either. In cases where the deaths in which alcohol was a “necessary cause” occurred in three of the most populated countries: the United States (36.9%), Brazil (24.8%) and Mexico (18.4%). Why is the USA so much higher?

* CDC says 140,000, NIH says 95,000. Big discrepancy and no idea why.


So you want my guns, I want your alcohol. And if we both get our way, I will save more lives than you will.

I think I got this as a chain email from somebody a couple years ago.

 

[JayMysteri0]

140,00/95,000* vs 45,000

Alcohol related deaths vs gun related deaths per year.

If everyone is actually concerned about gun deaths, then we need ban alcohol as well. And that number doesn't even take into consideration the number of families destroyed by alcohol which will far outnumber families destroyed by guns (for reasons other than death).

So I am looking forward to everyone explaining why these deaths are OK and alcohol shouldn't be banned but guns should be.

Both have legitimate reasons to exist when used properly and responsibly, and both can have tragic results when used improperly or irresponsibly. And just like guns, anyone can buy alcohol when they simply manage to breathe air for 7,665 days. For every argument about how easy guns are to get, substitute alcohol for guns.

So if you are truly concerned about the deaths of innocent people, then you should absolutely advocate for banning alcohol.

Some more numbers.

Of the gun deaths:

54% were suicides ( I wonder how many people would have simply found another way)
43% were murders (How many of these were criminal vs criminal and not innocent bystanders or other victims)
3% were accidental, police related or undetermined.


Of alcohol deaths (hard to use percentages here given the disparate number who die due to alcohol)

10,842 died in car accidents, of which 61% of kids who died in alcohol related crashes, were in the car with the drunk driver
69.7% died of liver disease while 23.4% died from neuropsychiatric disorders (27.4%), such as alcohol dependence
64.9% of deaths occurred in people under 60 years of age, so not older people who were going to die in a few years anyway

And how many gun deaths were the result of alcohol? I realize this is a chicken/egg scenario, but I would put my money on alcohol being more relevant factor.

One thing to note, our friends across the pond think the USA has a gun culture that they don't understand. We also have an alcohol culture they probably won't understand either. In cases where the deaths in which alcohol was a “necessary cause” occurred in three of the most populated countries: the United States (36.9%), Brazil (24.8%) and Mexico (18.4%). Why is the USA so much higher?

* CDC says 140,000, NIH says 95,000. Big discrepancy and no idea why.


So you want my guns, I want your alcohol. And if we both get our way, I will save more lives than you will.

What we are concerned with is the abominable realization that gun deaths exceeded automobile deaths as the leading cause of death of children.

Guns. Not alcohol. Not automobiles. Guns.

Guns are being used to create the leading form of death for children. A cause of death that has possible solutions, but because of politicians wanting a check, refuse to do what is necessary to protect those children. Because of a fetish hidden behind a right, guns are a rising cause of death. A cause that terrifies everyone.

A sort of okay try at a deflection though that's been tried before.

 

[SuperMatt]

Ted Cruz and Donald Trump piled up a bunch of lies and misleading statements at the NRA convention.

Fact-Checking Trump and Cruz at the N.R.A. Convention

The former president and the Texas senator made inaccurate or misleading claims about the efficacy of gun restrictions, gun ownership trends and school shootings.

www.nytimes.com

(paywall removed)

Gotta love Ted Cruz saying that the handgun ban in Chicago didn’t prevent murders there…

Gun bans do not work. Look at Chicago. If they worked, Chicago wouldn’t be the murder hellhole that it has been for far too long.

Um…

The Supreme Court nullified that handgun ban a decade ago.

Also, the 3 top cities for gun murders are in states with permissive gun laws: Jackson, Mississippi, Gary, Indiana, and St. Louis, Missouri.

 

[Herdfan]

I think I got this as a chain email from somebody a couple years ago.

Then you are mistaken. I typed every single line of that up myself.

 

[Herdfan]

A sort of okay try at a deflection though that's been tried before.

It's not deflection. If you truly care about the human toll of a product, then you need to care about alcohol as much as guns. If not, then you simply don't like guns and only care about the human toll when it benefits you.

As for deaths from automobiles, we NEED them. No one needs alcohol.

 

[Yoused]

As for deaths from automobiles, we NEED them. No one needs alcohol.

We have had automobiles for about 130 years, alcohol for probably 40 or 60 times that long. We got by fine without automobiles for a very, very long time and probably will again before too long. Alcohol is an optional cultural affect that we can get along without, but banning it (or cannibis, or opium or what you will) has not worked well.

As far as banning guns, that is not part of the conversation. You suggested that, Mr. Strawdaddy.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Also, a common rebut to those attempts at tying

It's not deflection. If you truly care about the human toll of a product, then you need to care about alcohol as much as guns. If not, then you simply don't like guns and only care about the human toll when it benefits you.

As for deaths from automobiles, we NEED them. No one needs alcohol.

Yes, it is a deflection.

It's an idea that one can't be concerned about one thing unless they concerned about another thing. If that is addressed, then one must be concerned with another thing. Then another thing. Then another thing. So on & so one. All the while nothing is done about the original thing, in the name of the latest deflection brought up by those who don't want the original issue addressed.

That's also ignoring as I tried to point a rather tired & repeated point that is almost at this point a cut & paste from another umpteen unoriginal reddit thread.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1530261919864483841/

I'll also skip to the next eventual talking point about gun laws & Chicago, which was addressed & debunked earlier with the post about 45 & Cruz lying at the NRA soiree

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1530261702830194688/

It seems the only time some people give a shit about alcohol & automobile deaths is when someone gets shot. How does that make sense? Unless it doesn't, and it's just another deflection.