I’m assuming those people can get other jobs. I mean jobs would be created if we made heroin legal and produced it here in America.
Does that make it a good idea?
What are the really bad outcomes of making it more difficult for bad people to purchase weapons? Or of limiting the total number of weapons people have? Or of limiting the amount of ammunition before someone must reload?
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they’re unemployed for a stretch. It’s safe to assume that they were working there because it was either what they wanted to be doing or it was the best job they could get. McDonalds is always looking for people with decades of gunsmithing experience, after all.
Good question, but not in scope of this thread.
What’s the actual policy you’re talking about with this?
See above. What do you think is a reasonable policy?
I’m not sure how you intend to do this, other than pass a magazine ban and hope that someone can’t find one that already exists or uncover the secret technology of putting a spring inside of a box. Again, policy specifics make for a better discussion.
I wouldn’t say that. You just tend to shut down conversation with me when I ask thing that would require thinking it through in detail. Like recently when I asked what you’d like the Dems in Congress to be doing with their time since impeachment was such a horribad idea.
This is probably overly conservative.
This obviously doesn’t detail out the type of rifles, but we’re probably looking at closer to 25% ‘assault’ rifles. Total sales EG 2015 9.3M manufac, 343k export (lol), 5.1M import. So net ~14M+ guns in America every year. Murica just loves the shit out of guns.
My point is that businesses stop all the time in America and people end up finding new jobs.
Bringing that up was to show that simply because something creates an economic impact doesn’t make it good.
Plenty of them floated out you can read about. I don’t have a favorite. I’m just not sure where the really bad outcomes come into play.
The irony of the rifle ban debate is really funny to me. On one hand, rifles are not now, and never have been the problem with American gun violence. Even if we’re blaming the type of gun being used, Dems are basically blaming Teslas for the existing of speeding tickets. Blaming the cars with the ability to go fast but in reality are pulling the minority of tickets seems pretty fuckin stupid to me.
But on the other side, the GOP can’t actually scare tactic people into thinking very bad outcomes would result from rifle bans. They’re such a minimal part of any aspect of home defense, conceal carry uses, etc that they just don’t represent enough of a chunk to really mean “bad outcomes are coming.”
If we banned all pistols, THEN bad outcomes are coming. 100% in my mind.
Banning the guns, that everyone already admits aren’t being used frequently in anything (attack, defense, etc) is just silly.
Agreed.
Yes folks, I just revived this thread.
After the Canada thing we had the other week, the Trudeau government just outlawed assault type weapons, the ones intended to kill humans in numbers quickly.
Andrew Scheer, of the federal Conservative Party, just echoed an impression of the ideas posted above, that law abiding citizens are going to have to give up long guns, and that doing so is off mark.
My feelings:
Odds are very low you get injured or killed in a mass shooting. Guns age well and a ban on guns doesn’t eliminate guns. Guns have legitimate use for both hunting and home/self defense.
The VAST majority of gun owners own guns for recreation including hunting. Involving a gun in a confrontation dramatically increases the odds of a serious injury. The 2nd should have been phased out decades ago as a right, it should be a privilege. The NRA has an outrageously large influence in govt considering how small their actual supporters number.
People will pick a side of this issue, and be a dick about it.
I think the 1st should be phased out as a right. We’ll give the executive branch the authority to issue speech privilege cards (covering the press as well). We obviously don’t care about assembly and we’ll declare atheism as the national religion. Utopia!
In Utopia, all religions were allowed but atheism was not.
@twojarslave In case you were not aware
Trooper Says Maine State Police Illegally Collected Data On Gun Owners – Bearing Arms
Time to revive this thread after Buffalo and Uvalde mass shooting tragedies.
/discuss policy
I wanted to reply specifically to this notion in this thread.
The low end consumer are exactly the people who will benefit from gun ownership the most. There are way, way more “low end consumers” who just want to be left alone physically than there are “low end consumers” who want to use guns to take something from someone else.
Guns are the only thing keeping our women from being nearly helpless. I could go on and on about other benefits of guns, but that’s good enough reason for me.
Like most progressive policies, progressive gun policies work to the detriment of normal everyday people who would just like to have access to the only “fire extinguisher” that reliably works on violent people.
Of course, no progressive gun policy would even slightly deprive a single elite person from armed protection.
We both know they wish it weren’t that way; but it’s not their fault that they’re vastly superior beings, and they need to be protected so that they can protect you.
Put this opinion on live TV and watch the world call you racist. I don’t think this is racist, but who do you think it will affect the most?
(I advise you don’t answer that question)
Still, it would be MASSIVELY entertaining to watch the liberal media do a full 180 on gun control because a proposed policy disproportionately affects POC.
How about a policy to allow all law abiding citizens over 18 open carry, if a nutjob sees others carrying he may think twice before acting violently
Or a policy that allows teachers and school administrators arm themselves
gun free zones are a target and does not work
That wouldn’t happen. They’d just say we need to eliminate civilian-owned guns entirely because, among other reasons, they’re contributing to inequality. They can twist their message however they need to, to accomplish their goals. It’s important to remember that they don’t give a damn about any group except to the extent they can use that group to accomplish their goals.
This article briefly outlines the evidence in support of four specific policy changes:
As long as we can apply the same logic and restrictions to voting.