Politics Gunman opens fire at White House Correspondents Dinner (2 Viewers)

[BigGameDamian]

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[riverman]

There are simply far fewer reasons for Taiwanese to be violent or out of their minds than Americans.

You should put not being able to own a gun right on top of the list as one of these reasons. Taiwan has the population of Canada or Australia on an island 3X the size of the Big Island of Hawaii.. I know what Taiwanese life is like. I can say it's demonstrably safer than anywhere in the US from gun violence. Their politicians will punch it out in parliament but in public, it's a rare occurrence. As a society they lead by example and we should take notice and adapt. Oncee again, guns aren't making you or I safer. Quite the contrary. Sadly gun violence and suicide by gun in this country is like drunk driving and road rage. People aren't getting shot here over health care. Taiwan has plenty of mentally ill people as well who slip between the cracks. Almost impossible for them to access a gun though. I won't argue with you about gun control. We've already had that conversation but this is how I feel having lived both places.

 

[Phatguysrule]

put not being able to own a gun right on top of the list as one of these reasons. Taiwan has the population of Canada or Australia on an island 3X the size of the Big Island of Hawaii.. I know what Taiwanese life is like. I can say it's demonstrably safer than anywhere in the US from gun violence. Their politicians will punch it out in parliament but in public, it's a rare occurrence. As a society they lead by example and we should take notice and adapt.

I completely understand. You have experience living there, and I'm jealous. I'm super happy you have gotten to live there and can share your experiences with us.

But, we can demonstrally say it is safer than United States from ANY kind of violence.

Not just gun violence.

We have data to back that up.

The people are happier, healthier, and less violent in general. Regardless of guns. Because they have far better social policy.

Universal Healthcare alone would make a HUGE dent in violent crime here in the US. And probably prevent some mass murders as well.

 

[crandc]

Trump: I going to destroy an entire civilization
Media: Democrats need to tone down rhetoric

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[THE HCP]

I completely understand. You have experience living there, and I'm jealous. I'm super happy you have gotten to live there and can share your experiences with us.

But, we can demonstrally say it is safer than United States from ANY kind of violence.

Not just gun violence.

We have data to back that up.

The people are happier, healthier, and less violent in general. Regardless of guns. Because they have far better social policy.

Universal Healthcare alone would make a HUGE dent in violent crime here in the US. And probably prevent some mass murders as well.

Is it strange to have the same views about guns as all the hillbilly nutjob Trump supporters? Honestly? Down to earth honest question. I’m not sure how I’d feel going to sleep each night knowing that I have the same feelings about ANYTHING as these people. Just wouldn’t sit right with me. Sorry. I realize you are a dedicated involved husband and father…..that’s why I am completely baffled by your support for this shit.

 

[CORipCity]

We're the only developed country with such a poor Gini coefficient and no universal health care. Also poor access (unequal) to quality education.

I just think it's incredibly irresponsible to dismiss these as the major causes of violence and murder in this country.

I just think it's crazy that you claim I "dismiss" those as major causes when I literally agreed with every single proposal for education/universal health care/mental healthcare you laid out. Dismissing the fact that we have 500 million guns is what's fucking crazy. Shrugging off the idea that guns are the #1 cause of death for children is what's fucking crazy. As you pointed out, the #1 cause of death for kids isn't cancer, even notwithstanding our shit healthcare system. It isn't heart disease. It isn't diabetes. It isn't even fucking car accidents.
IT'S.
THE.
GUNS.

The reality is that we are only a developed country because we have the best natural resources in the world and are surrounded by oceans and friendly neighbors.

....Ok...?...

We had a 30-year stretch of expanding social responsibility, but aside from that we are not much better than undeveloped countries. We simply have an embarrassment of natural advantages.

This betrays a pretty astonishing lack of knowledge of American history. Sure, we have incredible natural resources (coal, steel, oil, etc.) that enriched the robber barons and helped us expand to a colonial power in the 1890s/1900s, but the massive expansion of the social safety net under FDR and LBJ (and Truman/Eisenhower) cemented our place as a developed country, rather than an oligarchical hellhole w/ a peasant and landed-gentry class. We are currently backsliding into a peasant/oligarch society.

Regardless, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth on this: We shouldn't address guns, we should only address social services, but also, the dearth of social services is the reason for the gun violence. So they're related....but not? We cannot address violence in this country without addressing the #1 tool used to kill our children: Guns.

I much prefer that we address those issues before we start creating more restrictions against law abiding citizens, when those laws can't even be shown to be very effective in this country.

"Restrictions against law abiding citizens" is one of the most unserious, ridiculous phrases in the English language, and smacks of gun industry propaganda.

LITERALLY ALL LAWS ARE RESTRICTIONS ON LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. We require licenses to drive (this affects law-abiding citizens), we require you to drive within a lane (this affects law-abiding citizens), we require insurance/expensive safety equipment/speed restrictions (this affects law-abiding citizens). You can't punch your mother (this affects law-abiding citizens).

Please stop using that phrase if you want an honest debate about guns. It's really, really stupid.

What's the downside? It'll be far easier to institute Universal Healthcare than to confiscate all guns... and anything short of confiscating all guns will just leave criminals with guns. And even if you did confiscate all guns, there are millions of garages in the United States which can build guns from Home Depot products in an afternoon. Or simply 3D print them.

Yet another canard from the pro-gun lobby is "if you can't eliminate all gun violence, you shouldn't even try to restrict guns at all." This is so nonsensical, that it literally takes my breath away. Candidly, all of these pro-gun/pro-2A arguments are usually some combination of a strawman/reductive logical fallacy.

Restricting assault weapons, magazine capacity, and requiring full-scale background checks will reduce gun violence. Period. Gun buybacks and more aggressive gun seizures for people not in compliance with gun restrictions will reduce guns in circulation. As you already conceded earlier in this thread, fewer guns means fewer guns deaths. Everyone knows this equation, and there is no valid argument against it. Except "gunz fun, gunz good, i'm a patriot and luv gunz."

Be serious.

It's just an exercise in futility. There are too many Americans who love guns to effectively restrict them enough to matter.

Cool. I love living kids more. Anyone who loves guns more than kids is a piece of shit, and I don't give a shit about their opinion. On anything.

You know what may help with this? Show child autopsy/crime scene photos from every school shooting from here on out. It worked with Emmett Till. That'll move the undecideds.

 

[CORipCity]

Unfortunately the guns aren't going away.

That's a much harder problem to solve than universal healthcare. Or even Medicare For All Who Want it.

Even if you could get the gun laws you want they wouldn't make a difference.

There are hundreds of millions of unregistered guns in the US. We are a country with a strong manufacturing background and all the materials necessary to build as many black market guns as we have criminals.

It's actually easier to make a fully automatic machine gun than a semi automatic.

Now, a wide ranging gun law that only restricts criminals? That's something every side of the political isle can get behind. Marking the drivers license or ID of every violent criminal with a weapon restriction, and limiting gun purchases to only people with unrestricted drivers license or ID? You could probably sell that.

Especially if you offered national reciprocity for concealed carry as a trade...

I think there is headway that could be made. I just don't think "Guns=Bad and anybody who disagrees = crazy gun nut" is an effective strategy to get anything further done.

John Fetterman supports your entire message.

Again, want proper messaging to move the needle? Release photos of the Uvalde kids.

 

[CORipCity]

Trump: I going to destroy an entire civilization
Media: Democrats need to tone down rhetoric

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[CORipCity]

I completely understand. You have experience living there, and I'm jealous. I'm super happy you have gotten to live there and can share your experiences with us.

But, we can demonstrally say it is safer than United States from ANY kind of violence.

Not just gun violence.

We have data to back that up.

The people are happier, healthier, and less violent in general. Regardless of guns. Because they have far better social policy.

Universal Healthcare alone would make a HUGE dent in violent crime here in the US. And probably prevent some mass murders as well.

You just SLURP up that gun-industry/NRA propaganda, don't you?

How many people do you think you could kill in 30 seconds with a butter knife? How many people could you kill with even a sword? 1? 2? If you're lucky, and with immense amounts of training?

With a gun, and 30 minutes of training, anyone can kill dozens of people in under a minute with a gun.

Cue your next argument "wHat abOuT vAnS". Sure, vehicles are dangerous, hence we have a century's worth of safety regulations and criminal vehicle code sections that deal with irresponsible vehicle use. And that's even despite the clear society advantages for medical care/commerce that vehicles provide.

Guns provide zero social utility other than recreation and death. And they perform the latter with breathtaking efficiency to all, regardless of whether you make the choice to own one. (Tho the owners of said guns are also far more likely to be killed by guns, ironically enough. Another inconvenient fact for your "people need guns to protect themselves" canard.)

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm not a gun person but...

Until we're long done with the current administration and their constant attacks and erosions of our Civil Rights I don't think it would be wise to place limits on the 2nd Amendment.

This discussion needs to happen, and I hate kicking the can down the road, but I'm not sure now is the time.

 

[CORipCity]

I'm not a gun person but...

Until we're long done with the current administration and their constant attacks and erosions of our Civil Rights I don't think it would wise to place limits on the 2nd Amendment.

This discussion needs to happen, and I hate kicking the can down the road, but I'm not sure now is the time.

Right now isn’t the time for any legislation, period. The only thing the GOP will pass is authorization of a giant dicksucking machine named after Donald Trump.

Every day the headlines it’s like “Switzerland provides free apartments for new parents” and meanwhile “US authorizes Flock Cameras in girls locker rooms” in the US. We’re basically a failed state.

 

[Phatguysrule]

They are. They kill way more people than any other single tool.

Of course they do. They are an effective tool. Remove that tool and all available evidence indicates that people who want to kill others will use different tools. At similar rates.

The problem isn't that people can kill people. The problem is that people WANT to kill people.

Once again with the insanely dishonest arguments, as if you don't know full well that the tool-of-choice for all American murderers is guns, not vans. It's like the jackholes who claim China or the U.K. is just as dangerous because of knives. You can't murder someone from 50 yards away with a knife or a van.

But you can certainly run over a crowd of people with a van.

Almost nobody in the US is killed from 50 yards away. Far more are killed by bludgeoning.

Far more children are killed ny their own parents than killed from 50 yards away.

And yet he did.

And how would you realistically have prevented that? Details would be appreciated.

#1, this isn't true, and

Can you please elaborate?

#2, if it were, it'd be one of the worst logical fallacies you've thrown out in this thread. Like claiming the #1 sufferers of sunburns aren't black people.

These are law abiding gun owners. Making laws that restrict them can have very little impact.

Encouraging more people to obtain these permits would probably have a bigger impact on gun crime than any restriction against this demographic.

I don't need convincing that police are worthless. All the more reason to limit the means for people to shoot you and me and our kids while police aren't around.

Or, increase the ability for multiple people to assault your wife and kids in your house. Or break into your elderly parents house.

It's very hard to not make bad-faith assumptions about you when you make statements like this. Only a bad-faith person would turn "guns are the #1 cause of death among kids" into some sort of positive statement about the lack of starvation of our nation's children.
Guns DID NOT USE TO BE the #1 cause of death among kids. They surpassed vehicles within the past decade.

Again with the judgements about people you disagree with? Really?

Things that kill people probably should be the #1 cause of death. Especially for young people.

Should we try to mitigate that? Absolutely.

Data shows us the best way to mitigate that is investing in social programs.

Data also shows that there is no further gun control that we have tried which reliably makes much of a difference in the US.

Why? Because we have half a billion fucking guns in this country, and we need fewer.

If the number of guns and gun control were the deciding factor then many of the states with the lowest violent crime and murder rates in the US wouldn't be on that list. Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire (about half of the top 10 lowest violent crime and murder states)

And some of the states with the Most gun control and fewer guns per capita are the most dangerous. Examples: Washington DC, California, Colorado.

We need massive gun buy backs,

Gun buybacks are an absolute waste of money. They don't work.

But I hope they do it, because I'll be selling 3D printed and zip guns for $100 a pop and make myself a killing... That's what tends to happen with gun buybacks. People offload garbage guns for a profit .

There’s Just One Problem With Gun Buybacks

They don’t work.

www.theatlantic.com

a massive gun-seizure wave, and strict background checks with actual teeth, including among private sales.

Gun seizure for what? They already confiscate guns when they find someone with them illegally...

We need a wholesale ban on civilian sale of assault weapons or magazines of more than 10 rounds.

It's already illegal to buy assault weapons (defined by the military as, select fire with both Semi full automatic capability).

We should end the shield to liability for gun manufacturers.

Gun manufacturers can already be sued if they break the law.

Remington was just sued (and lost and had to pay millions) because it was irresponsible in advertising weapons for committing violence.

If you want to fall back on the 2nd Amendment like it means dick-shit in today's society, then we should ban everything except what was in common usage in 1787. The current SCOTUS apparently loves to use the "tradition" argument with the Voting Rights Act, so perhaps that could pass muster? /s

We can talk about the 2nd amendment if you like, but I think that should take place in the "cold dead hands" thread.

It is very clearly worded to give more rights to weapons than we currently have.

If we'd like to change that it will require 37 states to agree. Of course we have 10 more states which have moved to "constitutional carry" in the last few years , so we're going exactly the opposite direction to make that change. I think 36 are now constitutional carry states...

Sure, let's not pass stiffer gun laws, let's pass universal, free education through PhD, Universal Healthcare, greater access (whatever that means) to social services and elimination of homelessness. That's so much more realistic and more likely to pass than tougher gun laws.

Look, I agree with all those proposals. Make Head Start and preschool and college free. Healthcare (including mental health) for all!

But even with a supermajority in the Senate, the best we could pass in 2009 was a watered-down giveaway to health insurance companies that a republican-controlled Supreme Court promptly defanged. Universal healthcare is a pipe-dream that will never happen in a country whose citizens' and politicians' brains are pickled by either Fox News or CBS, or other bought-and-paid-for-billionaire messaging/lobbying machines.

We'll need better Democrats and far fewer shitty Democrats. That's where we come in.

We are both speaking about legal wish-lists that we both know will never, ever happen. The best pound-for-pound legislation we can pass right now to save young lives is gun legislation.

We can work on heart disease when we don't have Capt. Spasmodic Larynx screwing up HHS with his anti-vax garbage. But our love affair with guns needs to end. Now.

No chance. The gun legislation that has been proposed doesn't work reliably. And arguably doesn't even work really well at all.

I just think it's crazy that you claim I "dismiss" those as major causes when I literally agreed with every single proposal for education/universal health care/mental healthcare you laid out.

I'm not claiming that you are dismissing these. I'm suggesting further restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to access and use firearms before making the above changes is dismissing them as major causes and as a result leading us to misallocate our limited resources and political capital.

Dismissing the fact that we have 500 million guns is what's fucking crazy.

I don't dismiss this at all. We very clearly do have that many guns.

But again, if more guns per capita automatically meant more violent crime and murder then how do we explain that Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming all have far higher rates of guns per capita then California, Illinois, Oregon, etc., yet the latter have far higher violent crime rates, in the former are some of the safest states inethe country.

There is no correlation between the number of guns, nor guns per capita with violent crime or murder rates.

Not in US states, not in other countries.

There is not reliable evidence to suggest causation. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

Shrugging off the idea that guns are the #1 cause of death for children is what's fucking crazy. As you pointed out, the #1 cause of death for kids isn't cancer, even notwithstanding our shit healthcare system. It isn't heart disease. It isn't diabetes. It isn't even fucking car accidents.
IT'S.
THE.
GUNS.

....Ok...?...

That's 2200 deaths per year. over half of which are suicides. And around 55% are Black children.

Yet white people own guns at much higher rates.

Perhaps a social intervention might be more beneficial?

Sure, we have incredible natural resources (coal, steel, oil, etc.) that enriched the robber barons and helped us expand to a colonial power in the 1890s/1900s, but the massive expansion of the social safety net under FDR and LBJ (and Truman/Eisenhower) cemented our place as a developed country, rather than an oligarchical hellhole w/ a peasant and landed-gentry class. We are currently backsliding into a peasant/oligarch society.

We agree.

Regardless, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth on this: We shouldn't address guns,

I didn't say that. I said we shouldn't FURTHER restrict the rights of law abiding citizens unless we know the restriction is effective at significantly impact violent crime or murder rates.

We certainly shouldn't spend a lot of political capital on something that is ineffective.

we should only address social services, but also, the dearth of social services is the reason for the gun violence. So they're related....but not? We cannot address violence in this country without addressing the #1 tool used to kill our children: Guns.

We have gun control in this country. I'm not arguing for eliminating it. I'm argument for a change in tactics.

"Restrictions against law abiding citizens" is one of the most unserious, ridiculous phrases in the English language, and smacks of gun industry propaganda.

I said "FURTHER" restrictions on law abiding citizens. I'm not advocating for the elimination of gun control.

LITERALLY ALL LAWS ARE RESTRICTIONS ON LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. We require licenses to drive (this affects law-abiding citizens), we require you to drive within a lane (this affects law-abiding citizens), we require insurance/expensive safety equipment/speed restrictions (this affects law-abiding citizens). You can't punch your mother (this affects law-abiding citizens).

Please stop using that phrase if you want an honest debate about guns. It's really, really stupid.

Again, I'm not arguing against all restrictions. Only further ineffective or marginally effective restrictions on law abiding citizens.

Law abiding citizens vote. And there are a lot of them. You are going to have more trouble getting votes of your policy negatively impacts law abiding citizens.

Yet another canard from the pro-gun lobby is "if you can't eliminate all gun violence, you shouldn't even try to restrict guns at all." This is so nonsensical, that it literally takes my breath away. Candidly, all of these pro-gun/pro-2A arguments are usually some combination of a strawman/reductive logical fallacy.

Which I haven't said.

Restricting assault weapons, magazine capacity, and requiring full-scale background checks will reduce gun violence. Period.

We already do most of this. It's not very effective at reducing violent crime or murder rates.

Gun buybacks and more aggressive gun seizures for people not in compliance with gun restrictions will reduce guns in circulation.

Negative. Gun buybacks are among the most inefficient ways in which taxpayer money can be spent.

Literally no impact on gun crime, violent crime, or murder. Zilch.

As you already conceded earlier in this thread, fewer guns means fewer guns deaths. Everyone knows this equation, and there is no valid argument against it. Except "gunz fun, gunz good, i'm a patriot and luv gunz."

Be serious.

No, I said if you eliminate guns you eliminate gun deaths. Removing the 1% of illegal guns of the 500 million we have in circulation will do nothing to save lives .

Cool. I love living kids more. Anyone who loves guns more than kids is a piece of shit, and I don't give a shit about their opinion. On anything.

You know what may help with this? Show child autopsy/crime scene photos from every school shooting from here on out. It worked with Emmett Till. That'll move the undecideds.

I don't believe policy should be made based on emotions.

 

[Phatguysrule]

John Fetterman supports your entire message.

Again, want proper messaging to move the needle? Release photos of the Uvalde kids.

Many Democrats who voted for Fetterman and are currently pissed off at him also agree with that message.

We need all of them on our side to get the meaningful change this country needs.

What reasonable and achievable policy are you suggesting would have prevented the horrific events at Uvalde?

Clearly, waiting for police to save them didn't work out...

 

[Phatguysrule]

Is it strange to have the same views about guns as all the hillbilly nutjob Trump supporters? Honestly? Down to earth honest question. I’m not sure how I’d feel going to sleep each night knowing that I have the same feelings about ANYTHING as these people. Just wouldn’t sit right with me. Sorry. I realize you are a dedicated involved husband and father…..that’s why I am completely baffled by your support for this shit.View attachment 84423

I don't worry about that kind of stuff.

I look at data and what has worked and what hasn't and make my decisions based on that.

I don't think that I fully align with them on guns, and I don't think that the bit that I do align with them is necessarily for the same reasons.

Nor would I change my opinion if Trump told me to. I would require evidence that I'm wrong.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You just SLURP up that gun-industry/NRA propaganda, don't you?

Lol

How many people do you think you could kill in 30 seconds with a butter knife?

Probably not the gang of young men who just broke in to rape my wife and daughters...

How many people could you kill with even a sword? 1? 2? If you're lucky, and with immense amounts of training?

Almost certainly still going to bleed out while hearing my family ravaged... Waiting to hear sirens... And waiting...

With a gun, and 30 minutes of training, anyone can kill dozens of people in under a minute with a gun.

And one armed and trained security guard or armed and trained teacher could have saved all of the kids at Uvalde or Sandy Hook

Cue your next argument "wHat abOuT vAnS". Sure, vehicles are dangerous, hence we have a century's worth of safety regulations and criminal vehicle code sections that deal with irresponsible vehicle use. And that's even despite the clear society advantages for medical care/commerce that vehicles provide.

We have far more regulations on buying and using guns than cars.

And that's fine. But I wasn't sure if you were aware of that.

Guns provide zero social utility other than recreation and death. And they perform the latter with breathtaking efficiency to all, regardless of whether you make the choice to own one. (Tho the owners of said guns are also far more likely to be killed by guns, ironically enough. Another inconvenient fact for your "people need guns to protect themselves" canard.)

I've told the story before, but we have an elderly family friend who lives alone. One night a few years ago she heard banging around in her house.

She locked the bedroom door, grabbed her shotgun and sat on her bed pointing it at the door while calling the police.

Crazed guy starts pounding on the door. Ends up charging through the door and freezes as he sees the shotgun pointed right at him. He runs off.

Turns out it was a neighbor's druggy adult child who went to jail a few months later for breaking in and assaulting somebody in the neighborhood.

Happens all the time. No news.

A gunman opened fire at Crosspointe Community Church, when a churchgoer intervened to stop him.

[2026/04/06] Homeowner,
shoots, kills male suspect inside South Side residence (Chicago, IL)

[2026/03/07] CCL holder shoots intruder in South Side break-in

[2026/03/01] (Des Moines IA) Des Moines homeowner shoots alleged intruder during late-night break-in

[2026/02/09] Woman fatally shoots masked intruder during 2:30 AM (Jackson, MS)

[2025/09/26] CCL Holder defends themselves in 4 on 1 Robbery, 1 robber killed (Chicago, IL)

This shit happens all the time. If you don't have numbers or if you're not bigger, stronger, younger, and/or better trained then a gun is about your only hope.

You can't count on the police. They have no legal obligation to protect you.

 

[crandc]

In might be a less dramatic headline but women are far more likely to be raped by someone they know than gang of men breaking down the door.

 

[CORipCity]

Lol

Probably not the gang of young men who just broke in to rape my wife and daughters...


Almost certainly still going to bleed out while hearing my family ravaged... Waiting to hear sirens... And waiting...


And one armed and trained security guard or armed and trained teacher could have saved all of the kids at Uvalde or Sandy Hook


We have far more regulations on buying and using guns than cars.

And that's fine. But I wasn't sure if you were aware of that.


I've told the story before, but we have an elderly family friend who lives alone. One night a few years ago she heard banging around in her house.

She locked the bedroom door, grabbed her shotgun and sat on her bed pointing it at the door while calling the police.

Crazed guy starts pounding on the door. Ends up charging through the door and freezes as he sees the shotgun pointed right at him. He runs off.

Turns out it was a neighbor's druggy adult child who went to jail a few months later for breaking in and assaulting somebody in the neighborhood.

Happens all the time. No news.

A gunman opened fire at Crosspointe Community Church, when a churchgoer intervened to stop him.

[2026/04/06] Homeowner,
shoots, kills male suspect inside South Side residence (Chicago, IL)

[2026/03/07] CCL holder shoots intruder in South Side break-in

[2026/03/01] (Des Moines IA) Des Moines homeowner shoots alleged intruder during late-night break-in

[2026/02/09] Woman fatally shoots masked intruder during 2:30 AM (Jackson, MS)

[2025/09/26] CCL Holder defends themselves in 4 on 1 Robbery, 1 robber killed (Chicago, IL)

This shit happens all the time. If you don't have numbers or if you're not bigger, stronger, younger, and/or better trained then a gun is about your only hope.

You can't count on the police. They have no legal obligation to protect you.

“We shouldn’t make policy on emotion.” How many times are you going to invoke this ridiculous fever dream about a “gang” breaking into your home and raping your wife and daughter?

It’s very clear based on your responses that you’re not a serious person when it comes to this issue. You’ve sprinkled your replies with goalpost-maneuvering, repeated logical fallacies, and some outright lies about legislation and statistics. As I said at the beginning, the endless list of gun laws in other countries have proven to work, and work well, including gun buybacks and seizures (see Australia). And yes, cars are FAR more regulated than guns. You’re just not an honest person on this issue. You seem to have an irrational fetishization with respect to guns and some sort of weird Charlie Bronsonesque complex.

You gun people are just fucking weird, man. Is it a manhood test? There are other metrics for that. Like, you know, being a caring father and a good listener for your wife, etc.

 

[Phatguysrule]

“We shouldn’t make policy on emotion.” How many times are you going to invoke this ridiculous fever dream about a “gang” breaking into your home and raping your wife and daughter?

It’s very clear based on your responses that you’re not a serious person when it comes to this issue. You’ve sprinkled your replies with goalpost-maneuvering, repeated logical fallacies, and some outright lies about legislation and statistics. As I said at the beginning, the endless list of gun laws in other countries have proven to work, and work well, including gun buybacks and seizures (see Australia). And yes, cars are FAR more regulated than guns. You’re just not an honest person on this issue. You seem to have an irrational fetishization with respect to guns and some sort of weird Charlie Bronsonesque complex.

You gun people are just fucking weird, man. Is it a manhood test? There are other metrics for that. Like, you know, being a caring father and a good listener for your wife, etc.

More emotional attacks. Shocker.

Awesome.

Hey, let me know when you want a real discussion about real evidence based solutions.

I'm happy to have that conversation.

 

[CORipCity]

More emotional attacks. Shocker.

Awesome.

Hey, let me know when you want a real discussion about real evidence based solutions.

I'm happy to have that conversation.

No, you're really not. You want to post links to scare-anecdotes, ignore worldwide gun stats, and make ludicrous claims like "gun legislation doesn't work", or meaningless claims like "people who have been extensively background checked for concealed carry tend to not have a criminal record."

You're not a serious person.

 

[CORipCity]

And one armed and trained security guard or armed and trained teacher could have saved all of the kids at Uvalde or Sandy Hook

I feel like this deserves a special look. This is just a flat-out insane take.

Someone early on in this thread said "adding more guns to the mix won't make us safer", and then you countered that no one is making that argument.

Clearly, this is an argument you're making. Your position seems to be "schools aren't safe from shooters, let's mix in some more guns with security guards and/or teachers, and massacres can be prevented."

That theory has been proven to be absolute bullshit, time and time again. They've run actual drills on this, and it's conclusively bullshit to claim that security guards or teachers could react and successfully take down a shooter who is carrying an assault rifle with an extended magazine (the situation in SH and Uvalde), and save the day.

It's an insulting theory, frankly. Arming teachers is insulting. We already cut their pay, cut their pensions, subject them to paying for school supplies, and now we want to entrust them with the requirements of armed security? To say nothing of how utterly ridiculous it is to assume a teacher with 1/1000th the training of a police officer could stop a heavily armed shooter with a weapon of war, how many more kids will die by accident/seizure of the gun from the teacher as an everyday occurrence?

This is the kind of insane political opinion that makes America so fucking stupid to the rest of the world. Truly, it's 7.7 billion people in the world looking at 300 million going "what the fuck is wrong with you people?" And people like YOU are what's wrong.

 

[CORipCity]

Many Democrats who voted for Fetterman and are currently pissed off at him also agree with that message.

We need all of them on our side to get the meaningful change this country needs.

What reasonable and achievable policy are you suggesting would have prevented the horrific events at Uvalde?

You're the guy saying we should forego gun legislation debates in favor of "free school through PhD and Medicare for All" when Congress doesn't even want rural hospitals to exist.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I feel like this deserves a special look. This is just a flat-out insane take.

Someone early on in this thread said "adding more guns to the mix won't make us safer", and then you countered that no one is making that argument.

Clearly, this is an argument you're making. Your position seems to be "schools aren't safe from shooters, let's mix in some more guns with security guards and/or teachers, and massacres can be prevented."

That theory has been proven to be absolute bullshit, time and time again. They've run actual drills on this, and it's conclusively bullshit to claim that security guards or teachers could react and successfully take down a shooter who is carrying an assault rifle with an extended magazine (the situation in SH and Uvalde), and save the day.

It's an insulting theory, frankly. Arming teachers is insulting. We already cut their pay, cut their pensions, subject them to paying for school supplies, and now we want to entrust them with the requirements of armed security? To say nothing of how utterly ridiculous it is to assume a teacher with 1/1000th the training of a police officer could stop a heavily armed shooter with a weapon of war, how many more kids will die by accident/seizure of the gun from the teacher as an everyday occurrence?

This is the kind of insane political opinion that makes America so fucking stupid to the rest of the world. Truly, it's 7.7 billion people in the world looking at 300 million going "what the fuck is wrong with you people?" And people like YOU are what's wrong.

Shocker. Another personal attack applying positions to me that I don't have.

I'm a staunch advocate for teachers making $100k minimum, and quality teachers making even more.

Never once have I suggested anybody be forced to carry a gun.

I would allow teachers to carry guns if they were trained and wanted to, and if they passed a regular psych eval. I would also pay them more for their trouble.

I guarantee you the teachers who had an armed gunman shooting through their door probably wished they had something to point at the door for when the gunman came in. and the training to end it right there.

There are defensive gun uses all the time. Multiple potential church massacres have been stopped before starting because of an armed good samaritan or volunteer security member.

The guns are here. You haven't made a single suggestion with evidence that would make any difference in murder rates.

You've just thrown out random stats that are proof of nothing and made personal attacks because you don't like my position.

People like you are the problem.

You've done nothing in this conversation but make your position look more emotional and less logical.

Let me know when you want to have a discussion like an adult rather than play childish team politics.

Still waiting...

 

[crandc]

Guns don't kill people. Seashells kill people!

 

[Phatguysrule]

In might be a less dramatic headline but women are far more likely to be raped by someone they know than gang of men breaking down the door.

Absolutely true. I talk to my daughters about that as well.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You're the guy saying we should forego gun legislation debates in favor of "free school through PhD and Medicare for All" when Congress doesn't even want rural hospitals to exist.

Once again, not anything I have ever said. I'm always up for gun legislation debates and I've actually proposed wide ranging legislation that Republicans may actually support.

It's funny to me that you have yet to make one proposal that could get the gun situation into a place you would be comfortable with, Yet you act like Universal Healthcare is some crazy fantasy.

There's a Medicare For All bill in Congress right now.
S.1506 - Medicare for all act of 2025-2026

That bill alone would reduce violent crime and murder rates more than any gun control being seriously debated in the US today.

You want to talk about what's really killing kids? Lack of insurance kills 17,000 kids per year.

Guns kill 2000. which is horrible. And I think we should have education to help prevent that. As well as some other creative solutions.

I've advocated for refundable tax credits For every American who takes a federal gun safety course. And they could do it yearly.

Something that we could easily do. Something that almost nobody would oppose.

But you just want to argue about red herring bullshit that has never worked in this country, and some legitimate studies say didn't work well in other countries, either.

When talking about people's rights you must remember that correlation does not equal causation.