@MilkmanDan, excellent points all round.

I'm not a gun owner, and I have no interest in buying one for self-defence, but I have fired guns a few times (at shooting ranges or clay pigeon shoots) and it's an undeniably fun activity. I could also see myself going hunting for food at some point.

Jim Jeffries makes an excellent point in his gun control rant.
"fuck off, I like guns" is actually a reasonable argument. If you like something and you're not harming anyone with it, why should it be taken from you? After all, many "anti-gun" (or more accurately "pro-gun control") people will make the same argument FOR drugs. "I'm just smoking some weed/having a beer in my house. I'm not hurting anyone, just leave me alone".

But the thing is unless you're a hardcore libertarian, almost everyone agrees that there should be some sensible limits on drugs. Even for legal drugs like alcohol, we mandate that you must be a certain age (older than you have to be to buy a gun, which is lunacy to me) and that you can't drive drunk, etc.

The sad thing is, there's near universal agreement on this, even in the US. The vast majority of people are in favour of the kind of simple, common-sense regulations you mention.

It's just that the politicians are in the pocket of the NRA. As one of shooting survivors pointed out "We should change the names of AR-15s to “Marco Rubio” because they are so easy to buy", and I cannot say how much I want to stand up and applaud that epic burn.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

Nope.

The only effective way is to practically eliminate the prevalence of guns beyond say a hunting rifle across the general population. Everything else is wack-a-mole, and won't solve the problem.

I'm a political moderate, and I generally gravitate towards moderate "common sense" effective regulations when needed. I don't see any point in regulations that don't do any good.

Universal background checks, banning assault rifles, three day waiting periods, banning bump stocks, stopping people who have been evaluated with psychiatric problems, all of it will insignificantly reduce gun violence.

I just don't see a way forward on this issue because what's needed is so politically impossible when people start declaring armed insurrection when a Democrat gets elected President.

Haven't viewed the video yet, but just common sense tells me no propulsion system is 100% efficient, so the losses over time will be larger, and less efficient in overall fuel use.

It's like the most efficient way to drive a hybrid is to floor the accelerator to get to speed, then try to go as fast as possible, using as little accelerator pedal as possible.

Conversely, the rocket would just be wasting fuel trying to slow down before it had to full burn to stop in time.

I'm just impressed they keep the terminal velocity down enough they don't need to use drogue chute(s).

@SDGundamX -- I agree completely that any registration / licensing system would have to be central / federal to do any good. I'm also, like you, pretty pessimistic about anything actually happening.

These kids will be a smaller direct annoyance (to NRA-funded legislators) for a shorter time than "occupy". That doesn't mean they are wasting their time though. The people that they can sway are moderate republican voters. I think "common sense" things like registration and licensing could be sold to enough people to put some pressure on republican reelection chances. On the other hand, there's the NRA and other lobbying organizations with a proven track record and nearly unlimited resources to muck up the works.

I dunno. I'm quite pessimistic about chances, but I do hope we're wrong.

Holy crap. WTF is that?
Attractive women can't go out in public because you're creeped out by them?!? (Super attractive? Well, 'eye of the beholder'.)
And just being near them makes men creeps?!? And Pee?!?
Why do you hate attractive and or young women?
Why do you hate men based on a nearby women's appearance?
Why would you say that, even if they had come with him?

What you're doing is 100% body/appearance shaming. Shaming them for being young, fit, and not unpleasant to look at. It sounds like jealousy, and it sounds incredibly inappropriate considering what you said afterwards. Shaming women for being attractive and fit is not supporting women in any way. Calling this a hooters is pretty insulting and dismissive to those professional, skilled, likely intelligent women, some of whom were customers.
PS: look at 3:02 for your "real women"
Where's the anger at the at least two fit, attractive men in that video?

-"I brought the common sense and facts, too. Just not eloquently or accurately"-
When you're facts and 'common sense' are inaccurate and nonsensical, you didn't really bring them.

Edit: do you have the same reaction every time you see George Clooney or DiCaprio? What disgusting creeps they must be in your eyes, since they're often accompanied by attractive women....who I guess are all Hooters bimbos, right?...and what disgusting creeps those women are, hanging out with attractive mimbos Must every red carpet be Thunder down Under? It's creepy how they manipulate women like that. You do realize they're manipulating you, right, because it's creepier if you don't.

Sorry. You're right. I shouldn't have laid it all on Keanu.

It is just creepy.

They are employees of a business. Who hired them? Where are the normal looking women?

This is Hooters, only with guns and not hamburgers and beer. Or whatever they sell there.

Would there be any normal looking women, when the intent is obviously to draw male eyes to this business?

Do you realize that you are being pandered to, you folks who are making fun of my "outrage"? Do you know you are being manipulated? Do you understand that it is super creepy if you don't know you are being manipulated?

There is a great new movement right now of women speaking up and making clear that they are intelligent and have loads to offer other than beauty. It was super thrilling to watch the Golden Globes and hear all these amazing and brilliant women talk so eloquently about something other than who made their dress.

To go from that to this parade of nubile flesh as a backdrop to gun skills .... creeped me out. It isn't real. It isn't what the world looks like. It is manufactured and disturbing when I personally am hungry for images of women DOING and being, instead of being looked at.

There are women out there who love guns and are knowledgeable about guns. And they don't all look like this.

You know I adore you completely, Chaos. And I wasn't accurate in my original post. Thank you for calling that to my attention.

But it isn't true that only you brought "common sense and facts" into this. I brought the common sense and facts, too. Just not eloquently or accurately. Being talked about like that, being reduced to "outrage" instead of being accorded some respect for noticing the unnatural assemblage of super attractive women obviously being used to as eye bait... well, that is common. Very common. And uncool.

You, though, dear friend, are super cool.

How dare you bring common sense and facts into this! This is 2018 and this woman wants to feel outrage! Outrage, damn you!

So many dumb mistakes in the video...

The cop was definitely in the wrong shooting the guy and if he had waited just a half a second longer, his brain probably would have registered that the guy was complying and simply holding his wallet; i.e. not a threat. The cop was likely in a defensible position, behind the squad car, so taking that extra time before using lethal force was likely doable. But that is a lot of assumptions from my comfortable office chair.

Still, to just leave the guy laying on the ground after shooting him and then continuing to bark commands at him like he's still a threat...ugh. I've seen so many wrongful shooting videos where this happens, so it makes you wonder if it is a policy thing to minimize potential for a greater lawsuit (e.g. what if rolling the guy over to address his gunshot wound causes further damage, etc); perhaps it is to protect the officer from viral infection. Who knows, but it certainly seems callous and cold hearted.

With that said, the driver is a moron getting out of his vehicle like that. Wtf. You live in a country where your police officers are all too frequently shooting unarmed citizens by mistake and you decide to jump out of your car with your dark wallet? For what purpose? Turn off the car, turn on your cabin light, roll down the window, and wait for the officer to approach. Only reach for your wallet/permit when you're asked for your ID. Seems like common sense to me.

I actually agree with you mostly, but you're not gonna like it.

One thing I will point out though - "I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder."

We have data on this. Take Australia. In the 21 years leading up to Port Arthur and that massacre itself, which triggered the nation into heavily regulating guns, there were 16 mass murders of four or more people, totaling 137 murders. Since then, there have been 12, with a total of 76 murders. This despite there being population growth.

Violent crime rate has dropped from 1996 to now, mainly from reductions in robbery and a small drop in homicide rates.

There is very clear evidence that if most guns are removed from circulation, there are very real and likely benefits when it comes to reducing violent crime in general and murder.

I'm a political moderate and pragmatic. I go with what works. Don't care how liberal or conservative the solution is. I'm never in favor of regulation that is ineffective at solving problems.

And to that end, I'm against most gun control measures. I'm on board with banning assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, but most gun control things like psychiatric evaluations, universal background checks? No.
Why? Because societal models we know that provided real progress on problems seemed to suggest one thing - it's the prevalence of guns that is the problem. If you make it marginally harder to buy guns by things like...

Three day waiting periods
Universal background checks
Psychiatric evaluations

They don't work. Banning guns works, though. It's worked time and time again. Australia, Britain, over and over and over, if guns lose prevalence, violence, murder, etc. decrease significantly.

At some point, society has to decide that giving up guns is worth it. But until that time, "common sense" gun control is a waste of time, and I quite frankly think it might do real effective gun control measures harm because when nothing gets better from these mild measures, they're going to point that out.

Common sense is not anti gun.
There clearly aren't laws enough. Anyone could put together the arsenal of full auto weapons he had, untraceable if from a gun show, legally, and repeat this. Felons, psychotics, terrorists, libtards, anyone. This is definitely a case of intentional neglect, make no mistake. Congress knows about these devices, they've fought to keep them legal. This hole in the law was by design.

You totally misread or intentionally misrepresent your own dumb, misleading blaze.com chart which separates all different firearm deaths into "firearm discharge, firearm assault, intentional self harm (by firearm) , and accident" Even using their highly suspect numbers and singling out only death by firearm assault, it's 24974/1 , not the 350000/1 that you claim ....and that's total odds of dying by firearm assault per year, not odds that, if you die, it will be by firearms. Math...it's a thing.

Thoughts:

1) There has been a ban on sales of new, fully-automatic firearms ("machine guns") since 1986. That leaves some loopholes (can still buy them if they were manufactured before then, but that demand plus scarcity makes them expensive, etc.) but in general, there isn't a whole lot of uproar over that 20-year-old ban.

2) These bump-fire stocks don't technically convert a firearm into fully-automatic; the trigger is still being pulled 1 time for each bullet that comes out (semi-automatic).

3) However, they easily allow for rates of fire (bullets per minute/second) comparable to fully-automatic weapons. So, I think an unbiased and reasonable person would say that while a firearm equipped with one of these does not violate the letter of the ban on fully-automatic firearms, it does quite reasonably violate the spirit of that ban.

4) Doing anything to correct that discrepancy will require updated laws. Updating the law requires a legislature that generally supports the update and a president that agrees, or a legislature that overwhelmingly supports the update and can override a presidential veto.

5) None of that exists at the moment in the US. So, it is (perhaps coldly) logical to say that these bump-fire stocks will not be banned as an extension to the 1986 ban on full-auto firearms, at least not in the short term.

6) However, before quietly accepting that, it is worth noting that political fallout amongst those individuals in the legislature that refuse to consider updating the law is a very real possibility. Plenty of people, even on the right, even plenty of gun nuts, say that they are in favor of some degree of "common sense" gun control. Pointing out that bump-fire stocks essentially circumvent the already in-place ban on fully-automatic firearms seems like a good way to test that professed adherence to common sense.

7) Get that word out there, and pretty importantly, try to do it in a way that is as respectful towards the average "gun nut" as possible. Their minds can be swayed. Hunters, sportsmen, and even people that have guns for self defense can be persuaded with reason -- they can still do their thing even without bump-fire stocks, just like they can do their thing without fully-automatic firearms. Congresscritters probably can't be convinced, because they've already been bribed"persuaded" with campaign donations, NRA lobbyists, etc.


So, don't preach to the choir. Try to convince the people that do actually own guns. The good news? You've got "common sense" on your side.

If he really received those orders from his supervisor then it's pretty scary still that this fuckface did not have the common sense/decency to question that order when it was obvious the nurse was following protocol but was also stuck between policy & navigating an unfamiliar situation.

I sentence the pig to 6 months in a mental health facility and 2 DMT injections a week to diffuse his ego & expand his consciousness (and maybe he goes to hell once or twice).

Um, in case the accent didn't give it away, this news broadcast is from Australia. Stop blaming the "Clinton Obama media" - they have nothing to do with it. This is how the rest of the world views Trump.

The media you speak of is overwhelmingly liberal biased and I don't for a second doubt they take some of their cues from Americas media.
As for Trump tellling other nations to pay up for defense or telling it like it is in the climate deal and other common sense yet outrageous as viewed by the brainwashed masses ideas ..
Yes I can see why he is unpopular but he is trying to do what he was elected to do and not win speaking contests on the world stage.
As a canadian I'm pissed off to no end how we the public are supposed to suffer while well off politicians make stupid deals that result in our hydro rates tripling so they can impress the "other" nations about our commitment to saving the earth.
We are in a time of change as Justin Trudeau puts it and well it's just too damn bad for us regular folk so suck it up.
If we really want everyone to make fancy useless speeches maybe Trudeau could offer acting lessons as well as outfit the world leaders in costumes.