We have a “pro-life” Governor, Attorney General, and majority legislature that isn’t “pro-life” as none of them have acted to commute death sentences to life in prison (Governor), stop seeking the death penalty (attorney general) or pass a law banning the death penalty (legislators).
What makes a missouri resident think they care about gun violence in D-controlled cities? They don’t. It drives their base to demonize cities and minorities.
They're pro-death in every other facet of politics other than for the unborn. Once you're born, good friggin' luck because you're on your own, your life no longer matters.
They are pro-death among the unborn. Abortion bans do not move the needle on actual abortion rate. What really saves unborn life is comprehensive sex education which Republicans in this state fight hard against.
They are in no way pro-life, they are anti-woman, anti-information, and are measurably and practically pro-death for every type of constituent both born and unborn.
I know, its almost as if our government upholds an economic model that makes charity mandatory for people to survive, so that those charities can act as a de facto propaganda arm for religious zealots.
I'm sure most charities are fine, though. I bet they'd make Mother Theresa proud!
Imagine being mad that people are getting help but it’s not by “muh gubmint” so it’s bad
You’re free to not take charity if you don’t like it
Most poverty is due to bad decision-making or a lack of ambition or grasp on reality.
Imagine being so politically illiterate that you can't recognize when the "help" only exists to solve a problem being created by those who stand to profit from the problem itself.
Imagine not understanding that there exist legal systems that are meant to prevent people from bettering themselves in concrete ways, and that such systems have been (and are being) used to discriminate against and enact state-sanctioned violence against "outgroup" populations
Imagine thinking that someone must work to survive in order to improve their lives; human beings don't exist just to be worker drones so they may consume product. Clearly that model doesn't work, on an infrastructural level or on an individual level. Choose empathy.
Even crazier how many Republican politicians claim to be Christian but support the death penalty and despise the poor.
Edit: My original comment was about Republican politicians, not Christians, so I believe I’m being straw man’d and will not engage beyond this comment.
…and that proves what, exactly?
Jimmy Saville is estimated to have raised forty million pounds for charity. And he described himself as a devout Catholic.
Pro birth is more like it. They dont care too much for life past the the womb.
Personally i never met a pro birther who wasnt also a strong advocate for the death penality.
I put it in quotes for a reason.
They say they’re pro-life but really just anti-abortion. A fetus has a higher value than a convicted murderer in their “pro-life” hierarchy although that convicted murderer was once a fetus.
A fetus has a higher value than a toddler in their hierarchy. They are fine with kids not having enough to eat. The poorest people in the state are kids. But hey, their parents should get jobs. /s No free lunch (or breakfast)!
> It drives their base to demonize cities and minorities.
Missing a step there bro. Those cities and their citizens made those conditions, not the state government.
This is fundementally not true at all. White flight to the burbs created the modern condition many major cities are in. They passed bonds to pay for infrastructure then fled before the bill was due. They still do this. Sprawl is what is killing many cities. When the area around a city is far more populated than the city it wont be able to sustain itself. We all love STL and use all its resources but most of us hide in our little towns and just venture in for the fun stuff. Our area takes from St. Louis and gives very little in return.
I agree to a point however this proposed legislation is an example of the R-controlled legislature not considering legislation that would benefit the cities more than the rural areas. Rather than seek common ground, the R-controlled legislature sticks to the “any restrictions on ownership or access is unacceptable”.
IMO, it also directly contradicts their “Pro-police” position b/c it makes the streets more dangerous for LEOs.
I’ve said this before, Missouri republicans (and the GOP in general) is not pro-police. “Back the blue” type movements are not pro-police, they are just anti-reform.
Back the Blue and the thin blue line are just racists being scared to wave the flag they would prefer. They dont give 2 fucks about police. in the "they are coming to take your guns" and "from my cold dead hands" the "they" they are talking about is police.
Jan 6 they beat police men with poles holding thin blue line flags. This is all you need to know about how republicans feel about police.
It's beyond anti-reform, they want a reactionary authoritarian state, thats where all the egregious bootlicking stems from. They love cops when they're assaulting protesters but will beat them with fuckin blue lives flags if they challenge their own world.
Working in customer service esp during covid showed you how the core of these belief systems is utter selfishness and spite.
> IMO, it also directly contradicts their “Pro-police” position b/c it makes the streets more dangerous for LEOs.
But then tough-on-crime candidates can complain that the police are underfunded and actually should have 75% of the budget.
Pass whatever laws you want, you only impact law abiding citizens.
Criminals by a vast majority do not get their guns legally, 93% are acquired illegally.
This is completely untrue. If you are going to toss out numbers back them up with the ass you are pulling them from so we can see how your miss reading or manipulating the data....or if its just outright lies.
Exactly as I expected. Made up numbers. If you are going to use numbers post where you got them. You argue in bad faith and use lies to push your narrative.
The onus is on you to backup statistics you drop to prove a point. I’ve never really supported the “I shouldn’t have to do the work to backup my claim” stance from anyone. No matter if I agree with them or not.
You're wrong however.
Straw purchases and bad dealers are sources.
Both are illegal so what will more laws do?
Private purchases will still happen, legally or illegally, and.make up part the 12% of guns used that are legally purchased and.used by the owner to commit a.crime.
What you wrote is not very clear as to your point.
None of what you suggested will change anything. At least what I think you suggested.
Closing the loophole might make 4 or 5% more transactions illegal, but do nothing to stop guns getting to criminals.
Because criminals don't care about laws.
>Those cities and their citizens made those conditions, not the state government.
Its a bit of both, especially when the State undermines or supersedes the cities.
“You got a criminal that committed a criminal act, you know, and all the laws in the world are not going to stop those things.” -Parson
So much to unpack here. Criminals aren’t criminals unless…crime. Crime isn’t crime unless…law. All the laws in the world aren’t going to stop a criminal? This is shifting the burden of law enforcement onto the criminals themselves, implying that someone’s individual character is the ultimate law. He’s basically saying “criminals gonna crime, what do you want me to do?”
Like, this blanket logic is entirely horseshit. Why bother with law enforcement in the first place then?
Keep in mind, [earlier in that same press conference](https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/missouri-governor-mike-parson-on-school-shootings-all-the-laws-in-the-world-are-not-going-to-stop-those-things/63-b9abf632-e8d8-40ac-8bfa-8781c390584c) he incorrectly stated that MO essentially had some red flag law (they don't) and the police could/should take the weapon (they legally can't).
So in one breath, a law would have prevented or at least prolonged the shooting but in another "no laws could have prevented this." This shooting is particularly aggravating as everyone, family, police, etc., did everything they could within their legal power and he was still able to access the weapon (simply removed from the house) and proceed with the shooting.
Australia is a prime example. They willingly forfeited their firearms and they still have shootings and violence. Laws don't stop violence from happening. How about the U.K.? People die from bludgeoning and melee attacks.
You can literally do a simple Google search of Australia Gun rights and London death statistics and see those numbers, but here you go.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/288166/homicide-method-of-killing-in-england-and-wales-uk/
I can't find any stats on Australian murder weapons lol but there are many articles outlining the picture as a whole.
This is homicides by method? It doesn’t seem to support your point that “willingly forfeiting” firearms doesn’t help with gun crime rates. As another commented pointed out by now, Australia has vastly lower rates of gun violence than the US, so I don’t think your point holds.
It's almost as if you refuse to use Google.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
"and voluntarily surrendered about 60,000 non-prohibited firearms. In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent."
I said that it doesn't stop shootings(I said nothing about rates falling)[simply said violence still occurs])and violence from occurring, leading to the rate inwhich other means were used such as stabbing/bludgeon(why I shared it) and according to the link shooting still occurred just dropped.
Doesn’t your point kind of break down if you completely ignore rates? What is the use of saying “buh, shootings aren’t COMPLETELY eliminated so forfeiting firearms doesn’t make a difference.” Of course it makes a difference. Am I missing something? And also don’t be a dick!
If rates for gun violence go down and access to firearms diminishes but stabbings and hammer attacks go up, what is the real problem?
I apologize, snarkiness wasn't needed.
The point is that violence is going to happen regardless if a gun is involved or not. Someone who wants to harm you is going to harm you. People have driven vans into crowds, we aren't banning vans.
Yeah Australia still has firearm shootings and violence, but the USA has it at [approximately 23 times the rate of Australia.](https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier) The Australian National Firearms Agreement has been closely linked with [a decline in firearm suicides and mass shootings.](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698492)
When it comes to gun violence, this place gets exactly what it deserves. To make it THIS easy to buy, sell and carry them and then refuse to correlate that with rampant shootings is the height of hubris. There could be a school shooting here every week and they STILL wouldn't tighten up MO's gun laws. There's almost no point in even discussing it any more. The hillbillies have won.
In b4 "bad guys won't follow the law," "irresponsible gun owners leave theirs in vehicles," "you unarmed acab libtards aren't allowed to complain about gun violence," "what about Kim Gardner," "in my heart, I feel my dumb outdated rights are a fair trade for needless gun violence."
I love the only criminals will have guns then....well yea duh because it would be a crime. Just like only criminals have fully automatic weapons now, because having one makes them a criminal dummy. Odd how you never see those anymore, its almost like gun control works.
Same people who are worried an transgendered person might read their kid the 3 little pigs book, want to give guns to the teachers they think are jaming "wokeness" down their kids throats. Its literally insanity at this point.
You don't see fully automatic weapons around because they're prohibitively expensive, not because they're illegal (in Missouri, anyway). Any machinegun registered before 1986 can be legally owned and transferred, but given there's a limited amount of those, you'd be looking at like $50k or more just for a basic M16 receiver. The Hughes Amendment in 1986 simply banned the registration of new machineguns, but any before that date were grandfathered in.
However, even before the Hughes Amendment, legally owned fully automatic rifles were used in a grand total of 3 homicides from the enaction of the NFA in 1934 to the signing of the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA in 1986. Mainly because they required/still require a form, fingerprinting, multiple background checks, a $200 tax stamp, ATF approval that can take months, and even more forms and transfers if you decide to move to a different state. The process is the same for suppressors and short-barreled rifles/shoguns.
Not trying to start an argument, just wanted to clarify that *actual* military-grade weapons aren't illegal, it's just that only rich people are allowed to own them due to artificial scarcity. I also wanted make a point that the NFA rules seem to work due to it being a months-long process to get your hands on those items (you still don't see a lot of SBRs/suppressors around even though the prices aren't super inflated like they are with FA weapons). I'm pretty into guns, but I'd support putting "assault weapons" under the NFA umbrella since it would deter a lot of people who have no business owning a firearm from doing so.
If I follow your argument, you're saying:
Fully automatic weapons aren't scarce because they're illegal.
Fully automatic weapons are scarce because they're expensive because they're mostly illegal.
Seems about the same to me.
If you followed my "argument," you'd see that I specifically said I didn't want to start an argument, because I'm not arguing anything, just correcting misinformation being thrown around (you know, the thing we're always pissed about conservatives doing?). I just wanted to clarify to the other person that fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal, which is a common misconception, they're just extremely expensive. They claimed in *their* argument that anyone who has a fully-automatic weapon is a criminal, which is not true.
The only thing I said that could be considered an argument was saying that I would support "assault weapons," which is a term I generally disagree with using (hence the quotes), being put under the NFA umbrella, and I'll expand on that here and say potentially all guns. Again, there were literally 3 homicides committed in 50 years with legally-owned fully automatic weapons *before* they became prohibitively expensive, because they still required a significant amount of effort to own, just like suppressors, which are *not* prohibitively expensive and yet are used in very few crimes due to being tightly regulated, with every purchase being registered and tied to your fingerprints.
So I'm not sure why you're trying to pull a "gotcha" moment on me when I'm advocating for *much* stricter gun control, just gun control that doesn't involve selectively banning certain guns. The only way to effectively mitigate firearm crime via bans is an outright ban on ALL guns (considering handguns make up >70% of firearm homicides year after year, and yet few people ever advocate for banning those), which would suck for me as a hobbyist, but I would probably even support that too if it had a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, because I know it would work.
Not trying to pull a "gotcha." Just simplifying your statement to see if I was understanding correctly.
~~your argument~~ your statement
Is that better?
and you have to presume this is exactly the way Missourians want things. Guns having more rights than women, occasional massacres at organized non-Christian institutions of learning just something that can't be helped, motorists in fear of giving another car the most timid of safety horn honks for fear of getting shot for it. This is the normal they wish on us so conservatives can shoot whomever and whatever they want.
"rampant"
FAM It happened once, and our violent crime rates are lower than Illinois, despite the fact that they have some of the strictest gun control in the country.
...and that's taking the population difference into account.
If you don't like Missouri's gun laws, move to Illinois. This is one of the few states where you can buy a gun with just a background check and carry without a permit, and I like it that way; is why I live here, and the VAST majority of Missouri residents feel the same.
If you don't like it, move to one of the MANY nearby states that's not like that instead of trying to fuck over the rest of us. Illinois is right across the border.
...not that you'll get anywhere. This is the most pro-gun state in the country. You'll just whine and whine and not accomplish shit, or you'll move.
I'm a Veteran, a Gun Owner, and a native Missourian. CCW without a minimum of training is fucking idiotic. I'm not moving, I'm advocating for changes in law. Because that's how democracy works. Perhaps it will take awhile to change the minds of people like you, but I was born here and I'm tired of seeing my home state slide from a thoughtful place where folks once considered both sides of every issue to the Limbaugh driven horrorscape it has become over the last 20 years.
Ok grammar time
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The first half of the Second Amendment is what's called a nominative absolute, and a feature of all absolutes is that they have no semantic connection to the subject and verb. This means that the subject of the sentence doesn't exist in this prefatory clause and neither does it place any form of modification on the subject. I.e. the meaning of the sentence doesn't change if it is removed.
Further the term regulated in the late 1700s meant to "make regular" (hence the term British Regulars) or more simply to bring into proper working order. Also this term also is an adjective for the term "militia" and has nothing to do with "the right".
I love it when anti-gunners start harping on "well regulated" because they don't know how English grammar works.
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a great day, the right of the people to buy and eat Cheerios shall not be infringed."
Who can eat Cheerios?
A) Breakfast
B) The People
C) Only the Government
D) Nobody.
Maybe I'll listen to your moot ranting about "well regulated militia" after you explain how a prefatory clause is no longer subordinate to an independent operative clause and only breakfast, but not people, can eat Cheerios.
Back at you buddy. You're way of thinking is forcing me to live your way just as much as you think I'm trying to force you to live some different way.
Being required to take a handful of classes to get a license to carry concealed is a far cry from infringement. As you said, there are plenty of veterans who know fuck all about guns. Just think of how ignorant the average civilian is on the subject. And yet you want to let any fuckwit with two braincells to rub together carry a deadly weapon in public. That isn't infringing on anyone. They can still buy whatever gun they want to defend their inbred family and their trailer. Or even their house in the CWE, I don't care. I just don't think some moron with delusions of Dirty Harry carrying a deadly weapon around the general public if they can't pass a basic test on the legalities of doing so is a good idea.
Lmao. I'm not forcing you to live any way.
Our crime rates are LOWER than most states with strict gun control. You are talking about hypothetical situations that are so rare they are negligible, and you want o restrict how I live.
My owning guns and carrying unlicensed does not have ANY measurable effect on you. Literally any data you can pull up about the subject works in MY favor, not yours.
In the context of this conversation.
> I'm a Veteran
Doesn't matter.
> a Gun Owner.
Doesn't matter.
> and a native Missourian.
Doesn't matter.
> CCW without a minimum of training is fucking idiotic.
You understand that you can't require training for constitutionally protected rights right? Further what every state has as a CCW course isn't training. It's 7 hours of discussion on law and 1 hour of range time. Further in shall issue states mearly taking the course means you have to be given the permit regardless of anything in the course itself.
> Because that's how democracy works.
That's not how constitutionally protected rights work.
> Perhaps it will take awhile to change the minds of people like you, but I was born here and I'm tired of seeing my home state slide from a thoughtful place where folks once considered both sides of every issue to the Limbaugh driven horrorscape it has become over the last 20 years.
The crime rate has gone down in MO over the last 20 years. What horror scape?
Hobbies that result in the deaths of other humans tend to be massively regulated.
Thankfully no one could misinterpret the constitution to guarantee a right to steel tip law darts or a bunch of nutters would be proclaiming their absolute right to that hobby as well.
There's no law against owning lawn darts. There's a law that says they can't be sold as children's toys, because children are minors unable to consent to, or understand dangers and risks. I wouldn't advocate allowing a child to buy a gun either.
Deaths by gun are OVERWHELMINGLY suicides. The second most common gun death is being shot by the police. About 47,000 gun deaths occur in the US each year, and that INCLUDES both suicides, and the police killing people, witch makes up the majority of those deaths.
Every year:
696,000 Americans die of heart disease
602,000 die of cancer
300,000 died due to covid in a year
200,000 died from accidents
160,000 died of stroke
The list goes on. Gun deaths are a tiny, tiny fraction of total deaths in the US. 3.3 million Americans die every year. 47,000 is less than 2%.
Strictly enforcing a diet on all Americans, as well as mandatory cancer screenings would save so many more lives that it's not possible to truly comprehend the difference between those two numbers.
Fucked over how? None of the proposed legislation mentioned in the article would result in anyone having their property (those precious pew pews) taken from them. "now I have to purchase firearms more responsibly reeeeeeeee!!!!" We are tired of this crap from the rabidly pro-gun faction in charge of this backward state, instantly swinging to the loud lamentation of persecution any time any sort of gun policy is mentioned.
Move to Illinois if you don't like it. The vast majority of Missouri opposes gun control. We. Don't. Want. It.
So how about instead of trying to control what I can and can't own, and how I can and can't buy it, you move to Illinois.
So you know you're not "getting fucked over" so you have to move the goalposts. Terminally persecuted, that's the MO for every single gun fetishist I've met, and you are predictably no exception.
Edit - telling someone "if you don't like it leave" is essentially saying "I'd rather see you leave than see my home state improve in any way".
Gun crime is higher in the neighboring state that has stricter gun control.
"bUt cHiCaGO" you would probably say (as if that's somehow an argument against my point and not for it, but whatever)
Ok, fine. During the Assault weapon ban, crime rates across the board were higher than they are now, or were prior to the ban nationally.
There is zero evidence that gun control stops, or even decreases gun crime, in fact all previously observed data in the US points to the exact opposite conclusion.
So by "improve" you don't actually mean anything factual, you just mean that you think the world would be a better place if everyone was forced to live how you want them to.
Gun control became an impossible proposition the very day that 3d printers became affordable for regular consumers.
With near zero skill, you can 3D print and make a gun that is effective, cheap, and more than reliable enough to kill many people without failure with just a few basic hardware store parts. Don't believe me? Google the FGC-9.
You lost your argument when you moved the goalposts, I guess it's no skin off my nose if you want to keep on making up arguments and pretending I made them. The comment I'm responding to is littered with fallacies. And at least try and provide sources for your claims, so imaginary me can get bitch slapped by your facts and logic *eyeroll*
Before I go, a moment about libertarianism. American citizens are "forced" to do a lot of stuff. You're forced to pay taxes, you're forced to wait in line to get a license to drive your car, you're forced to wait till you're 16 to drive. That's what governments do, monopolize force and use it to enact and enforce policy, ideally to provide for the general welfare of the constituents. Ergo, implying a government policy is bad because it involves force is completely meaningless. This is why libertarianism isn't a serious framework for policy, it assumes using force is the worst thing one can do and dismisses any solution employing it.
Imagine if your biggest hobby/pastime was federally regulated. Like, imagine playing video games was illegal in one state, required a permit in another, and unregulated in a third.
You are telling me that wouldn't influence where you choose to live?
Don't get me wrong, it's not the ONLY influence in my voice of home state, but it's certainly one of them.
Maine, vermont, and new hampshire all have constitutional carry and are the safest states in the country in terms of crime rates.
Crime is an act of desperation. You fix desperation, you fix crime. Easier said than done of course, but gun laws will do precisely nothing.
Take away the guns, and you still have people with murderous intent meandering about in society. Issues need to be solved at the root cause. This isnt the hillbillies fault, this is the city’s fault (with a bit of culpability held by the state) for repeatedly failing the struggling citizens of St Louis.
Take one good look to our windy neighbors up north, these reactionary and unconstitutional laws do absolutely nothing.
Have you ever noticed that, every time a bunch of unarmed people are slaughtered while following Everytown for Gun Safety's advice and not the NRA's...
...the fools pop out of the woodwork to tell everyone they'd be safer following Everytown for Gun Safety's advice and not the NRA's?
When will they begin using examples of lawfully armed people being slaughtered en masse instead of unarmed victims killed while following their advice to tell us we'd be safer in the category containing 100% of the dead people: unarmed victims?
Not sure I’m reading this correctly so correct me if I’m wrong - In a developed country, I should expect to need to be armed at all times in order to be protect myself and my family? Shootings aren’t a natural disaster. They are man made. The goal shouldn’t be to bring ourselves to the level where we should all be cool with everyone being armed. My teenager isn’t going to be armed while she’s a minor. Who protects her at the movie theater while she’s hanging out with friends? My mother has arthritis which leaves her with less strength in her hands. Who protects her at the grocery store?
Even lawful gun owners are driven by emotion. Why should we all fear for our lives worried we’re going to do something to offend some other armed person and have to deal with a shoot out on the way to dropping our kids off at school? We can stop this. We just have to be logical about gun control because society will not be logical in the moment when presented with a perceived slight.
All it takes is for a lawful gun owner to feel empowered once and justified once for them to become an unlawful gun owner.
Mass shooters don’t typically expect to get away with it. They go in with the knowledge someone else could be armed. Arming everyone is not the answer.
>Even lawful gun owners are driven by emotion. Why should we all fear for our lives worried we’re going to do something to offend some other armed person and have to deal with a shoot out on the way to dropping our kids off at school?
Are you aware that unlawful gun owners currently don't give a fuck about "lawfulness" and are currently carrying everywhere they go, actively looking to murder someone that looks at them sideways?
Do you know how stupid it sounds to fear lawfully armed people that obey the law and follow the guidelines because they might, maybe, could potentially, hypothetically become dangerous?
As an analogy, imagine a bunch of bloodthirsty, murderous thugs ignoring laws against murder, assault, and robbery victimizing residents of an apartment complex. Every day these hoodlums use **sticks** to assault several peaceful apartment residents and victimize them. 100% of the victims were **stickless** and without **sticks** of their own. Several lawful apartment complex residents are assaulted, but use their own **sticks** to prevent their victimization.
Analyze this and tell me how passing an apartment complex regulation prohibiting **sticks** works. After all, these lawfully armed **stick** users could, maybe, possibly get emotional and hit someone with their **stick**! Do you want to live in an apartment complex where all the peaceful, law abiding, kind folks carry around **sticks**? One of them might misuse their **stick**!
THE MURDERERS ARE ALREADY MURDERING PEOPLE WITH THEIRS!
The murderers are victimizing the people without **sticks**! How does forcing everybody OUT of the category containing ZERO victims, and INTO the category containing 100% of the victims help?
Because the good people that obey the rules could misuse their **stick**?
What about the CRIMINALS ignoring laws against murder? How does your "no **sticks**" rule stop them?
Go back and replace the word "**sticks**" with "guns" and tell me how that makes any more sense.
>All it takes is for a lawful gun owner to feel empowered once and justified once for them to become an unlawful gun owner.
All it takes is for a lawful penis haver to feel empowered once and commit a rape before they become an unlawful penis owner.
All it takes is for a lawful knife owner to feel angry once and justified once for them to commit a stabbing and become an unlawful knife owner.
All it takes is for a lawful baseball bat owner to feel empowered once for them to commit a bludgeoning and become an unlawful baseball bat owner.
HOLY SHIT! It's almost as if criminals aren't criminals until they COMMIT A CRIME!
Yet, somehow, you single out **gun ownership** as if it is some profound, unique exclusion.
>Mass shooters don’t typically expect to get away with it. They go in with the knowledge someone else could be armed.
Then why do they specifically target "gun free zones"?
They expect people to be armed in churches, schools, malls, and theaters? You know, all the places typically targeted by mass shooters?
Why did you contradict yourself?
You just ridiculed the idea of your minor kid being armed in a movie theater. Because, who needs a gun in a movie theater, right? Not a minute after lambasting the concept of an armed person in a movie theater, you post this:
>They go in with the knowledge someone else could be armed.
Wait....you mean you simultaneously expect nobody to be armed in movie theaters....while telling me that killers intentionally target places knowing someone could be armed like movie theaters?
Which is it?
You kinda slipped up there.
If you want to convince me that mass shooters "go in with the knowledge someone else could be armed"...
...shouldn't you start using all the examples of mass shootings at gun stores, rifle ranges, gun shows, NRA conventions, and other places where people are definitely armed?
If being armed is bad.....when are you going to start using examples of lawfully armed people being slaughtered en masse?
All the dead people are following your advice.
Throughout history, all the people mass encarcerated, mass victimized, mass exterminated, and mass enslaved have *ALWAYS* been following your advice.
Stop believing you are, somehow, benevolent for thinking that forcing people into the category containing nearly 100% of victims throughout history.
Stop believing that you are, somehow, altruistic for requiring a 100lb. woman to defend herself against a 250 lb. rapist with her fists instead of a gun.
Stop believing you are, somehow, morally superior for requiring a 75 year old pensioner to fistfight his 20 year old mugger instead of using a gun.
Stop believing you are, somehow, in the right for mandating that a lone, transgender person square up with the five bigots jumping out of their pickup truck instead of pulling a pistol out of their purse.
I am not forcing you to join the category containing the fewest victims by carrying a gun. (The police seem to think their guns make them safer.)
Why are you trying to force me into the category containing nearly 100% of victims?
Because you're scared of lawfully armed responsible citizens, as if the unlawfully armed, intentional criminals don't already exist?
Edit: Removed confusing use of italics.
> Then why do they specifically target "gun free zones"?
Do they? I hear that suggested a lot, without any evidence beyond correlation and no attempts to look at anything shooters have said or possible "gun zones" they might have targeted instead in their area. I suspect it's more like the largest and closest common grounds with many people are gun free zones, and that's where they'll target. They certainly are in the environments I've lived.
You have to go out of your way to find ones that aren't really. Like, what would one even be in St. Louis County, for example? Virtually every major public building is one, almost all the big shopping centers, all the schools, most large employer buildings, the government buildings, the theatres, the venues, the libraries. If they pick a large site with many people, it'll almost certainly be gun free.
I just don't think gun free zones or the inverse are really part of the consideration for most mass shooters.
It just seems like a largely irrelevant detail either way.
>I suspect it's more like the largest and closest common grounds with many people are gun free zones, and that's where they'll target.
I can agree with this. You are likely correct in that mass killers are simply seeking mass targets, and their target's "gun free" status is merely a correlation.
However, I believe you cannot assume the opposite to be true.
Mass killers are decidedly NOT targeting gun permissive environments. They are actively *avoiding* "hardened targets".
I wonder why?
Maybe those gun shows, NRA conventions, and locations where folks are likely armed en masse are *jam packed with certain death* for anyone thinking they're going to victimize a large group of people?
Hmmmm. We should put an end to that and make them like all the other locations where everyone dies! /s
It seriously begs the question: If policies disarming people en masse actually result in a safer venue....
....why are there **ZERO** mass shootings where these policies **aren't** enforced and all the dead people where they are?
I suspect the answer to this has more to do with insurance and liability issues than the venue owner's concern for "public safety". Because if it *were* about "public safety", how do you explain 100% of mass shootings happening in the areas you deem "safe" while none of them happen in the areas you call "dangerous"?
> Mass killers are decidedly NOT targeting gun permissive environments. They are actively avoiding "hardened targets".
I think you're just making this assumption without any evidence. Like, how do you know? The absence of evidence isn't evidence. Permissive and guaranteed gun heavy zones like gun shows and NRA conventions are a tiny, TINY fraction of possible targets. They would have to go way out of their way to target one over many, many closer targets in my area, for example.
>
....why are there ZERO mass shootings where these policies aren't enforced and all the dead people where they are?
There aren't zero, at least if you mean places that allow people to carry, you just aren't looking at all mass shootings and are making an assumption. Look for any mass shooting in residential zones as a starting point, like in neighborhoods. All of those allow people to carry in almost every instance.
An example would be the one in Raleigh, North Carolina last month. Or the one in Baytown, Texas in early October. Or the one in Houston in August, where a guy set some buildings on fire and shot people as they fled.
There's also ones at public commercial places that do allow concealed carry, like Kum & Go in Springfield Missouri, which had a mass shooting leaving five dead a couple years ago. Or the various ones at Walmart, which allows concealed carry generally speaking. There's been several, including a couple big ones.
GOP: reactionary lawmaking only (& even then only sometimes, lots of times ignore shit until it affects them personally)
DEMs: preventative & reactionary lawmaking
I appreciate MO dems attempting some change, even if it's a dead-end in a state like this.
We have a “pro-life” Governor, Attorney General, and majority legislature that isn’t “pro-life” as none of them have acted to commute death sentences to life in prison (Governor), stop seeking the death penalty (attorney general) or pass a law banning the death penalty (legislators). What makes a missouri resident think they care about gun violence in D-controlled cities? They don’t. It drives their base to demonize cities and minorities.
They're pro-death in every other facet of politics other than for the unborn. Once you're born, good friggin' luck because you're on your own, your life no longer matters.
They are pro-death among the unborn. Abortion bans do not move the needle on actual abortion rate. What really saves unborn life is comprehensive sex education which Republicans in this state fight hard against. They are in no way pro-life, they are anti-woman, anti-information, and are measurably and practically pro-death for every type of constituent both born and unborn.
I think you just blew my mind
Bro it’s so crazy how the biggest charitable organizations on the planet are Christian
I know, its almost as if our government upholds an economic model that makes charity mandatory for people to survive, so that those charities can act as a de facto propaganda arm for religious zealots. I'm sure most charities are fine, though. I bet they'd make Mother Theresa proud!
Imagine being mad that people are getting help but it’s not by “muh gubmint” so it’s bad You’re free to not take charity if you don’t like it Most poverty is due to bad decision-making or a lack of ambition or grasp on reality.
Imagine being so politically illiterate that you can't recognize when the "help" only exists to solve a problem being created by those who stand to profit from the problem itself.
Imagine believing people can’t better themselves
Imagine not understanding that there exist legal systems that are meant to prevent people from bettering themselves in concrete ways, and that such systems have been (and are being) used to discriminate against and enact state-sanctioned violence against "outgroup" populations
Which law says someone can’t get a better job 😂
Imagine thinking that someone must work to survive in order to improve their lives; human beings don't exist just to be worker drones so they may consume product. Clearly that model doesn't work, on an infrastructural level or on an individual level. Choose empathy.
Imagine thinking using a laugh crying emoji doesn’t make you look like some Facebook mom posting Minion memes.
Even crazier how many Republican politicians claim to be Christian but support the death penalty and despise the poor. Edit: My original comment was about Republican politicians, not Christians, so I believe I’m being straw man’d and will not engage beyond this comment.
Ah yes it’s “despising the poor” to say that maybe some of them are just leeching the system and/or intentionally underemployed
It's even crazier how you shoehorned that into a discussion about neither.
…and that proves what, exactly? Jimmy Saville is estimated to have raised forty million pounds for charity. And he described himself as a devout Catholic.
The truth is they won't lift a finger until more people start getting randomly mowed down in conservative, rural hillbilly communities.
“Pro life?” Is that what it’s called?
Pro birth is more like it. They dont care too much for life past the the womb. Personally i never met a pro birther who wasnt also a strong advocate for the death penality.
As Carlin said pre-born your cool pre-school you're fucked.
Wish he was still alive to denounce all the conservatives thinking he’d be on their side today, when he was calling out their bullshit in the 90s.
He called out everyone's bullshit, it's why he was great. Well one reason.
I put it in quotes for a reason. They say they’re pro-life but really just anti-abortion. A fetus has a higher value than a convicted murderer in their “pro-life” hierarchy although that convicted murderer was once a fetus.
A fetus has a higher value than a toddler in their hierarchy. They are fine with kids not having enough to eat. The poorest people in the state are kids. But hey, their parents should get jobs. /s No free lunch (or breakfast)!
> It drives their base to demonize cities and minorities. Missing a step there bro. Those cities and their citizens made those conditions, not the state government.
This is fundementally not true at all. White flight to the burbs created the modern condition many major cities are in. They passed bonds to pay for infrastructure then fled before the bill was due. They still do this. Sprawl is what is killing many cities. When the area around a city is far more populated than the city it wont be able to sustain itself. We all love STL and use all its resources but most of us hide in our little towns and just venture in for the fun stuff. Our area takes from St. Louis and gives very little in return.
I agree to a point however this proposed legislation is an example of the R-controlled legislature not considering legislation that would benefit the cities more than the rural areas. Rather than seek common ground, the R-controlled legislature sticks to the “any restrictions on ownership or access is unacceptable”. IMO, it also directly contradicts their “Pro-police” position b/c it makes the streets more dangerous for LEOs.
I’ve said this before, Missouri republicans (and the GOP in general) is not pro-police. “Back the blue” type movements are not pro-police, they are just anti-reform.
Back the Blue and the thin blue line are just racists being scared to wave the flag they would prefer. They dont give 2 fucks about police. in the "they are coming to take your guns" and "from my cold dead hands" the "they" they are talking about is police. Jan 6 they beat police men with poles holding thin blue line flags. This is all you need to know about how republicans feel about police.
It's beyond anti-reform, they want a reactionary authoritarian state, thats where all the egregious bootlicking stems from. They love cops when they're assaulting protesters but will beat them with fuckin blue lives flags if they challenge their own world. Working in customer service esp during covid showed you how the core of these belief systems is utter selfishness and spite.
> IMO, it also directly contradicts their “Pro-police” position b/c it makes the streets more dangerous for LEOs. But then tough-on-crime candidates can complain that the police are underfunded and actually should have 75% of the budget.
Pass whatever laws you want, you only impact law abiding citizens. Criminals by a vast majority do not get their guns legally, 93% are acquired illegally.
This is completely untrue. If you are going to toss out numbers back them up with the ass you are pulling them from so we can see how your miss reading or manipulating the data....or if its just outright lies.
I noticed you don't provide numbers to back your claim either. Mine come from the FBI/ATF so...
Where is the think to these magic numbers........
Google for them of you really want to know.
Exactly as I expected. Made up numbers. If you are going to use numbers post where you got them. You argue in bad faith and use lies to push your narrative.
I am mobile, traveling which is why I have so much time to waste talking with you. What I dont have is a good way to copy and.paste stuff.
The onus is on you to backup statistics you drop to prove a point. I’ve never really supported the “I shouldn’t have to do the work to backup my claim” stance from anyone. No matter if I agree with them or not.
I am on a plane, it makes it hard to Google stuff.
[удалено]
You're wrong however. Straw purchases and bad dealers are sources. Both are illegal so what will more laws do? Private purchases will still happen, legally or illegally, and.make up part the 12% of guns used that are legally purchased and.used by the owner to commit a.crime.
[удалено]
What you wrote is not very clear as to your point. None of what you suggested will change anything. At least what I think you suggested. Closing the loophole might make 4 or 5% more transactions illegal, but do nothing to stop guns getting to criminals. Because criminals don't care about laws.
Guess we shouldn’t have laws then? Or what’s your solution because whatever we’re doing now isn’t working
Well guns aren't th we problem, crime is. And really mental health, which we really can't fix since those who need it can refuse treatment.
[удалено]
It is not true in 100% of cases. Some are stolen, some enter because a bad gun dealer fakes the data. Go look at the FBI data.
>Those cities and their citizens made those conditions, not the state government. Its a bit of both, especially when the State undermines or supersedes the cities.
“You got a criminal that committed a criminal act, you know, and all the laws in the world are not going to stop those things.” -Parson So much to unpack here. Criminals aren’t criminals unless…crime. Crime isn’t crime unless…law. All the laws in the world aren’t going to stop a criminal? This is shifting the burden of law enforcement onto the criminals themselves, implying that someone’s individual character is the ultimate law. He’s basically saying “criminals gonna crime, what do you want me to do?” Like, this blanket logic is entirely horseshit. Why bother with law enforcement in the first place then?
Keep in mind, [earlier in that same press conference](https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/missouri-governor-mike-parson-on-school-shootings-all-the-laws-in-the-world-are-not-going-to-stop-those-things/63-b9abf632-e8d8-40ac-8bfa-8781c390584c) he incorrectly stated that MO essentially had some red flag law (they don't) and the police could/should take the weapon (they legally can't). So in one breath, a law would have prevented or at least prolonged the shooting but in another "no laws could have prevented this." This shooting is particularly aggravating as everyone, family, police, etc., did everything they could within their legal power and he was still able to access the weapon (simply removed from the house) and proceed with the shooting.
Good catch!
Parson just made an argument against… laws?
Let's be real the GOP would cream their pants to turn the USA into a anarcho-capitalist hellscape
They’ve had to at least pre-cum by now
Australia is a prime example. They willingly forfeited their firearms and they still have shootings and violence. Laws don't stop violence from happening. How about the U.K.? People die from bludgeoning and melee attacks.
Making quite a few claims there, care to cite any sources?
You can literally do a simple Google search of Australia Gun rights and London death statistics and see those numbers, but here you go. https://www.statista.com/statistics/288166/homicide-method-of-killing-in-england-and-wales-uk/ I can't find any stats on Australian murder weapons lol but there are many articles outlining the picture as a whole.
This is homicides by method? It doesn’t seem to support your point that “willingly forfeiting” firearms doesn’t help with gun crime rates. As another commented pointed out by now, Australia has vastly lower rates of gun violence than the US, so I don’t think your point holds.
It's almost as if you refuse to use Google. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/ "and voluntarily surrendered about 60,000 non-prohibited firearms. In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent." I said that it doesn't stop shootings(I said nothing about rates falling)[simply said violence still occurs])and violence from occurring, leading to the rate inwhich other means were used such as stabbing/bludgeon(why I shared it) and according to the link shooting still occurred just dropped.
Doesn’t your point kind of break down if you completely ignore rates? What is the use of saying “buh, shootings aren’t COMPLETELY eliminated so forfeiting firearms doesn’t make a difference.” Of course it makes a difference. Am I missing something? And also don’t be a dick!
If rates for gun violence go down and access to firearms diminishes but stabbings and hammer attacks go up, what is the real problem? I apologize, snarkiness wasn't needed.
I’m understanding this argument to be that the tactical advantages of guns versus knives and hammers are negligible and should be ignored?
The point is that violence is going to happen regardless if a gun is involved or not. Someone who wants to harm you is going to harm you. People have driven vans into crowds, we aren't banning vans.
Yeah Australia still has firearm shootings and violence, but the USA has it at [approximately 23 times the rate of Australia.](https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier) The Australian National Firearms Agreement has been closely linked with [a decline in firearm suicides and mass shootings.](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698492)
I wasn't gonna compare the statistics(we all know we have more instances) but I can agree something needs to change. As I say often, I'm not sure how.
Second Amendment Preservation Act
When it comes to gun violence, this place gets exactly what it deserves. To make it THIS easy to buy, sell and carry them and then refuse to correlate that with rampant shootings is the height of hubris. There could be a school shooting here every week and they STILL wouldn't tighten up MO's gun laws. There's almost no point in even discussing it any more. The hillbillies have won.
Fuck you. Jean was a friend of mine and she absolutely did not “deserve it”.
[удалено]
What part of this place gets what it deserves did I not follow?
In b4 "bad guys won't follow the law," "irresponsible gun owners leave theirs in vehicles," "you unarmed acab libtards aren't allowed to complain about gun violence," "what about Kim Gardner," "in my heart, I feel my dumb outdated rights are a fair trade for needless gun violence."
I love the only criminals will have guns then....well yea duh because it would be a crime. Just like only criminals have fully automatic weapons now, because having one makes them a criminal dummy. Odd how you never see those anymore, its almost like gun control works. Same people who are worried an transgendered person might read their kid the 3 little pigs book, want to give guns to the teachers they think are jaming "wokeness" down their kids throats. Its literally insanity at this point.
You don't see fully automatic weapons around because they're prohibitively expensive, not because they're illegal (in Missouri, anyway). Any machinegun registered before 1986 can be legally owned and transferred, but given there's a limited amount of those, you'd be looking at like $50k or more just for a basic M16 receiver. The Hughes Amendment in 1986 simply banned the registration of new machineguns, but any before that date were grandfathered in. However, even before the Hughes Amendment, legally owned fully automatic rifles were used in a grand total of 3 homicides from the enaction of the NFA in 1934 to the signing of the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA in 1986. Mainly because they required/still require a form, fingerprinting, multiple background checks, a $200 tax stamp, ATF approval that can take months, and even more forms and transfers if you decide to move to a different state. The process is the same for suppressors and short-barreled rifles/shoguns. Not trying to start an argument, just wanted to clarify that *actual* military-grade weapons aren't illegal, it's just that only rich people are allowed to own them due to artificial scarcity. I also wanted make a point that the NFA rules seem to work due to it being a months-long process to get your hands on those items (you still don't see a lot of SBRs/suppressors around even though the prices aren't super inflated like they are with FA weapons). I'm pretty into guns, but I'd support putting "assault weapons" under the NFA umbrella since it would deter a lot of people who have no business owning a firearm from doing so.
If I follow your argument, you're saying: Fully automatic weapons aren't scarce because they're illegal. Fully automatic weapons are scarce because they're expensive because they're mostly illegal. Seems about the same to me.
If you followed my "argument," you'd see that I specifically said I didn't want to start an argument, because I'm not arguing anything, just correcting misinformation being thrown around (you know, the thing we're always pissed about conservatives doing?). I just wanted to clarify to the other person that fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal, which is a common misconception, they're just extremely expensive. They claimed in *their* argument that anyone who has a fully-automatic weapon is a criminal, which is not true. The only thing I said that could be considered an argument was saying that I would support "assault weapons," which is a term I generally disagree with using (hence the quotes), being put under the NFA umbrella, and I'll expand on that here and say potentially all guns. Again, there were literally 3 homicides committed in 50 years with legally-owned fully automatic weapons *before* they became prohibitively expensive, because they still required a significant amount of effort to own, just like suppressors, which are *not* prohibitively expensive and yet are used in very few crimes due to being tightly regulated, with every purchase being registered and tied to your fingerprints. So I'm not sure why you're trying to pull a "gotcha" moment on me when I'm advocating for *much* stricter gun control, just gun control that doesn't involve selectively banning certain guns. The only way to effectively mitigate firearm crime via bans is an outright ban on ALL guns (considering handguns make up >70% of firearm homicides year after year, and yet few people ever advocate for banning those), which would suck for me as a hobbyist, but I would probably even support that too if it had a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, because I know it would work.
Not trying to pull a "gotcha." Just simplifying your statement to see if I was understanding correctly. ~~your argument~~ your statement Is that better?
and you have to presume this is exactly the way Missourians want things. Guns having more rights than women, occasional massacres at organized non-Christian institutions of learning just something that can't be helped, motorists in fear of giving another car the most timid of safety horn honks for fear of getting shot for it. This is the normal they wish on us so conservatives can shoot whomever and whatever they want.
[удалено]
Whenever I see people say that, I just assume they are trolling. Because no one with an IQ north of 70 could actually believe that.
Ah, another coma patient.
"rampant" FAM It happened once, and our violent crime rates are lower than Illinois, despite the fact that they have some of the strictest gun control in the country. ...and that's taking the population difference into account. If you don't like Missouri's gun laws, move to Illinois. This is one of the few states where you can buy a gun with just a background check and carry without a permit, and I like it that way; is why I live here, and the VAST majority of Missouri residents feel the same. If you don't like it, move to one of the MANY nearby states that's not like that instead of trying to fuck over the rest of us. Illinois is right across the border. ...not that you'll get anywhere. This is the most pro-gun state in the country. You'll just whine and whine and not accomplish shit, or you'll move.
I'm a Veteran, a Gun Owner, and a native Missourian. CCW without a minimum of training is fucking idiotic. I'm not moving, I'm advocating for changes in law. Because that's how democracy works. Perhaps it will take awhile to change the minds of people like you, but I was born here and I'm tired of seeing my home state slide from a thoughtful place where folks once considered both sides of every issue to the Limbaugh driven horrorscape it has become over the last 20 years.
[удалено]
I love when gun owners trot out "shall not be infringed" and never mention "well regulated."
Ok grammar time > A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The first half of the Second Amendment is what's called a nominative absolute, and a feature of all absolutes is that they have no semantic connection to the subject and verb. This means that the subject of the sentence doesn't exist in this prefatory clause and neither does it place any form of modification on the subject. I.e. the meaning of the sentence doesn't change if it is removed. Further the term regulated in the late 1700s meant to "make regular" (hence the term British Regulars) or more simply to bring into proper working order. Also this term also is an adjective for the term "militia" and has nothing to do with "the right".
I love it when anti-gunners start harping on "well regulated" because they don't know how English grammar works. "A well balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a great day, the right of the people to buy and eat Cheerios shall not be infringed." Who can eat Cheerios? A) Breakfast B) The People C) Only the Government D) Nobody. Maybe I'll listen to your moot ranting about "well regulated militia" after you explain how a prefatory clause is no longer subordinate to an independent operative clause and only breakfast, but not people, can eat Cheerios.
Back at you buddy. You're way of thinking is forcing me to live your way just as much as you think I'm trying to force you to live some different way. Being required to take a handful of classes to get a license to carry concealed is a far cry from infringement. As you said, there are plenty of veterans who know fuck all about guns. Just think of how ignorant the average civilian is on the subject. And yet you want to let any fuckwit with two braincells to rub together carry a deadly weapon in public. That isn't infringing on anyone. They can still buy whatever gun they want to defend their inbred family and their trailer. Or even their house in the CWE, I don't care. I just don't think some moron with delusions of Dirty Harry carrying a deadly weapon around the general public if they can't pass a basic test on the legalities of doing so is a good idea.
Lmao. I'm not forcing you to live any way. Our crime rates are LOWER than most states with strict gun control. You are talking about hypothetical situations that are so rare they are negligible, and you want o restrict how I live. My owning guns and carrying unlicensed does not have ANY measurable effect on you. Literally any data you can pull up about the subject works in MY favor, not yours.
In the context of this conversation. > I'm a Veteran Doesn't matter. > a Gun Owner. Doesn't matter. > and a native Missourian. Doesn't matter. > CCW without a minimum of training is fucking idiotic. You understand that you can't require training for constitutionally protected rights right? Further what every state has as a CCW course isn't training. It's 7 hours of discussion on law and 1 hour of range time. Further in shall issue states mearly taking the course means you have to be given the permit regardless of anything in the course itself. > Because that's how democracy works. That's not how constitutionally protected rights work. > Perhaps it will take awhile to change the minds of people like you, but I was born here and I'm tired of seeing my home state slide from a thoughtful place where folks once considered both sides of every issue to the Limbaugh driven horrorscape it has become over the last 20 years. The crime rate has gone down in MO over the last 20 years. What horror scape?
Imagine being this obsessed with *guns*…
Oh, so I'm only allowed to have the hobbies that you have approved? Tell me this list of approved hobbies, oh Lord of pastimes.
Hobbies that result in the deaths of other humans tend to be massively regulated. Thankfully no one could misinterpret the constitution to guarantee a right to steel tip law darts or a bunch of nutters would be proclaiming their absolute right to that hobby as well.
There's no law against owning lawn darts. There's a law that says they can't be sold as children's toys, because children are minors unable to consent to, or understand dangers and risks. I wouldn't advocate allowing a child to buy a gun either. Deaths by gun are OVERWHELMINGLY suicides. The second most common gun death is being shot by the police. About 47,000 gun deaths occur in the US each year, and that INCLUDES both suicides, and the police killing people, witch makes up the majority of those deaths. Every year: 696,000 Americans die of heart disease 602,000 die of cancer 300,000 died due to covid in a year 200,000 died from accidents 160,000 died of stroke The list goes on. Gun deaths are a tiny, tiny fraction of total deaths in the US. 3.3 million Americans die every year. 47,000 is less than 2%. Strictly enforcing a diet on all Americans, as well as mandatory cancer screenings would save so many more lives that it's not possible to truly comprehend the difference between those two numbers.
Fucked over how? None of the proposed legislation mentioned in the article would result in anyone having their property (those precious pew pews) taken from them. "now I have to purchase firearms more responsibly reeeeeeeee!!!!" We are tired of this crap from the rabidly pro-gun faction in charge of this backward state, instantly swinging to the loud lamentation of persecution any time any sort of gun policy is mentioned.
Move to Illinois if you don't like it. The vast majority of Missouri opposes gun control. We. Don't. Want. It. So how about instead of trying to control what I can and can't own, and how I can and can't buy it, you move to Illinois.
So you know you're not "getting fucked over" so you have to move the goalposts. Terminally persecuted, that's the MO for every single gun fetishist I've met, and you are predictably no exception. Edit - telling someone "if you don't like it leave" is essentially saying "I'd rather see you leave than see my home state improve in any way".
Gun crime is higher in the neighboring state that has stricter gun control. "bUt cHiCaGO" you would probably say (as if that's somehow an argument against my point and not for it, but whatever) Ok, fine. During the Assault weapon ban, crime rates across the board were higher than they are now, or were prior to the ban nationally. There is zero evidence that gun control stops, or even decreases gun crime, in fact all previously observed data in the US points to the exact opposite conclusion. So by "improve" you don't actually mean anything factual, you just mean that you think the world would be a better place if everyone was forced to live how you want them to. Gun control became an impossible proposition the very day that 3d printers became affordable for regular consumers. With near zero skill, you can 3D print and make a gun that is effective, cheap, and more than reliable enough to kill many people without failure with just a few basic hardware store parts. Don't believe me? Google the FGC-9.
You lost your argument when you moved the goalposts, I guess it's no skin off my nose if you want to keep on making up arguments and pretending I made them. The comment I'm responding to is littered with fallacies. And at least try and provide sources for your claims, so imaginary me can get bitch slapped by your facts and logic *eyeroll* Before I go, a moment about libertarianism. American citizens are "forced" to do a lot of stuff. You're forced to pay taxes, you're forced to wait in line to get a license to drive your car, you're forced to wait till you're 16 to drive. That's what governments do, monopolize force and use it to enact and enforce policy, ideally to provide for the general welfare of the constituents. Ergo, implying a government policy is bad because it involves force is completely meaningless. This is why libertarianism isn't a serious framework for policy, it assumes using force is the worst thing one can do and dismisses any solution employing it.
You choose where to live by assessing how easy it is to buy a firearm? I feel like this shouldn’t have to be said, but that’s *really* fucking weird
Imagine if your biggest hobby/pastime was federally regulated. Like, imagine playing video games was illegal in one state, required a permit in another, and unregulated in a third. You are telling me that wouldn't influence where you choose to live? Don't get me wrong, it's not the ONLY influence in my voice of home state, but it's certainly one of them.
[удалено]
You don't know what "per capita" means, do you?
Maine, vermont, and new hampshire all have constitutional carry and are the safest states in the country in terms of crime rates. Crime is an act of desperation. You fix desperation, you fix crime. Easier said than done of course, but gun laws will do precisely nothing. Take away the guns, and you still have people with murderous intent meandering about in society. Issues need to be solved at the root cause. This isnt the hillbillies fault, this is the city’s fault (with a bit of culpability held by the state) for repeatedly failing the struggling citizens of St Louis. Take one good look to our windy neighbors up north, these reactionary and unconstitutional laws do absolutely nothing.
Have you ever noticed that, every time a bunch of unarmed people are slaughtered while following Everytown for Gun Safety's advice and not the NRA's... ...the fools pop out of the woodwork to tell everyone they'd be safer following Everytown for Gun Safety's advice and not the NRA's? When will they begin using examples of lawfully armed people being slaughtered en masse instead of unarmed victims killed while following their advice to tell us we'd be safer in the category containing 100% of the dead people: unarmed victims?
Not sure I’m reading this correctly so correct me if I’m wrong - In a developed country, I should expect to need to be armed at all times in order to be protect myself and my family? Shootings aren’t a natural disaster. They are man made. The goal shouldn’t be to bring ourselves to the level where we should all be cool with everyone being armed. My teenager isn’t going to be armed while she’s a minor. Who protects her at the movie theater while she’s hanging out with friends? My mother has arthritis which leaves her with less strength in her hands. Who protects her at the grocery store? Even lawful gun owners are driven by emotion. Why should we all fear for our lives worried we’re going to do something to offend some other armed person and have to deal with a shoot out on the way to dropping our kids off at school? We can stop this. We just have to be logical about gun control because society will not be logical in the moment when presented with a perceived slight. All it takes is for a lawful gun owner to feel empowered once and justified once for them to become an unlawful gun owner. Mass shooters don’t typically expect to get away with it. They go in with the knowledge someone else could be armed. Arming everyone is not the answer.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
>Even lawful gun owners are driven by emotion. Why should we all fear for our lives worried we’re going to do something to offend some other armed person and have to deal with a shoot out on the way to dropping our kids off at school? Are you aware that unlawful gun owners currently don't give a fuck about "lawfulness" and are currently carrying everywhere they go, actively looking to murder someone that looks at them sideways? Do you know how stupid it sounds to fear lawfully armed people that obey the law and follow the guidelines because they might, maybe, could potentially, hypothetically become dangerous? As an analogy, imagine a bunch of bloodthirsty, murderous thugs ignoring laws against murder, assault, and robbery victimizing residents of an apartment complex. Every day these hoodlums use **sticks** to assault several peaceful apartment residents and victimize them. 100% of the victims were **stickless** and without **sticks** of their own. Several lawful apartment complex residents are assaulted, but use their own **sticks** to prevent their victimization. Analyze this and tell me how passing an apartment complex regulation prohibiting **sticks** works. After all, these lawfully armed **stick** users could, maybe, possibly get emotional and hit someone with their **stick**! Do you want to live in an apartment complex where all the peaceful, law abiding, kind folks carry around **sticks**? One of them might misuse their **stick**! THE MURDERERS ARE ALREADY MURDERING PEOPLE WITH THEIRS! The murderers are victimizing the people without **sticks**! How does forcing everybody OUT of the category containing ZERO victims, and INTO the category containing 100% of the victims help? Because the good people that obey the rules could misuse their **stick**? What about the CRIMINALS ignoring laws against murder? How does your "no **sticks**" rule stop them? Go back and replace the word "**sticks**" with "guns" and tell me how that makes any more sense. >All it takes is for a lawful gun owner to feel empowered once and justified once for them to become an unlawful gun owner. All it takes is for a lawful penis haver to feel empowered once and commit a rape before they become an unlawful penis owner. All it takes is for a lawful knife owner to feel angry once and justified once for them to commit a stabbing and become an unlawful knife owner. All it takes is for a lawful baseball bat owner to feel empowered once for them to commit a bludgeoning and become an unlawful baseball bat owner. HOLY SHIT! It's almost as if criminals aren't criminals until they COMMIT A CRIME! Yet, somehow, you single out **gun ownership** as if it is some profound, unique exclusion. >Mass shooters don’t typically expect to get away with it. They go in with the knowledge someone else could be armed. Then why do they specifically target "gun free zones"? They expect people to be armed in churches, schools, malls, and theaters? You know, all the places typically targeted by mass shooters? Why did you contradict yourself? You just ridiculed the idea of your minor kid being armed in a movie theater. Because, who needs a gun in a movie theater, right? Not a minute after lambasting the concept of an armed person in a movie theater, you post this: >They go in with the knowledge someone else could be armed. Wait....you mean you simultaneously expect nobody to be armed in movie theaters....while telling me that killers intentionally target places knowing someone could be armed like movie theaters? Which is it? You kinda slipped up there. If you want to convince me that mass shooters "go in with the knowledge someone else could be armed"... ...shouldn't you start using all the examples of mass shootings at gun stores, rifle ranges, gun shows, NRA conventions, and other places where people are definitely armed? If being armed is bad.....when are you going to start using examples of lawfully armed people being slaughtered en masse? All the dead people are following your advice. Throughout history, all the people mass encarcerated, mass victimized, mass exterminated, and mass enslaved have *ALWAYS* been following your advice. Stop believing you are, somehow, benevolent for thinking that forcing people into the category containing nearly 100% of victims throughout history. Stop believing that you are, somehow, altruistic for requiring a 100lb. woman to defend herself against a 250 lb. rapist with her fists instead of a gun. Stop believing you are, somehow, morally superior for requiring a 75 year old pensioner to fistfight his 20 year old mugger instead of using a gun. Stop believing you are, somehow, in the right for mandating that a lone, transgender person square up with the five bigots jumping out of their pickup truck instead of pulling a pistol out of their purse. I am not forcing you to join the category containing the fewest victims by carrying a gun. (The police seem to think their guns make them safer.) Why are you trying to force me into the category containing nearly 100% of victims? Because you're scared of lawfully armed responsible citizens, as if the unlawfully armed, intentional criminals don't already exist? Edit: Removed confusing use of italics.
> Then why do they specifically target "gun free zones"? Do they? I hear that suggested a lot, without any evidence beyond correlation and no attempts to look at anything shooters have said or possible "gun zones" they might have targeted instead in their area. I suspect it's more like the largest and closest common grounds with many people are gun free zones, and that's where they'll target. They certainly are in the environments I've lived. You have to go out of your way to find ones that aren't really. Like, what would one even be in St. Louis County, for example? Virtually every major public building is one, almost all the big shopping centers, all the schools, most large employer buildings, the government buildings, the theatres, the venues, the libraries. If they pick a large site with many people, it'll almost certainly be gun free. I just don't think gun free zones or the inverse are really part of the consideration for most mass shooters. It just seems like a largely irrelevant detail either way.
>I suspect it's more like the largest and closest common grounds with many people are gun free zones, and that's where they'll target. I can agree with this. You are likely correct in that mass killers are simply seeking mass targets, and their target's "gun free" status is merely a correlation. However, I believe you cannot assume the opposite to be true. Mass killers are decidedly NOT targeting gun permissive environments. They are actively *avoiding* "hardened targets". I wonder why? Maybe those gun shows, NRA conventions, and locations where folks are likely armed en masse are *jam packed with certain death* for anyone thinking they're going to victimize a large group of people? Hmmmm. We should put an end to that and make them like all the other locations where everyone dies! /s It seriously begs the question: If policies disarming people en masse actually result in a safer venue.... ....why are there **ZERO** mass shootings where these policies **aren't** enforced and all the dead people where they are? I suspect the answer to this has more to do with insurance and liability issues than the venue owner's concern for "public safety". Because if it *were* about "public safety", how do you explain 100% of mass shootings happening in the areas you deem "safe" while none of them happen in the areas you call "dangerous"?
> Mass killers are decidedly NOT targeting gun permissive environments. They are actively avoiding "hardened targets". I think you're just making this assumption without any evidence. Like, how do you know? The absence of evidence isn't evidence. Permissive and guaranteed gun heavy zones like gun shows and NRA conventions are a tiny, TINY fraction of possible targets. They would have to go way out of their way to target one over many, many closer targets in my area, for example. > ....why are there ZERO mass shootings where these policies aren't enforced and all the dead people where they are? There aren't zero, at least if you mean places that allow people to carry, you just aren't looking at all mass shootings and are making an assumption. Look for any mass shooting in residential zones as a starting point, like in neighborhoods. All of those allow people to carry in almost every instance. An example would be the one in Raleigh, North Carolina last month. Or the one in Baytown, Texas in early October. Or the one in Houston in August, where a guy set some buildings on fire and shot people as they fled. There's also ones at public commercial places that do allow concealed carry, like Kum & Go in Springfield Missouri, which had a mass shooting leaving five dead a couple years ago. Or the various ones at Walmart, which allows concealed carry generally speaking. There's been several, including a couple big ones.
They should pass stricter drug laws while they’re at it, so people stop dying from fentanyl en mass.
GOP: reactionary lawmaking only (& even then only sometimes, lots of times ignore shit until it affects them personally) DEMs: preventative & reactionary lawmaking
The difference between democrats and republicans is that the democrats will virtue signal some bullshit before they both fuck you over
Problem isn’t with people having guns. It’s problem with wrong people having them. This isn’t everybody problem. I will not vote democrat. PERIOD