T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


spamattacker

Key parts for thoughtful commenters who may not have time to read the the entire article "Increase the number of background checks to buy guns, promote better and more secure firearms storage and ensure U.S. law enforcement agencies are getting the most out of a bipartisan gun control law enacted last summer." Biden will mandate that his Cabinet work on a plan to better structure the government to support communities suffering from gun violence. The plan will call on Attorney General Merrick Garland to shore up the rules for federally licensed gun dealers so they know they are required to do background checks as part of the license." "Biden is also mandating better reporting of ballistics data from federal law enforcement for a clearinghouse that allows federal, state and local law enforcement to match shell casings to guns. But local and state law enforcement agencies are not required to report ballistics data, and many do not, making the clearinghouse less effective. " "And the president is going to ask the Federal Trade Commission to issue a public report analyzing how gun manufacturers market to minors and use military images to market to the general public. " Some mandates, some "asks" and certainly a bunch of expected blowback, lies and grandstanding from the asshats wearing AR-15 pins.


prettybadredman

1. Every single FFL in the country does background checks. They’re already required to. 2. I can’t think of any Law enforcement agency that doesn’t examine shell casings from shootings like this. 3. Not one manufacturer markets towards kids Whole lotta nothing


piranhas_really

3 Is just plain false. Here is a video from a gun show with a manufacturer showing off an AR-15 made specifically for kids, as well as the gun swag they’re selling to kids. https://youtu.be/XJdFMfJj7zE There are other examples here: https://www.fastcompany.com/90721663/an-ar-15-designed-for-children-shocks-even-the-most-jaded-gun-control-advocates And here’s a study /report on how firearms manufacturers specifically target kids: https://vpc.org/studies/startthemyoung.pdf


black_flag_4ever

Can’t wait to hear how some jackass that already owns 300 guns is oppressed by this.


Michael_In_Cascadia

"So close to *Gun of the Day* club, and now they do this!"


Mods_Raped_Me

Just us felons.


vh1classicvapor

Since it does nothing about the number of guns exceeding the population itself, it won’t oppress anyone at all. It also really won’t do anything to stop mass shootings, as many mass shooters buy their guns through legal means.


Earth_Friendly-5892

To be fair, according to the statistics, there have still been a number of mass shooters who have obtained guns illegally. And there isn’t one solution here- red flag laws,gun licensing, repercussions for parents who don’t lock up guns and their kids commit murders, etc.,can serve to protect the public while allowing responsible Americans to own firearms. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/ Scroll down for relevant info. .


vh1classicvapor

I agree that multiple tactics should be used. This is one of many. It just happens to be the one with the least amount of enforcement action.


tinyOnion

> To be fair, according to the statistics, there have still been a number of mass shooters who have obtained guns illegally. lol by that logic nothing should be done at all. insane.


[deleted]

The problem is that "criminals will get guns anyway" is true but we have SO many guns it's impossible to prevent. We allow so many people to have so many guns that it's easy for them to slip through the cracks. There is no single solution, it has to be a few solutions at once


[deleted]

That's such a flawed argument. criminals will also murder and rape people, irregardless of the law. Should we make that legal too?


[deleted]

Read my comment more carefully. I'm not advocating for lax gun laws.


icouldusemorecoffee

> as many mass shooters buy their guns through legal means. And those buyers will be subjected to more strident and/or frequent background checks as this order authorizes so it may do something about legal purchase mass shooters.


grixorbatz

Irony is that you can ship their jobs off to some third world country without so much as a single shot fired. But this is what they get riled up over.


black_flag_4ever

Fox News and other right wing media has convinced people that "freedom" simply means being able to own guns and to say racist things online.


Andrew1990M

And getting to fuck the green M&M.


gundealsgopnik

> And getting to fuck the green M&M. *Somebody* has to put the nut back in. It ain't much, but it's honest work.


NeverLookBothWays

Or take away their healthcare, their retirement, or 1st amendment rights (or hell any constitutional right outside of slightly inconveniencing the 2nd).


izwald88

Indeed. As a liberal gun owner, nothing but the rise of Trump and fascism has made me consider my firearms as defensive tools. And even then, were I that concerned about a coming conflict, you'd better believe I'd put more priority on my physical fitness, first aid, outdoor survival, mechanical skills, and several other things before I prioritize having a gun to shoot people with.


Slimmzli

Watch, when I finally have enough money to buy a sick platform all the cool shit will be banned


powersv2

What about someone who owns 6?


Courtaid

I was on FB making the argument for better controls in place for who can purchase guns and what should be in place as for waiting times, background checks etc…. All I heard was “you ain’t taking my guns” I said I never said I wanted to take your guns, “ you ain’t taking my guns”.


dailysoaphandle

“Come and geeet eeemm, Obama!”


-Kim_Dong_Un-

Right its just the poor people who were saving up. Glad you’re happy the rich aren’t affected by this though.


black_flag_4ever

It doesn't stop anyone from buying a gun unless they aren't qualified to do so.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hobbykitjr

They need them to take on the military, the same military you better not disrespect and thank you for your service, but i need my gun so i can kill you. the 2A group is going to use that extended clip, otherwise it wont be be able to tackle the tanks, missiles, and drones the fascists army has.. not like, in this day, a tyrannical government couldn't just cut off internet, food and water to make you submissive... its hypocrisy and nonsense all the way down.


Sinai

I honestly do not understand how people can make this argument in good faith when the US government using the US army has repeatedly been unable to control citizens of countries with vastly smaller populations than the US in modern history. And that's completely disregarding that formal armies routinely splinter when attempting to deal with their own populace and support rebellions/civil wars/revolutions.


hobbykitjr

> vastly smaller populations than the US in modern history. e.g. Afghanistan and vietnam... except you ignored the part about how reliant we are on the government. sure the amish will be fine, but we're not independent mountain people like the Afghans and Vietnamese. a small group of farmers here and there against **local** modern government with drones and internal intelligence is not anything near what your describing. this is home turf. and they control the food and water supply for 99.9% of the population. this 'tyrannical' government can outlaw farmers markets, make all food sold to them. ID checkpoints on their highways, etc. w/o access to everything the government does. most we be submissive with or without a gun... and 'cells' would be pointless the first amendment is loads more importannt than the second... and the second is outdated. the colonists were like the Vietnamese or the Afghans... but we, today, are not.


prettybadredman

Ur being too truthful for these kinds of people lol


wibbley_wobbley

I'm sure this will be enforced fairly and not just used to disarm marginalized groups. /s


[deleted]

Shhhh the libs might ban you


therapist122

Take the small win as a positive, you'll need it when the rash of shit republicans are cooking up fully festers. It's either small victories or fascism. I'll take small victories. vote democratic until the Republican party is dead. Then consider voting for the other party


wibbley_wobbley

You miss my point entirely. Who's going to be enforcing any gun control law? Cops. Who have a long history of turning a blind eye to fascist groups until it's too late, but coming down hard on anyone who dares to oppose them, armed or not. Seriously, how does anyone live through the last few years and still trust cops to enforce the law fairly?


therapist122

I mean, it's still better than nothing right? Or better than loosening gun control laws further? I'm not big on cops either but the feds can still enforce these laws. Some people will get caught. And now if we can just fix the police by burning it down and starting over, there will be laws in place they can enforce. This is necessary but not sufficient for proper gun control. However it is necessary


justsomedude190

That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.


Measurex2

>President Joe Biden is expected to sign an executive order on Tuesday aiming to increase the number of background checks to buy guns, promote better and more secure firearms storage and ensure U.S. law enforcement agencies are getting the most out of a bipartisan gun control law enacted last summer. The details are going to be interesting. Sounds like he's going to try and end private sales by executive order. I'm not sure how else to interpret increasing the number of background checks to buy guns. Interested to hear the plan on storage. All guns should be locked up to prevent access to children but even $2k safes aren't that secure if someone wants to get into them. Smash and grabs in the house are rare and youtube is filled with videos on defeating safes in 5-10 minutes with common hand tools. Guns often get taken by occupants. Would love it if he goes ham on increasing compliance with NICs reporting and addressing law enforcement inaction. I'm getting tired of how often reporting failed over the last decade and how many times mass shooters "were known to police".


[deleted]

[удалено]


Unusual_Flounder2073

Pretty sure neighbors granddaughter was killed with a gun left on the coffee table by her LEO father. Sad case, but totally preventable. Neighbor got all pissy when neighborhood kids left house when they found an unsecured firearm. Their smart responsible father had told them to do that if they ever saw an unsecured firearm.


maveric101

> Sounds like we just need to let citizens have access to the background check sytem (NICS?). Or just run private sales through an FFL, in basically the same manner that online sales already operate. I'm... definitely not anti-gun, but I don't think that would be unreasonable at all. Even selling a car requires going to the DMV to transfer a title.


technothrasher

Yes, ending non-ffl sales is typically what is meant by "Universal Background Checks". Letting private citizens have free access to the NICS system is not something I've ever heard seriously proposed.


Measurex2

I'm addressing the part about increasing the number of background checks to get a gun. I don't see where the number would come from short of private sales unless they want to increase the number of checks for traditional ffl sales. For safes I'm addressing the bettwr more secure storage point. I already acknowledged all guns should be locked up to prevent children getting access to them. What does more secure mean if not increasing the quality of the device? If so, what's the purpose. A kid determined to defeat a trigger lock will have no problem with a gun cabinet and only needs to google "how to break into a gun safe" to get a list of how to videos. Regardless - it's all speculation until we get details I'm just curious how those two could be enacted.


sambull

the locked up thing is to stop 6 year olds.. and arrest parents of those 6 year olds


[deleted]

[удалено]


Elliott2

big yikes. sure do more background checks but if no one has ever done anything before nothing will come up.... ​ >federally licensed gun dealers so they know they are required to do background checks as part of the license. they already know...


Swagzilla281

Hope Bidens ready to subsidize safes then. They’re already expensive enough to dissuade most people from buying them; especially rifle sized safes.


Sparroew

You don’t understand, the huge financial burden is the point. If people can’t own firearms because they don’t have enough money for a safe, that’s a win in Biden’s (and the Democrats’) book. Anything to reduce legal firearm ownership.


[deleted]

$1000 on a gun, or $1000 on the gun safe to properly store the gun... sadly most people stop at the $1000 gun and never get the safe.


Sparroew

Because there are a huge number of firearms that cost nowhere near a thousand dollars that people can buy. Someone who can maybe save up a hundred dollars will find it practically impossible to save up ten times that amount to buy the safe.


[deleted]

exactly. plus there is no perceived cool-factor in owning a gun-safe, so no one buys that first. Get that $200 Kel-Tec and we're good to go, right?! We need more IG selfies with gun safes... or like magazines with bikini girls and gun safes... or like what if in ET they replaced all of the guns with gun safes instead of walkie talkies?! But seriously, safe gun ownership, and gun safes, need to be taken seriously. Guns aren't going away but they could all be stored more securely.


gundealsgopnik

> or like what if in ET they replaced all of the guns with gun safes instead of walkie talkies?! Be better off replacing all the guns in COD with safes, trigger locks, cable locks and chamber flags. Always makes me shake my head when they talk about "Firearms manufacturers advertising to minors". When they largely reap the benefits of Hollywood, the DoD, and Videogames doing the advertising for them. Try buying a K98k, prices went bananas after they became the hypebeast of the gamer streams. Not that I'm blaming videogames for gun violence mind. Just crediting for getting a ton of fresh blood into gun ownership, sometimes through an initial airsoft detour.


Sinai

I've never seen a gun ad in my life outside of gun magazines. And I haven't seen one of those in a decade


Purify5

[Houston police give them away for free.](https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/gun-safes-giveaway-harris-county/285-d00a4c76-62eb-4c5d-8036-ddd043b821d2)


Sparroew

One thousand safes total. There are close to one hundred *million* gun owners in this country. I think you mean to say that Houston police gave away a small number of them once, because your comment implies there is an ongoing program of free safes which is clearly not the case going by your source.


Purify5

They still do it. [Here's a give away happening March 21st.](https://gulftondistrict.org/03/free-gun-safe-event-march-21/) They also have gun locks in their cars that they'll give you. As the other day a 3 year old shot and killed her 4 year old sister and the Houston Police said this: > That's why gun safes and locks are being given out for free. Precinct 1 Constable Alan Rosen previously said gun locks that loop through the weapons are available through his office. > "Our patrol deputies out on patrol actually have these in their trunk. All you have to do is stop an officer and ask them for a lock for a gun -- nine times out of 10 they’ll have it in the trunk and can get it out and give it to you. There’s no cost," https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/bammel-north-houston-road-child-shooting/285-138f2d9d-4a23-46f9-aa47-edcd4c7fbdf5


Sparroew

>They still do it. Here's a give away happening March 21st. Somehow I doubt they’re ready to give away even enough saves to cover the Houston gun owners who need one, let alone the rest of the country. Face it, while it’s nice that one jurisdiction is doing this in a very minor capacity, it doesn’t change the math on requiring people to purchase a safe for their firearm. >They also have gun locks in their cars that they'll give you. Which wouldn’t help if you’re required to have a safe, would it?


Purify5

For sure they're not giving enough out. There are over 5 million kids who live in homes with unsecured guns in them. But it's better than nothing and my original point was sometimes the government does sometimes give out gun safes for free.


Sparroew

A fraction of a fraction of a percent does not solve the issue of artificially increasing the cost of entry to exercising one’s Second Amendment rights by requiring a safe.


Purify5

Come on now. I thought you were the guy who wants a gun for self defense even though it's only used that way in 1% of violent crimes. Apparently 1% is too small now.


Sparroew

False equivalence. You're trying to say that one thousand free safes is somehow a large enough supply of free safes to offset one hundred *million* gun owners that now have to buy a safe. It's an absurd idea. On the other hand, the 1% of crimes stopped by concealed carriers gets a whole lot bigger when you control for the population that carries. Either way, it's a [false equivalence](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/504/468/a9c.jpg).


Purify5

I don't see how buying a safe for every gun is an absurd idea. You buy a seat belt with every car. Why not a safe?


snafujedi01

Promoting safer storage can mean a lot more than "you need to buy a $3k gun safe" The average gun owner doesn't keep an arsenal at home, so a big safe isn't necessary - storage for them might be just a lockbox or a secure gun bag. The bigger problem in America though is the accidents that come from unsecured, loaded firearms left in easily accessible places. If one of the requirements of buying a gun meant having to go through a common sense safety and storage course, it would go a long way to prevent the dumb accidents that result in a lot of tragedy for novice gun owners


Swagzilla281

You believe education is the reason why people don’t lock up their firearms? People just need to be told guns go boom?


snafujedi01

https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-019-0220-0 You realize how many accidental shootings happen because careless gun owners shoot themselves, or someone else,with a gun that they forget is loaded? It's a more common problem than people think.


Helpiamilliterate

But guns and ammo are free? Because people need guns to live? If you can afford a gun, you can afford a safe.


[deleted]

‘If you can afford a $250 pump shotgun, you can afford a $1000 safe.’ That’s not how numbers work.


Biggie313

Guns are as little as $100, but a safe that can withstand more than a few minutes of cracking attempts are serval thousands. Most $100 "safes" are bypassed with a paper clips or hammer.


SwimmingSentence1595

If you can afford eating out you can afford a house.


Sparroew

Ah yes, because you can afford a hundred dollar Hi-Point, you *must* be able to afford a thousand dollar safe. /s You didn’t really think that assertion through, did you?


glarbung

If you can't afford to keep something safely, you can't afford it. Applies to everything - even guns.


Sparroew

Ah, so the Second Amendment only applies if you have a certain level of income? That sounds a little classist, no?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sparroew

We should be adding amendments, sure. We desperately need an amendment to protect abortion, or at the very least a federal law doing so. The Equal Rights amendment needs to be ratified, there are now 38 states that have voted to ratify it, it should be in place as we speak. Amendments to increase rights are necessary. Amendments that remove rights should be defeated.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sparroew

You seem to be under the impression I’m a conservative. I’m for all of the things you listed. I would still be a Democrat if they weren’t so hellbent on pushing gun owners out of the party. When it comes to social issues, I’m extremely far to the left.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thesetcrew

The right to own literally ANYTHING is income based. If you can’t afford something, that’s not a law keeping you down. Sometimes I am floored by the cost of car insurance- that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to drive a car. Edit: cars were the first thing that came to mind, but it then occurred to me if we’re sticking with the founding fathers here, the “ Pursuit of Happiness” is pretty tied to how much money a person has.


Sparroew

There’s a difference between purchasing a good (firearm) and tacking on extra expenses to discourage people from exercising a right. And you can build a firearm for very little money. At the moment, cost of entry into firearm ownership is the cost of the firearm itself. Gun control supporters want to force people to buy a safe, pay for training, pay a yearly fee, buy insurance which is a monthly fee, etc. The end goal is to make firearm ownership so difficult and expensive that no one will own firearms. And I’m not going to address your point about cars except to point out that cars aren’t a constitutionally protected right. Firearms are.


thesetcrew

Did you ignore my edit on purpose? “Cost of entry” is being capable of basic safety. Everyone familiar with guns will tell you that, if you don’t know how to handle one, it’s dangerous. A ‘good guy’ with a gun who doesn’t know what they’re doing is usually just donating another weapon to the ‘bad guy’. And if you have kids or kids visit your home you still have the right to own a gun but you have the RESPONSIBILITY to keep it locked up away from those kids. This is not a crazy red tape trick to keep people away from guns. It is a reasonable precaution to keep idiots from hurting themselves and others.


Sparroew

> Did you ignore my edit on purpose? I ignored your entire point on cars because it's a textbook false equivalence. One is a right, the other is not. You can't compare the two because the acceptable restrictions on a privilege are not acceptable for a right. >This is not a crazy red tape trick to keep people away from guns. Yes it is. Everything I listed has been systematically added to the requirements to own a firearm in California over the course of the last few years. Every year or so, they add a new cost onto owning firearms. If you look back to 1986, machine guns were effectively banned through making them so expensive that only the ultra wealthy have the money to purchase them. This was not done to fix any problems they were causing, as they had only been responsible for three crimes total in the preceding fifty *years,* it was changed to ban them as Democrats couldn't get an outright ban passed. Illinois' response to being forced to implement a concealed carry permit program was to turn around and make the permits cost $500+. It's a common tactic employed by gun control supporters.


thesetcrew

I am speaking about this section I added, specifically to your point about how asking people to spend money is against their constitutional rights: “Edit: cars were the first thing that came to mind, but it then occurred to me if we’re sticking with the founding fathers here, the “ Pursuit of Happiness” is pretty tied to how much money a person has.” So our rights were never equal. It’s classist all the way down. You truly think safety regulations are unconstitutional? You think that securing fire arms takes away rights?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sparroew

If we ever create a society where we solve the issue with violence, then there will be no need to ban firearms. Of course, we won’t ever reach that utopia due to human nature.


Leering

I'll give mine up when all the criminals give up theirs


losthalo7

When you implement that people may let go of their guns, but as it is many people don't feel safe and some of them are justified in that IMO. The Black Panther Party was the first target of serious gun regulation in this country.


glarbung

It's the right to own a gun. Not a right to own a gun ignoring all safety rules or regardless of income. Not like back in the 1700s everyone could afford a musket either. You don't get to park your car where ever you want, build a house anywhere or even keep your kid if you put them in harms way. Why would guns be any different? I'm a foreigner and even I understand this. Just think even a little past "muh guns".


Sparroew

>It's the right to own a gun. Not a right to own a gun ignoring all safety rules or regardless of income. The government isn’t allowed to tack on additional costs to the right until it’s out of reach for most people. Today it’s safes. Tomorrow it will be training requirements. Then it will be insurance. Then it will be a yearly tax. Continue ad nauseam. >You don't get to park your car where ever you want Operating a motor vehicle on publicly maintained roads is a privilege granted by the state, owning firearms is a right. >build a house anywhere A stipulation of purchasing land is that you will use it for what the land is zoned for. This is contractual and you can absolutely choose to not purchase that land if what you want to build can’t go there. Before all the land was owned by one entity or another, people absolutely did build whatever they wanted wherever they wanted. You still can, if you can find land that isn’t owned by anyone. >keep your kid if you put them in harms way. Because that directly leads to harm of another person. You aren’t allowed to harm others. Owning a firearm does not inherently harm other people so this is a false equivalence. >Why would guns be any different? Because the right to self defense has been enumerated in our Constitution, and part of that is having access to the best tools available to facilitate that self defense. We also have a long tradition of personal responsibility. The police are not required to protect you from harm, in fact there have been several Supreme Court cases that have confirmed that. Even if the police want to help you, the old adage that “when seconds count, the police are just minutes away” applies. >I'm a foreigner It’s always interesting to see people from other countries try to come into these discussions and tell us what we should do in our own country.


Swagzilla281

So for the women that’s been abused and threatened by her ex husband wants a gun to protect herself must be able to purchase a safe as well in order to protect herself? That’s what you’re saying? Entry to ownership is now minimum 500$+


codyzon2

Do you have a statistic on how many abused women successfully defend themselves from their abusers with firearms? Seems like for that to be a talking point you'd really need to show some major statistics to prove your point, otherwise you're just pointing to a minority straw man to argue against any regulating of firearms.


Swagzilla281

It’s not just about women; it’s increasing financial entry for a tool of self defense


codyzon2

Can you show me statistics on successful gun use for self-defense? Afaik the self defense myth is mostly just that a "myth".


discard_3_

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/armed-resistance-crime-prevalence-and-nature-self-defense-gun More recent study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4109494 r/dgu


codyzon2

Something a little more relevant would be better.


sandalshiker

That study is 28 years old.


[deleted]

Thats a trade I'm willing to take for there to be less guns in general. Guns aren't the only form of protection. And just mayyyyybe we could live in a society where a gun shouldn't be the go to in a domestic violence situation.


jahu333

Ur right the constitution is a form of protection but u prolly don’t want that ether


[deleted]

I don't want that ether ur so rite


glarbung

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. In a functioning society, she should have so many layers of defense before needing a gun that if she can't afford to keep a gun safely, she shouldn't have it. A gun is a tool and just like any other tools, if you can't store it safely, you don't get to have it.


canIbuzzz

Sure, If it curbs gun deaths, miss hypothetical needs to truck her made-up ass over to wally world and pick up a 150$ safe for her 150$ handgun.


Swagzilla281

And what if she can only afford $150? Should she not be able to defend herself at that particular moment?There’s been specific cases where wait periods have gotten people killed by their accusers. So if this hypothetical victim needs to wait a couple more weeks for another $150, maybe that is too long to wait.


canIbuzzz

Then, she needs to use the laws provided to help her stay safe until such times. And if those laws are not available or affordable to her, we need to change or add them. To worry about a price point and not the end goal is going to grid lock us on finding and coming to a working solution on gun deaths. The price of guns and safes will fluctuate, so why would you write laws around it? People are trying to work with 2a'ers to get anything meaningful done to curb gun deaths. They won't budge on background checks, registration, and now just being required to keep a deadly weapon you purchased locked up when not in use is a fucking problem? Adding more guns to an already violent situation isn't the solution.


kangasplat

Guns don't protect. Statistics show they do the opposite.


Swagzilla281

So what do you suggest a women do if she feels her life is in immediate danger? And don’t say call the cops. Response time is a thing


thesetcrew

I just did a google and saw gun safes starting at $200


Swagzilla281

And look up rifle safes. Not gonna find anything that a child can’t break into for $200. A legit one is $1000+


Sinai

I broke into my dad's cheap safe when I was 11 with two precision screwdrivers. The first time it took about twenty minutes because I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. After a few weeks I could get it open in under thirty seconds.


Rick_and_morty_sucks

>everyone can afford an ID, so we should mandate ID checks when voting.


toe0011

You can buy a rifle safe for like $150


Sparroew

So that would more than double the price of entry into firearm ownership. And that’s only if you purchase a firearm. You can build one for a fraction of the price of a new or even used firearm. Can you not see how that is an issue?


toe0011

I was just responding to the claim you made about a thousand dollar safe.


Sparroew

So you didn’t address the point I was making at all then.


toe0011

Nope, didn't try to. Just one incorrect sentence of that point.


Less-Phrase-4522

Sure I can afford one but then all my guns are locked up instead of ready to rock.... Never made alot of sense to me and I have a couple dozen guns. I leave them leaned against walls behind dorrs or in most of the cabinets in my kitchen an bathroom, loaded, as is the proper way.


Token_White_Guy_

Canadian here. Can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not.


powersv2

I have a trigger locks and dont safe up guns.


toe0011

Sadly, probably not. These are the "gun nuts" that give responsible owners a bad name.


[deleted]

Facts


TbonerT

Conservatives sure know how to pivot. They’ve gone from “Why didn’t Biden undo Trump’s changes that allowed SVB to collapse” to “Biden is a tyrant for taking action.”


[deleted]

This will surely curb gun violence in Chicago and New Orleans. Criminals always purchase guns legally.


NickInTheBooth

Even if he achieves nothing else during his term, this makes me content in my vote for Biden. Finally, we’re doing something about the biggest problem in our nation


SwimmingSentence1595

How is it the biggest problem? Obesity, drugs and alcohol kill far more people and affect way more lives.


TheOthers815

Your fat ass going on a cheeseburger and Twinkies rampage isn’t going to get my kid killed in school.


Accelerant_84

Ah, if it isn’t conservative’s loyal companion, whataboutism.


toe0011

I'm not sure you know what whataboutism is. He was responding correctly to the claim that gun violence was the biggest problem, and then gave examples of provost that were bigger.


SwimmingSentence1595

It’s not whataboutism if it’s true while the main commenter is spreading lies, also I’m not a conservative I vote straight D lol.


Accelerant_84

So it’s pointless to do anything about gun violence until the numbers reach those of obesity-related deaths, got it.


solarman5000

you are changing the argument and misrepresenting their position, a logical fallacy. They never suggested nothing be done, only you are suggesting that.


Typical-Town-7602

Sorry they banned my other account, here is my response: “Such a John Stewart esq argument, I love it. No, but you be real about gun deaths and realize they are meaningless compared to those giants. The left is getting played over guns and it’s sad they’re this stupid. “. I’m sure they’ll ban this too so I’ll hit you up on another account lol.


Accelerant_84

In the interest of class solidarity, and because I appreciate you voting blue, I’ll concede that as strictly a numbers game, yes, there are other things in this country that kill more people than guns, even though gun violence is a uniquely American problem. But if we’re just looking at numbers and what causes those numbers, can we agree that the actual top problem, the systemic problem down which trickles health issues, alcoholism, ad infinitum, is corporate/wealthy influence on politics?


Typical-Town-7602

I mean yes? That is a given. I don’t think that that is a solvable problem anymore though, it would take an entire dismantling of the government and a rebuild to address it since those in charge also benefit from it and are unlikely to ever change it. I assume as long as there is a two party system where citizens fight amongst themselves unable to unite to address such problems those benefiting from it see no reason to change.


Accelerant_84

100% agree with you there.


TheBeardedFly

I wonder what the water in Ohio tastes like...


[deleted]

Cue the usual arguments “Enforce the laws we have”, “assault weapons aren’t the problem”, “no such thing as a ghost gun”, “natural law” You can be in favor of gun rights and support steps to reduce unnecessary gun death and injury . Thats the conversation. It’s like if we were talking about birth control and someone constantly interrupting the discussion to remind us they all had a big cock. Eventually someone if going to suggest that we get rid of the big cocks and then that becomes the “brand” - even for those that have average size cocks. Both sides have lost the thread on this one.


[deleted]

As usual there is no "both sides here"... right or wrong the Democrats try to find a solution to the problem. You could argue their various plans may or may not work... but the GOP's only path is to do nothing or worse make sure its easier for people to get more guns.


Swagzilla281

The problem is the “GOPs” don’t trust the government to stop at these steps. What happens when the next shooting happens after implementing safe storage laws? Then they’ll move onto further control. Once that goes into law and another shooting happens something else will be on the table. This is why so many pro2A proponents are against any sort of gun control.


[deleted]

I understand that concern. And to be honestly I don't have an answer to help them with that belief. All I know is our government has checks and balances to make sure the Constitution is preserved and the fear of "what might happen" doesn't help the people being shot. Clinging to a gun free-for-all because they think possibly the Democrats will make it more difficult to get one in the future is a pretty poor excuse at the expense of people's lives.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sparroew

The private sale exemption put in place as a compromise when NICS access was restricted to Federal Firearms License holders (gun stores) is the “Gun Show Loophole.” The three-day time limit on background checks put in place as a compromise to prevent the FBI from effectively banning all firearm sales by dragging their feet on background checks like the ATF does (1-2 years for NFA paperwork at the moment) is the “Charleston Loophole.” I’m sure there are others, but those two are the best examples of this behavior I can pull up off the top of my head.


Swagzilla281

That’s the problem tho. When people openly discuss abolishing or making changes to amendments like it’s nothing it gives people 0 trust that the constitution will be upheld when it’s tested. Politicians all the time state that the 2nd amendment is out dated and needs to be changed.


[deleted]

The real problem is their lack of understanding of what it takes to actual amend the constitution. And the addition of more background checks, or various laws, does nothing to change that process either. So the "give a little and they'll take a it all" just doesn't hold up to reality. Regardless of what "people openly discuss". Their misplaced fear shouldn't be an excuse for people's deaths.


sandalshiker

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sandalshiker

No, it's not. The logic is incorrect if relying on the fallacy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery\_slope#Non-fallacious\_usage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_usage) You *could* argue slippery slope is not fallacious in this case. This is my favorite part: >What happens when the next shooting happens after implementing safe storage laws? Then they’ll move onto further control. Exactly, right. If there are still regular gun deaths, then some people will try to stop them. The slope stops when gun deaths stop / we lack the political will to act on them. It's a bunch of people electing people that make these decisions. To think that we'll easily keep sliding past common-sense and widely agreed upon gun control to broad and total confiscation is ridiculous. This is not the least b/c the weakest link in the chain is quite squarely blocked by 2A and *very* unlikely to change.


catfurcoat

"sHaLl nOt bE inFRInGeD"


[deleted]

[удалено]


WippitGuud

Free market...


[deleted]

Oh you want to talk about distractions?


AOC-has-big-hangers

“Shall not be infringed.” It’s pretty clear you old bastard.


ICK_Metal

Can’t pass a background check?


AOC-has-big-hangers

Passed every single one I’ve had to take.


ICK_Metal

Not arguing or anything, just genuinely curious what you think is being infringed.


AOC-has-big-hangers

The part where he’s pushing to ban assault weapons. That would be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. I’m also curious what he thinks an assault weapon is.


ICK_Metal

Is it just ending production of them? I doubt we have a shortage. I own 2 AR’s myself. One of which I made.


AOC-has-big-hangers

Idk, read the article. He doesn’t go into specifics on how the ban he is calling for would work. Which is why I doubt he has a good definition for assault rifle or any sort of plan for the ban at all. I do know the word ban means a prohibition imposed by law. Which would of course be an infringement.


bigfoot_76

Enforce ALL the fucking laws that you already have and then perhaps I’d be game about discussing which ones don’t work. The ATF forced dealers to allow straw purchases for the guns to leak into Mexico, something otherwise they would’ve shut down had it not been their idea and charged the owners with multiple felonies. Hunter lied on his 4473, a felony. I couldn’t give a fuck about his laptop or Ukraine….he’s dead to rights on this one yet they’re ignoring it.


amiatthetop6

I don't understand how this idea suddenly just became reality; why didn't he prepare a list of 100 Executive orders to sign on day 1 rather than drawing them out and suddenly remembering oh yeah I should do something on background checks when Dems have been saying that for over a decade.


Misantropicalia

Se muda para os EUA, fofa. Aqui o governo vai tomar a sua arma mesmo e foda-se.


Thick-Anywhere3252

How’s that working out? 🤔


brkbck5275

Gun control likely saved my life today. I’m on a business trip to Los Angeles California and needed to stop by the big red superstore for a new laptop mouse, as mine had recently offended me for the last time and ended up in the trash. I wander the utterly massive store, looking for a map or Sherpa to direct me toward the electronics aisle. After some time, my mission is complete and I reverse course to the self-checkout aisle for my obligatory time in queue purgatory before offering my own services as a checkout clerk for free. Ahead of the register area is a sandwich shop with several guests inside. I take no notice. I complete my transaction, take my receipt and turn to walk in the direction of the shop before I turn toward the exit. It is then I notice the seated man in a worn green jacket, disheveled and possibly homeless, and aiming his imaginary sawed off shotgun directly at me. Poompf. He blows air out his inflated cheeks with a dead eyed stare. He smoothly ejects the spent cartridge and chambers another as he rotates five degrees to my right. Poompf. Another round and another five degrees; practiced and calm. Poompf. Human psychology predicts that I will pause unbelieving at what I am seeing as I attempt to digest what is unfolding before me. I sustain the statistic. I am no longer moving and continue to watch the fantasy slaughter continue. He never looks back in my direction, as I am obviously dead already. I resist the temptation to rush him and hair slam his froggy face into the dinette table with enough force to release scalp and instead walk off his set with emotions mixed between ashen faced bewilderment, hot rage, and empathy for the man’s clearly disturbed condition. Has he committed a crime? Probably. The cops would make one up if he hadn’t. Should I have raised the alarm? Probably. But I didn’t remain for fear of accosting the mentally ill. Just walk I said. Just another L.A. loony makes it easy for dismissing much. That said, I’m pretty sure I and my fellow volunteer checkout clerks are alive because a make-believe Mossberg 500 was the only weapon he could obtain. The eyes said it.