How many deaths are necessary before something should be banned?

[Lord-Humungus]

We had black gang problems before in ghettos. No one ever cared. Today it's happening at schools, malls and to white people. Mass shootings and inner city violence are two different things.

Well yeah if you are shot and killed by a gang member everyone knows you’re somehow less dead than if you’re shot and killed in a mass shooting

When someone is willing to commit murder what additional law do you think will change their mind

 

[sealybobo]

Not a single one has responded to my request for a hot oil massage.

No but they overturned Roe V Wade for you.

And Republicans don't have to do what you want. You like everything they do. When they destroy the middle class, you help them by attacking union workers.

 

[fncceo]

not even AOC?

 

[fncceo]

No but they overturned Roe V Wade for you.

If you're speaking of the esteemed jurists of the USSC, they aren't strictly speaking politicians. Having been appointed and not elected .

That being said, I wouldn't have minded a massage from RBG in her prime. I'll bet she was a freak back in law school.

 

[LibertyKid]

We had black gang problems before in ghettos. No one ever cared. Today it's happening at schools, malls and to white people. Mass shootings and inner city violence are two different things.

But the media and politicians group that gang violence into the same "mass shooting" data bucket. A drive by happens in Chicago and 4 people are shot, it's reported as a mass shooting. That colors the narrative improperly. The actual number of shootings with AR style rifles, is very very few. That doesn't take away from the tragedy that they are.

The question we have to ask and be honest with is this? Are we willing to trust our gov't enough to remove our ability to overturn the gov't if the gov't were to become tyrannical? If you say you trust any type of gov't with your freedom, than I would say you are constitutionally and politically ignorant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure it does.

Not one whit.
You can whine and cry all you want - my right to keep and bear arms, and the protection afforded to it by the 2nd does not change.
This means I get to own and use any "bearable arm" I want.
And your opinion does not matter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No but they overturned Roe V Wade for you.

Supreme court justices are not politicians.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Missed the point

Then maybe you should make your point better

 

[Rogue AI]

straw purchases are illegal.
Guns are a right.
Cars are not.
Do you see my points?

They seriously don't know the difference. Liberals believe legislated privileges are the same as Constitutional rights. Sad.

 

[sealybobo]

But the media and politicians group that gang violence into the same "mass shooting" data bucket. A drive by happens in Chicago and 4 people are shot, it's reported as a mass shooting. That colors the narrative improperly. The actual number of shootings with AR style rifles, is very very few. That doesn't take away from the tragedy that they are.

The question we have to ask and be honest with is this? Are we willing to trust our gov't enough to remove our ability to overturn the gov't if the gov't were to become tyrannical? If you say you trust any type of gov't with your freedom, than I would say you are constitutionally and politically ignorant.

I get it. It's why I say I'm torn. And today, you need an assault rifle to defend yourself if the shit hits the fan. So I side with no, don't make them illegal. Just like I don't want to ban pot alcohol or gambling because some people can't control themselves. We've had a few mass shootings here in Michigan. The closest to home it got for me was the MSU shooting. My nephew was there. Not where the shooting happened. He wasn't there studying but close enough for me. And we aren't even shocked anymore.

Maybe conservatives are right. Actually, in a lot of cases, I know they are right. I watch court tv shows and I see a lot of murderers and torturous rapists who will get out one day who shouldn't. I don't like it. I don't like prosecutors settling for a guilty plea on a lesser crime. But I get why they do it. Can't be sure you'll get a guilty plea if you go to trial. It's expensive. Appeals. Lack of physical evidence. And the perp is willing to plea guilty to 10 years? Pretty tempting if you're a prosecutor. You'd take it too, tell the family of the victim sorry, and be a part of the reason repeat offenders one day get out and murder/rape again.

 

[San Souci]

You already have background checks......and we have thousands of gun laws on the books already......

What we don't have is criminal control, because the democrat party keeps releasing the most violent gun offenders over and over again no matter how many gun felonies they have.

True. What we need is more Prisons. All violent criminals should do life. At HARD labor.

 

[AZrailwhale]

We had black gang problems before in ghettos. No one ever cared. Today it's happening at schools, malls and to white people. Mass shootings and inner city violence are two different things.

Most shootings are inner city violence.

 

[Andylusion]

The problem with this topic is that all the issues we see, are a direct result of the policies that these are people demanding more gun control, caused.

The moment you heard them say that mass incarceration is evidence of systemic racism, an explosion of crime and violence was the only possible outcome. What other outcome could there possibly be?

Are they going to randomly start grabbing white people, and tossing them into prison for no reason, so that we can balance out the racial makeup of prisons? Of course not. The only other option is, let violent criminals and repeat offenders out onto the street, which the more they know they can do whatever they want, the more violence will be on the street.

And the same exact people who pushed that policy which caused all the violence, are pushing to defund the police, and at the same time, saying we need gun control.

And when has banning, or controlling something ever worked? There is no example of that anywhere. Prohibition was a winner. And controls on drugs is why heroin is unheard of, and no one has over dosed on it in decades. Of course that’s sarcasm, because both are ridiculous example of the failure of regulations.

 

[Rigby5]

No one wants to ban guns. We want background checks and common sense regulations. Same as we do for cars.

The problem of "background checks and common sense regulations" is that only honest people will comply with them.
The dangerous people who intend to use guns for crimes, are going to ignore the tiny penalty for getting guns illegally.

The reality is that if people are dangerous, then guns are not the main problem at all, since they likely should not be driving, allowed to buy explosives, flammables, toxins, etc.
Which means they need to be put into mental health institution like they used to before Reagan gutted them all.

 

[Rigby5]

we already have both of those and more,,

you dont have a right to a car,,

Slight detail.
You do have a right to a car if you want and can afford it.
What you do not have a right to is use of the public roadways, unless you pass all the requirements.
And once you do pass, then you do have an equal right to the roads, since your taxes helped pay for them.

 

[Rigby5]

what conservative has not said they are against abortion?

Conservatives are supposed to be against intrusive government, so should be for Pro Choice.

 

[Rigby5]

Nonsense. I watch Court TV, the First 48, Interrogation Cam and I see a lot of red states letting murderers out or only charging them with manslaghter because they want the easy conviction and to lock the guy up but he ends up out in 5 or 8 years to murder again

This happens in too many red states for you to say it's democrats and liberals doing it.

According to TDCJ, there are currently 180 people on Texas's death row, including 7 women.

And why are they in jail for years Texas? Kill them quickly!!!

States do not matter when it comes to the criminal justice system, because it is municipal.
And even if a state is red, the large cities are likely blue.
(I say that even though I am very blue)

And the reason why the people on death row have not been executed yet is because actually executions are illegal inherently.
Government only gets its authorization by individuals delegating their authority of self defense to them.
But executions of people helpless in jail, serves the defense of no one.
So government can never have the authority to execute.

 

[Rigby5]

Most shootings are inner city violence.

Most shooting are due to the War on Drugs that causes turf and cash conflicts.
Its just like Prohibition also caused a murder spike.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Conservatives are supposed to be against intrusive government, so should be for Pro Choice.

we are for states rights which is what happened.

 

[Rigby5]

we are for states rights which is what happened.

States do not and are not supposed to have rights.
Only individuals have rights.

States being closer to the people, can more likely reflect their choices and preferences.
But when it comes to medical decisions and what sort of family individuals want, clearly states have no jurisdiction at all.