It sounds like you and I are in agreement, we’d like to see fewer gun deaths and less gun violence in the US. At the end of the day, I think you’ll have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with that sentiment.

It sounds like we also agree, whatever measures are passed, we’d like them to be effective at taking guns out of the hands of those who would do harm with them.

The reason I oppose a ban is, bans disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners, and the overwhelming majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US abide by the law and commit no crimes with their guns. Bans overwhelmingly succeed at disarming responsible owners who had no bad intentions in the first place, and overwhelmingly fail at disarming the criminals at whom the bans are targeted.

Additionally, there are about 5-6 guns per US gun-owner. The logistics of safely locating, safely confiscating, and safely disposing of all of those guns in a way that doesn’t end up with them on the black market, is not a problem I think anyone has a good way to solve currently. I assert, the logistics of addressing societal factors that contribute to violence are much simpler, better understood, and more achievable.

European countries also do more to address the root causes of violence, poverty, drug addiction, mental health, and homelessness.

I think the differences in the way these societal factors are addressed more than explains the observed difference in levels of violence.

I believe a much more effective means of addressing violence in a country involves addressing the root causes of that violence, as opposed to banning the means of violence.

Banning the means only prevents violence when no means exist; addressing the root causes prevents violence, despite whatever means may exist.

I’m guessing police don’t fall into your definition of “regular people”. Like I said, police-involved shootings count as “mass shootings”.

If a cop shoots and hits two bad guys, that counts as a mass shooting. If a bad guy wounds a cop and his partner kills the bad guy, that counts as a mass shooting. If two people attempt to mug an old lady and she shoots them both, that’s a mass shooting.

I think most people would agree, those three scenarios aren’t what comes to mind when the phrase “mass shooting” is used, and I think most people would agree, these aren’t the scenarios we want to be putting a stop to.

Ask your doctor about Viagra.

Failing that, buy a house with thick walls, far away from neighbors, play your game only when the house is empty, try not to hurt yourself, and happy tugging.

This is a worthy goal. However, what you’re suggesting is very much like choosing to shoot a bank robber; you need to very carefully consider how you’re going to achieve your goal without looking like one of them.

This is true, but having a handler requires one to know someone they can trust absolutely. Sadly, not everyone knows someone like that.

To be fair, gun violence in the US has been declining year-over-year for over half a decade now.

The number of “mass shootings” continues to rise because the definition of “mass shooting” has been steadily expanded such that it now includes self-defense shootings, gang-on-gang shootings, officer-involved shootings, shootings that happen even though no crime has occurred, and many other events that don’t typically come to mind when one hears the term “mass shooting”.

Not so. According to the Federal Firearms Act (FFA), even as a private seller, you’re still responsible for confirming the person you’re selling to is legally eligible to own what you’re selling them. In fact, there’s even a number you can call to have the same background check done they do at gun stores, it just takes a lot longer to go through the process.

If that person is a felon, and if they get caught with that gun and if they trace it back to you, you’ll be investigated for illegally selling guns to felons.

Some states don’t even allow you to privately sell firearms; you’re required to pay an FFL license holder to do the transfer or use the state police as an intermediary to transfer possession.

Of course not. Where do you apply for your license to exercise your first ammendment rights?

It depends on your definition of “gun nut”. If you’re referring to someone who enjoys the historical significance of firearms, are intrigued by the engineering involved, and/or maybe goes to the range a few times a year to target shoot for fun, then I’d say it’s likely.

If you’re referring to someone who fetishizes guns and makes it a core component of their personality, I’d say most likely not, unless you’re the type of person who already does that with other things.

Yes. Unless you can prove a lack of workplace safety or demonstrate that they significantly altered the nature of your position. You can’t make an accountant scrub toilets, for example.

Exactly, this is their career. And in the most critical moment of their career, they showed us what they’re willing to do, how far they’re willing to go on our behalf, to preserve our of life that places political power in the hands of democratically-elected officials, and not government-appointed loyalists.

At the end of the regime, sure. In these early phases, it’s acceptable to remain in power in order to loudly and publicly resist. Otherwise, their revolution will succeed simply because no resistance was offered.

It’s pretty easy to understand. The people who don’t get it are the ones who are only capable of one-dimensional thought. They can’t hold multiple, complex beliefs, so they assume you can’t either.

If we keep worrying about keeping political donors happy, we’ll never reform anything; that’s the exact opposite of what they want and will do everything to stop it.

Once he gets in office it’ll be, “we need something to campaign on next election” every time reform comes up. On his final term, he’ll say, “if the party is going to earn votes for my successor, I need to play ball this term,” then the cycle will repeat itself.

The controlled opposition party won’t meaningfully reform the corporatism that got us in this mess? No fucking shit.

may

admins

Fuck Microsoft

No joke, the day after it happened, they said they were gonna wait a week to even vote on whether or not he was allowed to do it.

Slammed

It’s so strange seeing that word outside of a headline.

On paper, there is a right to privacy in the US in places where a reasonable person would have an expectation to privacy, which is codified into law.

The only place where everyone has an expectation to privacy (barring exigent circumstances) is bathrooms (porta-potties included), changing rooms, locker rooms, or anywhere else where people are expected to use the bathroom or change clothes.

There is an expectation to privacy for individuals on their own private property. I can spy on you in my house, but you can’t spy on me in my house (peeping through someone’s windows is a crime but me having a hidden camera in my living room is not).

However, when it comes to public officials conducting duties of their office, there is no expectation of privacy, even on their private property (though, due to the conflict of interest, this is unlikely to happen).

The only place where no one has any expectation to privacy is public property (like a park, post office, library, city bus, etc.) and private property which is open to the public (most businesses, malls, etc.).

In practice, you can’t fart or jerk off without a corporation knowing about it.