Oh my God....not again....

[Kali Sensual Reiki]

The ability to carry a concealed weapon in the hands of someone who has been trained might have spared the lives of those who died possibly too.

[FuriousWeasel]

This is actually a pretty darn good video about firearm myths, hitting both sides of the argument.

As a published author on firearms, concealed carry, and firearm laws, this one earns my stamp of approval.

[Kaduk]

The Hidden Politics Of YouTube’s VisualPolitik Channel

"If you search for political content on the Google platform you will almost certainly have encountered some of the channel’s output and assumed that this was the work of a handful of politically-engaged individuals, including the main presenter, Simon Whistler. In reality the British host is simply a former YouTuber who has become a regurgitating talking head for a wide range of fairly anodyne online channels. In the case of VisualPolitik the real power behind the curtain lies with a centre-right media company based in Spain that has disguised its carefully packaged neoliberal propaganda on YouTube as a series of snappy, outwardly non-partisan guides. Perhaps a better name for the channel would be Caveat Emptor"

https://ansionnachfionn.com/2020/03/10/the-hidden-politics-of-youtubes-visualpolitik-channel/

 

Then there's this.

 

[Fenrir373]

On 3/24/2021 at 1:30 PM, pfunk said:

This is why we have the dilemma. People like you, Audrey, are the large majority of gun owners. 

It's the mentally unstable few, (like the two recent examples, and the school shooters) who mass murder, that need prevention.

I don't have a solution, but ignoring the problem, will just allow more innocents to die. 

Responsible gun owners should have no problem with reasonable gun regulations--a short waiting period, licensing and registration, background checks, etc. The problem isn't usually people who already own and take care of guns, it's that there are few or no restrictions stopping an unstable person who's having "a bad day" from deciding it's a great idea to go buy an assault-grade weapon and shoot up a public place all in the same day. If he had to wait 5-7 days from purchase before he could actually GET the gun he might cool off or someone close to him might be able to intervene and get him some help. But if he can decide he wants to do it, immediately go buy and get a gun, and drive straight to a store/mall/school/park/wherever to murder people, there's no time to try to stop it before it happens. The problem is people who don't currently have guns can decide to get and use them for bad purposes right away.

[frankenthaler91]

Hunter Bidden should be charged and placed in prison for lying on his application of a gun purchase

Edited April 4, 2021 by frankenthaler91

[mustang]

MAYBE the answer is to require that mental health "professionals" report their clients to the data base and THEN take the responsible path when/if one of those folks try to purchase a weapon.  I see the problem as ane that exists because no one wants to "stigmatize"  a person with mental problems so they NEVER get reported as a possible danger.

[Fenrir373]

15 hours ago, mustang said:

MAYBE the answer is to require that mental health "professionals" report their clients to the data base and THEN take the responsible path when/if one of those folks try to purchase a weapon.  I see the problem as ane that exists because no one wants to "stigmatize"  a person with mental problems so they NEVER get reported as a possible danger.

I do think that's a significant piece of the problem. First, it's a problem that we do so stigmatize mental health issues--nobody thinks less of you if you break your ankle or have chronic back pain or something, but there is a lot of judgment for those who have clinical depression, ADHD, schizophrenia, or any other of a host of real mental health conditions. Fear of this stigmatization often prevents people from seeking help in the first place because they don't want to be braded as "broken." And for those who do seek assistance, the ways in which these issues are dealt with, treated, and reported continue the pattern and make it seem like they are some deep, dark, embarrassing secret rather than just a simple fact of a person's health condition.  Such an attitude exacerbates the stigmatization issue and prevents having open and honest societal conversations about these issues. We need to de-stigmatize mental health concerns and vastly improve the treatment, reporting, and discussing of such conditions across the board. That would help a lot. But I don't think it would solve the problem completely--we ALSO need to put common-sense restrictions of obtaining and owning guns (waiting periods, background checks, mandatory safety courses, licensing and registration). Doing ALL of these things might help to curtail the increasing rash of mass-shooting incidents in the U.S.--I'm at least convinced that this plan is our best shot.

[mustang]

4 hours ago, Fenrir373 said:

I do think that's a significant piece of the problem. First, it's a problem that we do so stigmatize mental health issues--nobody thinks less of you if you break your ankle or have chronic back pain or something, but there is a lot of judgment for those who have clinical depression, ADHD, schizophrenia, or any other of a host of real mental health conditions. Fear of this stigmatization often prevents people from seeking help in the first place because they don't want to be braded as "broken." And for those who do seek assistance, the ways in which these issues are dealt with, treated, and reported continue the pattern and make it seem like they are some deep, dark, embarrassing secret rather than just a simple fact of a person's health condition.  Such an attitude exacerbates the stigmatization issue and prevents having open and honest societal conversations about these issues. We need to de-stigmatize mental health concerns and vastly improve the treatment, reporting, and discussing of such conditions across the board. That would help a lot. But I don't think it would solve the problem completely--we ALSO need to put common-sense restrictions of obtaining and owning guns (waiting periods, background checks, mandatory safety courses, licensing and registration). Doing ALL of these things might help to curtail the increasing rash of mass-shooting incidents in the U.S.--I'm at least convinced that this plan is our best shot.

Do you own a weapon???

 

[frankenthaler91]

4 hours ago, Fenrir373 said:

I do think that's a significant piece of the problem. First, it's a problem that we do so stigmatize mental health issues--nobody thinks less of you if you break your ankle or have chronic back pain or something, but there is a lot of judgment for those who have clinical depression, ADHD, schizophrenia, or any other of a host of real mental health conditions. Fear of this stigmatization often prevents people from seeking help in the first place because they don't want to be braded as "broken." And for those who do seek assistance, the ways in which these issues are dealt with, treated, and reported continue the pattern and make it seem like they are some deep, dark, embarrassing secret rather than just a simple fact of a person's health condition.  Such an attitude exacerbates the stigmatization issue and prevents having open and honest societal conversations about these issues. We need to de-stigmatize mental health concerns and vastly improve the treatment, reporting, and discussing of such conditions across the board. That would help a lot. But I don't think it would solve the problem completely--we ALSO need to put common-sense restrictions of obtaining and owning guns (waiting periods, background checks, mandatory safety courses, licensing and registration). Doing ALL of these things might help to curtail the increasing rash of mass-shooting incidents in the U.S.--I'm at least convinced that this plan is our best shot.

Hunter Bidden lied on a firearms purchase form.  The form ask if you are a habitual user of illegal drugs.  He answered NO.  When at the time he was a habitual user.   That is a criminal offences, a felony.   If the government does not enforce the current laws, why should there be new laws enacted? 

Here is the form Hunter Bidden lied on: 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

The statement on this form is 

I certify that my answers in Section B are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 21.a. if I am not the actual transferee/buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 21.b. through 21.k. is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 21.l.1. is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm, unless the person answers “yes” to question 21.l.2. and provides the documentation required in 26.d . I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.  I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of Federal law.

[JoDoe27]

On 4/4/2021 at 9:40 AM, frankenthaler91 said:

Hunter Bidden should be charged and placed in prison for lying on his application of a gun purchase

Well actually that’s not how our legal system works. If he lied, and yes I see your other comment, he should be arrested, charged then go before a judge and sentenced in accordance with whatever legal actions can be taken or what the judge seems fit for the crime. The whole bit about due process and all. And where things get tricky is it doesn’t say “habitual” as you pointed out. It ask if you are “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” Now it gets tricky because you have to prove that during the time of the application he was on anything illegal. 
 

I think the mods might redact some of that because of the mention of drugs but nonetheless my main point still stands. 

[TS Tara Rides]

On 3/24/2021 at 8:05 AM, SixtiesDude said:

OK, if we can't ban guns, then lets just ban the ammunition and gunpowder.

Or ban assault style weapons.. I'm not saying ban ALL guns. Oh hell no. But ban any and all assault type of guns. Why does anyone need them? I have never seen anyone use one for hunting, and I hunt a lot. Assault style guns were originally developed for the military and are for one purpose ... to kill people. Hence then name ASSAULT!!

Flame away. 

Unfortunately there's a few points here that are not rooted properly. 

1- banning ammunition is as pointless as "banning guns". Guns and ammo are simple devices that have not really changed or revolutionized their fundamentals in about a hundred years. 

Smokeless powder (gun powder) is easily made by a guy (or girl) in their garage with very little skill, know how or resources (albeit dangerous). The same goes with guns. I'm not sure if you're aware if this but Americans have been making home made guns since before the country was founded, as technology advances so does the 'quality' of home made guns. 

2 - banning "assault rifles": for the most part no regular american owns an assault rifle, they own semi automatic weapons that may look like what the government/DOD defines as an assault rifle (the definition being a rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge that is capable of 'select fire {fully auto or three round burst typically}), but they are not assault weapons. A person with a clean record and about 20-100k USD can legal buy a registered assault weapon but it is just highly unlikely it's the norm, and from my research on the topic they haven't been used in a crime or mass shooting in over 20 years.

To add to this, if you are referring to the AR 15, that was actually designed by Eugene Stoner in 1954 (I could be off by a year or two). The 'AR' part stands for "armalite rifle" not "assault rifle", it was also designed and advertised as a hunting rifle, not a military weapon. The design was then sold by armalite to the historical firearms company "Colt" and then was sent into the militaries bid for a new modern rifle, replacing the old and heavy "battle rifles" like the m14. The rifle did exceptionally well and was adopted by the military, not designed for or by them. 

All that being said, I can truly sympathize with people who are afraid of guns or affriad of people with guns, they are weapons, and they do hurt and kill people. But terminology and basic understanding of how guns work can clear your view from what either left or right wing media spins them as. I person own many that the media says are "assault style" but in reality are no different functionally from a normal self loading pistol carrier by millions of people across the country safety and sanely.... They just have different barrel lengths and calibers.

Another harsh reality of "banning" any gun or ammo is the rise of the 3D printer making it possible to print a gun in a few hours and no one would be the wiser. It's like Bitcoin, the government could try to ban other currencies... But here we are on TOB paying with it and they can't do diddly about it.

Long winded response, sorry if that was too much lol

Edited April 27, 2021 by TS Tara Rides