2 sides of the same coin for sure.I think meth and cocaine should be legal, if I want snort a line or shoot up and speed climb a mountain how am I hurting anyone.
Can’t judge intent.
Why is adderall legal, but meth isn’t… I mean how do you even define a schedule 1 drug… ridiculous.
Colorado Assault Weapons Ban Submitted
- Thread starter Dsnow9
- Start date
Farmerj
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2021
- Messages
- 1,072
While you’re not wrong…
You are wrong too.
The issue is a social problem that’s much bigger than guns or weapons. Guns just happen to be the poster child.
Broken families, drugs, broken judicial systems, law enforcement with no credible accountability. And one can add lots of other topic To it….
I sure don’t see the anti nutter offering solutions to those problems either.
I think meth and cocaine should be legal, if I want snort a line or shoot up and speed climb a mountain how am I hurting anyone.
Can’t judge intent.
Why is adderall legal, but meth isn’t… I mean how do you even define a schedule 1 drug…
(Tongue firmly in cheek bros)
We should ban all bad things then people won’t do bad things.
We are arguing the same point, rules are pointless. If they made meth legal tomorrow I wouldn’t sell meth on moral reasons it destroys lives, same as I wouldn’t use my guns to destroy lives. Its intent. It’s a moral thing, if you believe that the government should regulate morals then we are so far gone as a society it doesn’t matter.
Sagebrush1
Well-known member
Yah I think that’s true.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think one could argue 90% of the rules that really piss off either side are just regulating morals.
100%
Actually 90% of our society is conjecture and non factual opinions.
We don’t do facts anymore. Just to fit here, wildlife reintroduction. The opinions on wolves and elk going into places are 95% based on opinions and feeling and 5% looking at facts.
And he’ll that’s just wildlife, the rest of society is doomed.
If I took any subject other than math and said “here’s my hypothesis” there will be people on both sides that could argue points based on their preferences of outcome forever.
The fact is that banning a gun has no effect on an evil person wanting to do evil things anymore than banning meth does for someone who wants to get high, you just move them to other methods.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think a lot of folks could probably own nukes and we wouldn’t have a problem. That being said, there are truly evil people and some just stupid ones that would kill millions if we did.
Now ARs don’t kill millions, but they are more effective than a lot of previous iterations of firearms which is why the were invented in the first place.
So essentially we are acknowledging that evil people do evil shit and it’s more a conversation about how effective are we going to allow them to be at killing… now sure criminals can get guns on the black market bla bla bla, but that’s the underlying logic. Works in a vacuum but has issues in reality, especially a reality where we have flooded our society with firearms.
At the end of the day both sides wildly demonize each other for political gain, gun owners want to have guns in large part to protect their loved ones, anti-gun folks in large part want gun control/less firearms in public because they also want to protect their families.
I’m my eyes lotta common ground there with folks just trying to do right for their families the best way they know how.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately most states are like that. Oregon and Washington are basically red without Portland and Seattle area. When Inslee got reelected recently he lost 27/39 counties. That's why I am worried about Montana. Bozeman, Missoula, Billings, possibly Helena soon. All blowing up, only takes one failed city to call the shots for a whole state.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Missouri is getting to the important stuff…
Dress code for women legislators debated in Missouri House
Democrats on Wednesday slammed a Republican-backed change to the Missouri House dress code for women legislators.
Nick87
Well-known member
So you've been to illinois?
Fetterman would have hell in MOMissouri is getting to the important stuff…
Dress code for women legislators debated in Missouri House
Democrats on Wednesday slammed a Republican-backed change to the Missouri House dress code for women legislators.www.stltoday.com
Phaseolus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 735
You could explain by what you meant about “shooting back” I guess.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Missouri is getting to the important stuff…
Dress code for women legislators debated in Missouri House
Democrats on Wednesday slammed a Republican-backed change to the Missouri House dress code for women legislators.
FFS
A big part of the solution should be to be honest about the problem. I think a big part of the problem is the dishonesty of the media and those pushing the AR guns are bad hysteria. You are a numbers guy. What are the odds of being killed by an AR vs a bolt of lightning? If we were honest about the problem, it would be a lot easier to agree on realistic solutions. If propaganda and hyperbole are the mainstream message, there will never be an agreement on solutions. But maybe that is by design.
westbranch
Well-known member
Missouri is getting to the important stuff…
Dress code for women legislators debated in Missouri House
Democrats on Wednesday slammed a Republican-backed change to the Missouri House dress code for women legislators.
Idaho's legislature will likely come up with some interesting things this year.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Lightning 11 per year
The FBI doesn't keep track of "AR deaths" but just looking at headlines from 2022
Uvalde 22
Buffalo 13
Chesapeake 11
Colorado Springs 5
Tulsa 5
Greenwood Park 4
I didn't go through the whole list to check if was an "AR" but those were... so at least 5.45X times more likely to be killed by an AR weapon then lightning.
ARs are a fraction of gun deaths it's mostly handguns, though ARs are the most common weapon in multiple victims incidents. Most shootings are suicides' or 1 or 2 victim homicides, but ARs are involved in most multiple/high causality situations.
And sure if you are just looking at saving lives then Bloomberg had it right with the soda ban. We could also save a lot of lives by funding public transit and dramatically reducing trips per day in cars etc etc.
Peoples fears are pretty irrational, mostly likely you will die on the highway driving to your WY elk hunt, but most of the threads on here are about bear pistols. I'm not sure if this is a propaganda thing or just how the human brain works... imagination best and worst thing ever.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that fear is irrational. Do you agree that solutions should should not be?
Not sure where to find those numbers but would be nice to see avg year vs avg year. Not that it really matters. Very small relative numbers in both instances.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Solutions definitely should be, but here is the issue that's tough. Probably 5 in 20 Million ARs are used in a crime each year.
But if you say meh, that's infinitesimal let's not worry about it, which is more or less the NRA et als. response, you are in fact saying to someone who lost someone in one of those incidents "too bad, you're an outlier sucks to roll snake eyes"
Which is what Jim was saying on page 1.
Countries with zero ARs have zero ARs deaths, which is logical, people see that and they say why can't we do that... I math'd that out on one of these threads, it's really really hard.
Therefore I think you either say "too bad" which pisses of folks and gets you straight up bans, or you try what I'm theorized about which is putting forward your own plan, that while also won't solve the problem is a good faith gesture and gets you some things you want.
Which is how I arrived at something like a Universal gun license which is just a back ground check + finger prints + gun registration and then you get universal state reciprocity, internet sales direct to door with some sort of 2 factor identification, private sales by using an app instead of an FFL, and fully legal suppressors.
Essentially take on some red tape at the beginning to then eliminate it for the rest of your life.
Not saying that's exactly how it should work, but more the kind of thinking I wish folks would do... one might call it "bending over to liberals" another might call it pragmatically getting what they want.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick87
Well-known member
I understand what your saying and can agree with some of it. But those who are behind these bans and other gun control measures don't care about saving lives they just don't like guns. Guns are the boogeyman to them. If they cared about saving lives they'd direct there attention to other matters. My point being is we could have come up.with this ban as gun owners and they aren't gonna be satisfied.Solutions definitely should be, but here is the issue that's tough. Probably 5 in 20 Million ARs are used in a crime each year.
But if you say meh, that's infinitesimal let's not worry about it, which is more or less be NR et als. response, you are in fact saying to someone who lost someone in one of those incidents "too bad, you're an outlier sucks to roll snake eyes"
Which is what Jim was saying on page 1.
Countries with zero ARs have zero ARs deaths, which is logical, people see that and they say why can't we do that... I math'd that out on one of these threads, it's really really hard.
Therefore I think you either say "too bad" which pisses of folks and gets you straight up bans, or you try what I'm theorized about which is putting forward your own plan, that while also won't solve the problem is a good faith gesture and gets you some things you want.
Which is how I arrived at something like a Universal gun license which is just a back ground check + finger prints + gun registration and then you get universal state reciprocity, internet sales direct to door with some sort of 2 factor identification, private sales by using an app instead of an FFL, and fully legal suppressors.
Essentially take on some red tape at the beginning to then eliminate it for the rest of your life.
Not saying that's exactly how it should work, but more the kind of thinking I wish folks would do... one might call it "bending over to liberals" another might call it pragmatically getting what they want.
