Queers give students a break. 5 sacrificed 18 maimed for Freedom.

People who do that should be locked up.

There is a problem, and it is PEOPLE. But that's too difficult to confront, so you fixate on inanimate objects instead.

The problem is both people and their ability to do harm due to their weaponry. The stats clearly show this - of the 30 richest nations on the Earth the US has a hugely disproportionate homicide rate. In 2021 gun homicides rose by the largest percentage in recorded history.

Firearms are weapons, not tools. Anyone saying otherwise is a grotesque liar. We don't equip our soldiers with rakes and wrenches.

To decrease the damage done we need good public policy - and that means UHC for better health care and regulations on firearms ownership.

The blue states, especially the NE, have both the highest gun regulation and by far the lowest homicide rate - gun or otherwise.

The South, the exact opposite.

It's mental health AND the ability for the crazies to kill large numbers of people.

You keep coming back to this, despite the fact that the stats show many mass shootings, especially school shootings, don't come with evidence of violent acts on the part of the perpetrators.

Now look up the percentage of gun deaths that are due to "mass shootings" as well as where they occur, and focus your attention proportionately.

And how does our crime rate in general compare. And then violent crime specifically.

They are what the user needs them to be.

We already have plenty of regulation, and I'd be willing to chip in for more prisons and asylums if you will agree to LEAVE the fuckers in there.

It sounds like you want to protect people from their own ability to make bad choices. That's not governing, that's PARENTING, and you accidentally raise a good point: it would be a big fucking help if people would raise their kids better.

Imagine if you applied that to pink haired girls, drag queens, and black people.

It must be feeding time at the zoo because both of our trumpanzees are going apeshit at the same moment.

What makes you think I don't? I hope you can back that up with more than me making fun of ridiculous people.

For the record, THEIR rights and motivations aren't dependent on my co-sign, either. If there is a difference, it would be with those individuals who mistakenly insist their rights obligate me to serve their needs or placate their feelings. That's where I draw the line. So long as the standard is limited to "live and let live/do unto others, " there isn't much occasion for actual conflict with me.

Because you don't. Period. End of.
Next fucking discussion.

We've answered you with links a dozen times over the years.

When Demiurge says "The stats clearly show this - of the 30 richest nations on the Earth the US has a hugely disproportionate homicide rate" the fact that your stats are more in league with 30 of the poorest nations on the planet should tell you something.

For the hundredth time, No, again.
The idea is to offer them good choices. Something your privileged ass wouldn't understand not having.

Bullshit. You say I don't, I say I do, but only one of us gets to speak for me, and it's not your clown ass. I'm not worried you'll dig up a post of me claiming their rights are subject to my whims or their motivations require my approval, because they don't exist and you won't make the effort. Unless someone tries to actively impose their will on me, all I will do is mock and criticize. FACT.

*Yawn*

Higher crime in general. More violent in general. It's not the guns, it's the fucking PEOPLE, and the scary-looking black rifles and mass shootings account for a tiny portion of it, so why make those the focus of your attention?

Outside of self-defense, nobody is limited to the option of hurting someone. Don't come at me with any of that "morality of extortion" bullshit, either.

And my "privilege" is a fiction you invented in this endless, futile insistence that I would agree with you if I understood the situation. Nobody could witness the same thing and conclude differently. The fuck outta here with that bullshit.

Yay!

Jenee's OK but I wouldn't call her sexy.

and why is it "the people"?
not disagreeing... why is the US population so much more likely to kill each other?

Self defense... Yeah, we've seen what you claim to be victimized by and can only pray that you're on local law enforcement's radar before you go columbine.

For the purposes of living in a society, you don't have that option.

Self-defined rights are not a thing. If you decide you have a "right" to shoot anyone who pisses you off, you'll still be reckoned with according to the laws of the society even if you disagree with them.

ETA: Before you ask, that obviously doesn't mean all laws are objectively just. When the law said that two people of the same sex didn't have the right to a legal marriage, it was unjust - but in terms of living in a society, they had the rights that society recognized.

Any of us can say, and we might often be right, that we have a natural right to...whatever...but that won't save your ass if the society hasn't recognized it. If the chuds get their way and it becomes illegal to be trans in public, I can certainly feel that I have been stripped of my natural rights - and I'd be right! - but they will still fuck me over if I go out in public as a woman.

We already have plenty of regulation, and I'd be willing to chip in for more prisons and asylums if you will agree to LEAVE the fuckers in there.

We ALSO have the highest incarceration rate in the developed world - by FAR.
If locking more people up was the solution we'd have a crime free paradise.
If more guns were the solution we'd have a crime free paradise.

But we have both of those things and...not so much.

That your crazy amount of mass shootings is outweighed by the number of other shootings isn't making the case you think it is.

This is all pointless anyway, because it could be found that 100% of shootings are a result of a random brain glitch, that could occur to anyone, at any time, with no way of diagnosing or predicting, and I'm 99% sure it wouldn't change UA's view. It's all just irrelevant noise.

Democracy is negotiable, bodily death is negotiable, but the 2nd amendment is a commandment from the God of Moses.

credit where it's due... America has the highest incarceration rate AND prisoner population in the world, beating out such challengers as China and Rwanda.

I'll decide what my options are.

Correct. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

You might refuse to acknowledge it, but the point stands.

Someone always trots that out like it's the final word. Do we parole violent people? Yes. Do we take up space with victimless perpetrators of nonviolent vice offenses? Also yes. Until that changes, the "largest prison population in the world" yarn is a useless statistic. And as long as you are willing to catch and release violent people, any discussion of eroding the ability to defend oneself is off the fucking table.

Why do people not fixate on the highest concentrations of gun crime if they're pretending to give a shit?

You didn't really think that through. Why would any reasonable person disarm if the knew for a fact that any random person could pop off at any time? Disarm everyone? Sure. EVERYONE else can go first, and I require absolute proof down to the last man, woman and child. Then MAYBE we can talk.

so do we approach this from the cost factor of about 70K/annum per inmate or would you rather go with reform vs punitive justice?

you're also not doing much to support the "catch and release" contention. A convict is going to serve at least 1/3 of a sentence and have to show some pretty exemplary behavior to get out on the first try.

from what I understand of the post incarceration job prospects there though, it's no wonder you have a likewise abnormally high rate of recidivism.

Excellent question.

If by "the highest concentrations of gun crime" you mean the groups most likely to commit gun crime, then there is one demographic group whose members commit gun crimes -- and, indeed, violent crimes in general -- at a dramatically disproportionate rate.

That group is men.

So we could ban gun ownership by men, leave women alone, and perhaps require any female gun owner who lives with a man to demonstrate that she has taken measures to ensure that the man doesn't have any access to her gun.

How does that sound?