All firearms should be registered. I can’t see a situation where it would be unnecessary. The money used for registration can be given to the innocent victims of gun violence.

85% is pretty specific and you clearly have a source. Let’s see it.

So you’re ok with SCOTUS and other judges being appointed and no term limits? What about the POTUS, are you saying it’s ok if Trump won and kept being president as long as he continues to win?

Please tell me the good sides of having no term limits. Laws shouldn’t be straped to a single person.

Nope. I’m equating slavery to tackling something in the constitution and changing it. You know, the thing you just implied was not something that could be done. I’m sure you know that and are obfuscating.

We do have a societal problem. We also very much have a gun problem.

And proposing all these other things you know won’t get accomplished is a way to shift all the responsibility away from the gun issue itself.

And you aren’t being emotional about even the thought of some more gun control or anything to even tackle that issue head on? Come on.

Fire dept is a bit quicker I think but they only protect you from fires of course, also, analogous to firearms, fire extinguishers are good to have on hand if a fire breaks out. Also, fortunately the fire often doesn’t actively prevent you calling the fire dept, though often due to the nature of being victimized violently you won’t be able to even call the police until after the event unless you’re lucky, you often have to focus on fighting or running in the moment.

You know what would be a lot higher? Not letting mentally ill people or domestic abusers, or people who have shown to use them in an unsafe manner around children have access to them. But apparently that is way too far in America.

Definition comes from a position of rationality and not wanting to scare people. :)

Of course, it doesn’t do any good to say “their definition is bullshit” if I’m not willing to provide an alternative.

We need to distinguish terrorist level events where one or more nuts with a gun enter a public space with the intention of causing as much mayhem as possible than other forms of gun crimes where armed people do end up shooting, but that was not their stated purpose, it just worked out that way.

Oh, I absolutely get it, what folks outside the US don’t get is the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere.

To repeal it, you first have to get 290 votes in the House, which is largely insurmountable. It took George Santos to get that many Congressmen to agree on something.

Then you need 67 votes in the Senate, the body that can’t get past 60 to disable a filibuster.

Assuming, miracle of miracles, that happens, then you need ratification by 38 states.

Biden only won 25, and of those only 19 have Democratic statehouses. You’d need 19 red states to be on board with giving up guns, assuming you didn’t lose any blue states.

So, yeah, Good Luck!

No, I’m saying it’s not the same class of crime and the only reason the media conflates them is to scare people.

I’ll give you an example from my own back yard… one of those “thousand mass shootings since Newtown” was this one:

A couple of brothers in Portland decided to do an illegal weed operation. Oregon allows you to grow, own, smoke, sell, and buy weed, but only for in state use.

3 guys fly in from Texas for the illegal weed buy. Words were had, guns were drawn, both brothers shot and killed, 2/3 Texans shot and killed, 3rd Texan arrested sometime later.

oregonlive.com/…/two-portland-brothers-two-mariju…

That is just normal crime. That’s not a mass shooting in the same way Sandy Hook was and to breath it in the same breath as Sandy Hook disresepects each of the 20 kids that died there.

Gun Violence Archive? 4 people dead = “mass shooting”. No, robbery gone wrong? Sure. Crime? Absolutely. Save the mass shooting shit for when innocent people get killed.

My agenda is “words mean things” and if you’re going to throw around a phrase like “mass shooting” you shouldn’t have a low hanging fruit definition that does not take intent into consideration.

Here are two scenarios:

1. You have a party, two groups of people are talking. Words are had, there’s an argument. Punches are thrown. One person pulls a gun, causing another person to pull a gun, multiple shots are fired and 5 people are injured.

2. You have a party, a disgruntled incel was not invited, shows up with a semiautomatic weapon and shoots 4 people before being dragged to the ground.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, both of these are “mass shootings” and if you go down their list of shootings of the year, the vast majority of them fall under category 1, not category 2.

The difference is, in scenario #1, nobody went to the party intending to shoot anyone. You can’t say the same for scenario #2.

Lumping them together so you can make people think there are more cases of scenario #2 than there actually are is disingenuous.

And resorting to ad hominem attacks proves you have nothing to actually say on the topic. Congratulations, you lose.

To be clear, I’m not arguing against sensible legislation, there are many things that can and should be done starting with an actual analysis if what could or should have prevented any specific shooting, once you realize that “banning guns” is off the table thanks to the second amendment.

An example I like to cite is the guy who shot up Michigan State. He had previously been arrested on a felony gun charge, was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, had a clean background check, bought guns and shot up the school.

Now, we already prevent felons from owning guns. Maybe, just maybe, if someone is arrested on a felony gun charge, that is something that should not be allowed to be pled down to a misdemeanor? Ya think?

Alternately, since we block felons from owning guns, as well as domestic abusers, and people charged with crimes that can land them in prison for more than a year, how about we block people with ANY gun charge from owning a gun? Felony OR misdemeanor? They’ve already proven they can’t be trusted with a gun.

These are the sorts of conversations we need to have but aren’t having because people get so caught up in knee jerk actions that can’t be taken.

I remember years ago the call was for “common sense gun reform!” and the action was “Did you know, people on the no-fly list can buy guns? How is that common sense??!??” Obama was making that call.

To which my reaction was “How many of these shooters were on the no-fly list? Oh, right, NONE of them? Good jorb!”

And there’s no set process for adding or removing people from the no fly list and it, itself, appears to be non-sensical:

www.aclu.org/documents/statement-david-c-nelson