# Shootings in the news



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

In just todays news headlines there are 4 or five shootings mentioned.



https://news.google.com/search?q=shooting&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen





















Mass Shootings in 2023 | Gun Violence Archive


Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and...




www.gunviolencearchive.org


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Actually there are over 50 listed if you scroll down that Google link I posted.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

There’s over 325 million people in the USA and among them are some very bad people.
“Shootings” are a problem, but not because of guns. Guns are inanimate objects. Bad people are the cause of the violence. You can remove guns from a situation completely and those “bad people “ will find other ways to perpetuate evil.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

This weekend (not yet counting Sunday, 11 shot in just one city, Chicago. Chicago has some of the nations most gun regulations and gun laws.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

haypoint said:


> This weekend (not yet counting Sunday, 11 shot in just one city, Chicago. Chicago has some of the nations most gun regulations and gun laws.


Yea, but they can solve 26% of those...


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

They are preparing for Biden's gun grab, so they have to amplify the "problem" of your right to bear arms.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Adirondackian said:


> They are preparing for Biden's gun grab, so they have to amplify the "problem" of your right to bear arms.


That is what I think

From Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety
















Media Highlights | Everytown


Please visit News to see press releases and more.




www.everytown.org





Dettelbach is a dedicated gun controller with a background that proves he would be neither fair nor objective as head of ATF. When running for Ohio Attorney General in 2018, Dettelbach endorsed gun bans, restrictions on lawful firearm transfers, and further expansion of prohibitions on who can lawfully possess a firearm. In short, it’s unclear what gun control measures Dettelbach doesn’t support.

This led NRA-PVF to award Dettelbach an “F” for his positions on the right to keep and bear arms. Notably, Michael Bloomberg’s astroturf gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety (David Chipman’s former employer) endorsed Dettelbach in his bid to become Ohio’s Attorney General.








NRA-ILA | Biden Chooses to Rinse and Repeat with New ATF Nominee


Today, the Biden Administration announced the nomination of Steven Dettelbach as the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), subject to Senate confirmation. With Dettelbach’s nomination, President Biden has chosen to double-down on his attempt to put a gun...




www.nraila.org


----------



## oldasrocks (Oct 27, 2006)

haypoint said:


> This weekend (not yet counting Sunday, 11 shot in just one city, Chicago. Chicago has some of the nations most gun regulations and gun laws.


Chicago blames guns that are coming in from other states. If other states have so many guns why don't they have even more shootings that Chicago?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

oldasrocks said:


> Chicago blames guns that are coming in from other states. If other states have so many guns why don't they have even more shootings that Chicago?


They base that statement on guns that they discover and can be traced. Chicago has a poor history of solving crimes so guns they can trace are most likely less than 10% of guns used in crimes.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

haypoint said:


> This weekend (not yet counting Sunday, 11 shot in just one city, Chicago. Chicago has some of the nations most gun regulations and gun laws.


Jackson, Ms. makes Chicago look like a sunday school class.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Since Chicago was brought up, in 2021 11,258 firearms were seized.
139 were "ghost guns".
In the last 10 years there have been 114 federal cases (or about 11 per year) involving "ghost guns".
In about 90% of those cases, the charges were either illegal manufacture or possession, not murder or robbery or assault. By the way, these numbers are supplied via Everytown, a far left wing Bloomberg supported group.

It wouldn't be a stretch to say that more guns are "lost" from police evidence rooms that are used in homicides in the US.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> Since Chicago was brought up, in 2021 11,258 firearms were seized.
> 139 were "ghost guns".
> In the last 10 years there have been 114 federal cases (or about 11 per year) involving "ghost guns".
> In about 90% of those cases, the charges were either illegal manufacture or possession, not murder or robbery or assault. By the way, these numbers are supplied via Everytown, a far left wing Bloomberg supported group.
> ...


Ghost guns are sawed-off shotguns and any firearm without a readable serial number. The ATF and Biden are pretending ghost guns are 3D-printed guns.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You are correct, and his ilk learned a long time ago that command of the language is command of the issue.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional… “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says….


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

haypoint said:


> This weekend (not yet counting Sunday, 11 shot in just one city, Chicago. Chicago has some of the nations most gun regulations and gun laws.


So what? If those regulations applied to the 50 states it would eliminate most of those killings. Look at the countries

that have strict gun control. Doesn't eliminate the deaths but does have a large impact.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Please prove your statement.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Strict control isn't the problem. The problem is too few arrest and prosecutions of criminals that has created distrust by law abiding citizens.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

KC Rock said:


> So what? If those regulations applied to the 50 states it would eliminate most of those killings. Look at the countries
> 
> that have strict gun control. Doesn't eliminate the deaths but does have a large impact.


I bet if we eliminated all the guns in the entire world gun violence would drop. 

What should we do after that? World hunger, climate change, child abuse, sex slavery? There are so many things we can do after we get rid of all the guns. Or should we do one of those other things first? It is so hard to decide which problem we should solve first. 

We are simply frozen in our tracks trying to decide what problem to solve first.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> What should we do after that? World hunger, climate change, child abuse, sex slavery? There are so many things we can do after we get rid of all the guns. Or should we do one of those other things first? It is so hard to decide which problem we should solve first.


No. We need to save the whales next.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> No. We need to save the whales next.


I completely forgot about whales. Should we save polar bears first?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I completely forgot about whales. Should we save polar bears first?


Nah. Let Canada worry about the polar bears.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I thought we were going to try bringing back the Dodo bird so they could become polar bear fodder.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> Please prove your statement.


Naa. Done that too many times for people. Google is your friend. Try a reputable source.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

KC Rock said:


> Naa. Done that too many times for people. Google is your friend. Try a reputable source.


Thank you for the smile.
Your statement has been made by so many thousands of anti gun folks over the past few years, and there are multiple easy responses to refute your claim.
In fact, one could use "their friend" to find them if they didn't know just to show you pov doesn't work in the real world..
The problem is, you don't have facts to support your opinion. The argument is weak, and trying to back it up isn't easily done, so quitting after a soundbite or a lazy blurt is easier than having to face realities.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

*


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> Thank you for the smile.
> Your statement has been made by so many thousands of anti gun folks over the past few years, and there are multiple easy responses to refute your claim.
> In fact, one could use "their friend" to find them if they didn't know them just to show you pov doesn't work in the real world..
> The problem is, you don't have facts to support your opinion. The argument is weak, and trying to back it up isn't easily done, so quitting after a soundbite or a lazy blurt is easier than having to face realities.


The majority show huge differences between the usofa arms/person and related assault data with other countrys. Brazil 

may show different. I like to go with civilized country's data...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

KC Rock said:


> So what? If those regulations applied to the 50 states it would eliminate most of those killings. Look at the countries
> 
> that have strict gun control. Doesn't eliminate the deaths but does have a large impact.


[/QUOTE]
You missed the point. Did you not understand or ignoring the facts? Let me try it again. Communities and states with the strictest gun laws have some of the highest number of gun deaths. Not only do strict gun laws not eliminate gun deaths, they are statistically more apt to have gun deaths. Clearly, laws do not deter murderers.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

KC Rock said:


> The majority show huge differences between the usofa arms/person and related assault data with other countrys. Brazil
> 
> may show different. I like to go with civilized country's data...


IOW, you have no solid facts, and you prefer to cast aspersions than to engage. 

SMH


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Pony said:


> IOW, you have no solid facts, and you prefer to cast aspersions than to engage.
> 
> SMH


You guys!! 

So full of
You missed the point. Did you not understand or ignoring the facts? Let me try it again. Communities and states with the strictest gun laws have some of the highest number of gun deaths. Not only do strict gun laws not eliminate gun deaths, they are statistically more apt to have gun deaths. Clearly, laws do not deter murderers.
[/QUOTE]

Illinois is considered to have fairly tight gun laws. The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks. It also imposes waiting periods on purchases. But unlike New York and California, Illinois, among other things, does not ban assault weapons or large-capacity magazines and does not require a state license for firearms dealers or one to sell ammunition, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I wonder how many people who have been busted for illegal posession of firearms in Illinois are allowed to plea bargain to minor violations.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

KC Rock said:


> The majority show huge differences between the usofa arms/person and related assault data with other countrys. Brazil
> 
> may show different. I like to go with civilized country's data...


The number of gun deaths per 100,000 is an interesting statistic. The US of A is right up there. But, the part I find interesting, that Black on Black gun deaths in the US of A is right up there with a few violent Third World countries and excluding the top 5 urban areas from the US of A puts the rest of this country nearer the lowest country in gun deaths. The number of legally held guns is not indicitive of the number of gun murders. Adding restrictions to legal gun owners is like limiting the number of cars on the road to stop drunk driving accidents.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

KC Rock said:


> You guys!!
> 
> So full of
> 
> You missed the point. Did you not understand or ignoring the facts? Let me try it again. Communities and states with the strictest gun laws have some of the highest number of gun deaths. Not only do strict gun laws not eliminate gun deaths, they are statistically more apt to have gun deaths. Clearly, laws do not deter murderers.


Illinois is considered to have fairly tight gun laws. The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks. It also imposes waiting periods on purchases. But unlike New York and California, Illinois, among other things, does not ban assault weapons or large-capacity magazines and does not require a state license for firearms dealers or one to sell ammunition, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
[/QUOTE]

Is that what you think is the predominant firearm used in Illinois crime? 
ie AR15s and Glocks with 33 round mags?


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

Danaus29 said:


> I wonder how many people who have been busted for illegal posession of firearms in Illinois are allowed to plea bargain to minor violations.


It depends on whether or not you are <ahem> "privileged."


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

GTX63 said:


> The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks. It also imposes waiting periods on purchases.


How would what you just posted above have prevented any shooting in the Chicagoland area today? Or yesterday?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Can you point to one example of a gangbanger who put the newspaper down after reading about more stringent GC laws in Illinois and sighed his disappointment, knowing he was getting pushed out of crime?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

KC Rock said:


> You guys!!
> 
> So full of
> 
> You missed the point. Did you not understand or ignoring the facts? Let me try it again. Communities and states with the strictest gun laws have some of the highest number of gun deaths. Not only do strict gun laws not eliminate gun deaths, they are statistically more apt to have gun deaths. Clearly, laws do not deter murderers.


Illinois is considered to have fairly tight gun laws. The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks. It also imposes waiting periods on purchases. But unlike New York and California, Illinois, among other things, does not ban assault weapons or large-capacity magazines and does not require a state license for firearms dealers or one to sell ammunition, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
[/QUOTE]
I want to understand your point. We agree that IL has strict gun laws and chicago even more, yet they have some of the nation's highest murders per 100,000. You do understand that every gun dealer in IL has a federal firearms license? Would requiring gun dealers buy both a federal and a state license reduce murders? How would that work? 
You do understand there is no such thing as an assault weapon? You do understand that automatic weapons have been outlawed for a hundred years? Of Chicago, LA, Detroit, Flint, how many murders were tied to a large capacity magazine? Since there are hundreds of thousands of high capacity magazines in the USA, what effect would a ban have? Hint: none.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> I wonder how many people who have been busted for illegal posession of firearms in Illinois are allowed to plea bargain to minor violations.


You just touched on a concern of mine. It is common for a criminal, facing a long list of felonies, to plea to a lesser charge. So, a guy that ran a drug house, paid to have people killed, but the Courts couldn't get anyone to testify, might plead guilty to simple possession of drugs. So, when people start talking about releasing non-violent prisoners, these guys go free. Assaulting a police officer gets pled down to resisting arrest. Grand theft of a pile of rifles gets pled down to illegal possession of firearms. 
In the same vein, when a key witness recants their testimony, the criminal is released from prison, people like to think he was innocent. Courts do not ever determine guilt or innocence. It is always guilty or not guilty. Most times the criminal did the crime, but the Courts failed to supply enough proof fort a conviction.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

@haypoint, all of which serve to keep criminals on the streets and regular citizens doing their best to keep from becoming a statistic.

Columbus is now having the "I didn't see nuthin" crisis. Several recent shootings, including one where children were the target, have had no witnesses.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Clearly, laws do not deter murderers.


Yeah, it's funny. A find that the people most likely to break laws are criminals. One might say that it's a defining characteristic.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

KC Rock said:


> So what? If those regulations applied to the 50 states it would eliminate most of those killings. Look at the countries
> 
> that have strict gun control. Doesn't eliminate the deaths but does have a large impact.


[/QUOTE]
No it wouldn't. Criminals don't obey laws. There are enough guns in this country right now that it would take a hundred years to round them up. Remember, Hitler never rounded up the guns here. That gave most of the European countries with restrictive gun laws the starting point that they have.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Ghost guns are sawed-off shotguns and any firearm without a readable serial number. The ATF and Biden are pretending ghost guns are 3D-printed guns.


Sawing down a shotgun doesn’t necessarily obliterate the serial number, but I think I see the point you’re trying to make. The issue is even broader than that, though.

Serial numbers weren’t required on firearms prior to 1968. Most well-made firearms had a serial number, but only for warranty purposes, and often no reliable records of who the manufacturer sold it to were kept. After 1968, manufactures and dealers were encouraged to keep records of their sales, but those records (I’m speaking from direct experience) are extremely spotty.

It wasn’t until 1994 that point-of-sale records were required, and the records are only required to be retained for 20 years.

To put that in a timeline perspective, out of the 246 years that firearms have been manufactured in the US, the first 192 years had no record keeping requirements at all. Then, for the next 26 years, record keeping was “encouraged”. Out of all the guns made here since 1776, the only ones legally mandated to have a complete paper trail are those sold through a dealer since 18 April, 2002. The ones sold on 19 April, 2002 fall off tomorrow. 

Assuming it was purchased from a dealer who prefers to dispose of his records as allowed by the law, you could have a firearm purchased on 12 September, 2001 which is now a “ghost gun”.

People like @KC Rock , who argue most loudly for more gun control, do so from a point of not even understanding the existing laws and realities of the situation of guns in the United States. If the government could snap its fingers and magically make disappear every firearm that it knew traceability on, it would still eliminate only a small percentage of the firearms out there; and the vast, vast majority of those it made disappear would be ones in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

The “ghost gun” debate currently being held has nothing to do with the traceability of home-made firearms. It is entirely about framing the discussion about 100% firearm registration, which is, in turn, a framing to enable the eventual confiscation of all privately owned firearms.

Those who think they want it don’t understand that it is not even something that is possible.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Those who think they want it don’t understand that it is not even something that is possible.


Don't you think it is somewhat influenced by user compliance and authority enforcement? Something like Australia...


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Arguing back and forth wont ever do anything. Old fuel drum I cut in half for a burn barrel needed ventilation yesterday. Colt 6920 did the trick!!!


----------



## Montanarchist (Feb 24, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I bet if we eliminated all the guns in the entire world gun violence would drop.
> 
> What should we do after that? World hunger, climate change, child abuse, sex slavery? There are so many things we can do after we get rid of all the guns. Or should we do one of those other things first? It is so hard to decide which problem we should solve first.
> 
> We are simply frozen in our tracks trying to decide what problem to solve first.


This is beyond nativity. Guns are smuggled into prisons, the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto secured firearms for their uprising- on this actual day. Guns can be made not just on 3D printers but from commonly available hardware store plumbing fittings and household chemicals.

There will always be firearms, and criminals will always break the laws- that's what they do, duh. 

So therefore so-called gun laws are actually nothing more than victim disarmament!

I'm not too worried, here in Montana we're made it perfectly clear that we will secede if the feds **** with our Right to defend ourselves. Twice we've had legislation waiting to break with the feds, most recently while waiting for the Heller decision.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

We tried that here in May of 1861. It didn't go well for us. 

Maybe y'all will have better luck.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Montanarchist said:


> So therefore so-called gun laws are actually nothing more than victim disarmament!


The call to make more laws and restrictions is just not thought out by the part of the public that lazily chooses not to think it out. I suppose if someone who is antigun does give it more than a second's thought, they tend to become flustered and just spittle out that no guns the best solution.

There wasn't less crime before the introduction of the firearm. One could say that murder before the firearm tended to be more brutal.
How did a woman defend herself before there were guns?
How would a woman defend herself now?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Montanarchist said:


> This is beyond nativity. Guns are smuggled into prisons, the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto secured firearms for their uprising- on this actual day. Guns can be made not just on 3D printers but from commonly available hardware store plumbing fittings and household chemicals.
> 
> There will always be firearms, and criminals will always break the laws- that's what they do, duh.
> 
> ...


 I thought I had the sarcasm knob turned to 11.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Don't you think it is somewhat influenced by user compliance and authority enforcement? Something like Australia...


I’m not sure what you mean. What I’m describing is exactly what they are in the process of doing in Australia. The history of gun control in Australia (really, all of the Queen’s dominion, if you look at it), has been a progressive march toward total civil disarmament.

On the micro-scale, it has failed there. I, personally, have fired both legal and illegal machine guns in Australia. The legal ones were owned by someone anointed to conduct work that pleases the Queen (making movies); the illegal ones owned by people who willfully live hours away from anywhere that the Queen’s enforcers have bothered to set foot in decades.

On the macro-scale, they have succeeded in an order of magnitude that could never be achieved in the US. Great Britain, Canada and Australia each have histories of gunsmithing and arms use, but nothing compared to that of the US. Private firms in the US produced more guns last year than the entire Dominion has produced in the last two centuries.

Those who want civil disarmament here in the US will never be bothered to step back and consider the massive difference between the US and any other country on earth, when it comes to the proliferation of firearms.

“Ghost guns”, the advent of the machine gun, and even the modern semi-auto carbine are nothing more than pimples on the ass of the reality of US’ small-arms.


----------



## Montanarchist (Feb 24, 2005)

nchobbyfarm said:


> We tried that here in May of 1861. It didn't go well for us.
> 
> Maybe y'all will have better luck.


We noticed that and when we wrote the state constitution (after the civil war) and added a clause that we reserved the right to leave The Union.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

TripleD said:


> Arguing back and forth wont ever do anything. Old fuel drum I cut in half for a burn barrel needed ventilation yesterday. Colt 6920 did the trick!!!


I have found that the proper gun and load for ventilating burn barrels is my 870 in 12 gauge with trap loads from a range of 4 feet. The problem is that when I loaded up the gun the dog got really excited because he thought we were going hunting. Then he was grumpy the rest of the day.

These gun control arguments are largely a waste of oxygen. The pro gun side makes good logical arguments based on facts. They are never going to change antigunners minds because their beliefs are based on feelings. Kinda like trying to convince a christen that god doesn't exist.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Montanarchist said:


> We noticed that and when we wrote the state constitution (after the civil war) and added a clause that we reserved the right to leave The Union.


Since the US Constitution doesn’t expressly grant the federal government the right to enforce membership in the Union, the 10th amendment grants every state the right to secede- whether it’s in their state constitution of not.

Lincoln showed that he was willing to go to war with a nation created of seceded states. The question of the viability of secession really comes down to what the Commander in Chief decides to do in the event of secession, and whether or not the seceding state(s) can fight off being re-annexed by the United States military in the event that the CiC decides to fight it.

The Supreme Court has proven that it can’t be counted on to rule justly in an event like that, so it really does come down to the right of might.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

haypoint said:


> This weekend (not yet counting Sunday, 11 shot in just one city, Chicago. Chicago has some of the nations most gun regulations and gun laws.


That is normal in a poorly run, third world dung heap.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Montanarchist said:


> We noticed that and when we wrote the state constitution (after the civil war) and added a clause that we reserved the right to leave The Union.


I sincerely wish you luck IF y'all ever try it......


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

How is it possible for a person to believe that a person who is already a criminal is going to obey the laws about fire arms? If they were going to obey the laws they would not be criminals.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Chief50 said:


> How is it possible for a person to believe that a person who is already a criminal is going to obey the laws about fire arms? If they were going to obey the laws they would not be criminals.


Ask the people in congress your question. They seem to think that making more laws will prevent crime.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Those who want civil disarmament here in the US will never be bothered to step back and consider the massive difference between the US and any other country on earth, when it comes to the proliferation of firearms.


It appears to me that you think gun confiscation would not work in the US, either in a micro, or macro level. I disagree. 

Society in the US has become more compliant, and as we saw with masks and shots, very enthusiastic with enforcement.

The level of screeching we heard with masks and shots would be nothing compared to the decibel level we would hear by those that saw it as their civic duty to assist the storm troopers marching into our homes to take our .22 or whatever else might become verboten. 

We might see a couple of more pilot programs before the gun run.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> It appears to me that you think gun confiscation would not work in the US, either in a micro, or macro level. I disagree.
> 
> Society in the US has become more compliant, and as we saw with masks and shots, very enthusiastic with enforcement.
> 
> ...


What I’m saying is that, even if they were successful in taking 100 times as many guns as I think they actually could manage to take, they still wouldn’t get 5% of what’s out there.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> What I’m saying is that, even if they were successful in taking 100 times as many guns as I think they actually could manage to take, they still wouldn’t get 5% of what’s out there.


I get that. I think you are wrong. I think our people can be made to help the authorities sniff out the guns, and arrest the GI outlaw.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I can see where some people would be convinced to turn in their neighbors. Law abiding gun toters just don't impose the fear on citizens that criminal gun toters do.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I get that. I think you are wrong. I think our people can be made to help the authorities sniff out the guns, and arrest the GI outlaw.


Ok.

What percentage of the guns do you think they could manage to get?

Points of perspective for your estimate:

Estimates are that Australia’s incremental bans and subsequent confiscations have netted somewhere around 85% of the guns in illegal categories from private hands.

New Zealand’s 2019 semi-auto rifle ban and buy back has netted somewhere around 30% of the estimated “assault weapons” in private hands, but is only three years running, and still rolling.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Danaus29 said:


> I can see where some people would be convinced to turn in their neighbors. Law abiding gun toters just don't impose the fear on citizens that criminal gun toters do.


Some, no doubt, but history shows that gun confiscations take time, even in places without the prevalence they hold here. As big press is made about guns coming out of the hands of the law-abiding, and the criminals become emboldened, skyrocketing crime will deter the law-abiding even further.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> What percentage of the guns do you think they could manage to get?


I hate giving an answer that begins with "It depends".

It depends on the amount of time, one year from the initiation, 5 and so on.

It depends how aggressive the psyop is to outlaw gun owners.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I get that. I think you are wrong. I think our people can be made to help the authorities sniff out the guns, and arrest the GI outlaw.


That is true. We have seen those willing to be "that guy" thru the pandemic.
However, the government forcibly removing guns from American citizens will initiate a resistance that will in short time escalate. Confiscation of property of that magnitude will not just be another step in a process; it would be the event.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> a resistance


There will be a plan for that


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> it would be *the* event


No. It will be the opening act


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I hate giving an answer that begins with "It depends".
> 
> It depends on the amount of time, one year from the initiation, 5 and so on.
> 
> It depends how aggressive the psyop is to outlaw gun owners.


Five years, and an “aggressive” psyop, then. Say there are twice as many federal law enforcement agents as there are today (so 72 per 100,000), and every one of them has been taken off their normal duty, and pressed into service confiscating guns, door-to-door, for the last 60 months. They have done their homework, digitized the existing bound-books, and know the rough whereabouts of about 5% of guns in circulation.

How many do you think they’d get?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> GTX63 said:
> 
> 
> > it would be *the* event.
> ...


I’m with G on this, but I think *the* event would be the first inner-city single mother who gets ATF’d off for refusing to hand over her 5-shot .38 spl.

The second act will be when a couple states’ attorneys general enact a statewide non-compliance policy. Several states have more sworn officers than the federal government has agents.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Five years, and an “aggressive” psyop, then. Say there are twice as many federal law enforcement agents as there are today (so 72 per 100,000), and every one of them has been taken off their normal duty, and pressed into service confiscating guns, door-to-door, for the last 60 months. They have done their homework, digitized the existing bound-books, and know the rough whereabouts of about 5% of guns in circulation.
> 
> How many do you think they’d get?


you going to prison or worse when they come for the guns or just loss of the gun?

California and NY state registration compliance is around 5% a few years in , so it will take a long time.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Five years, and an “aggressive” psyop, then. Say there are twice as many federal law enforcement agents as there are today (so 72 per 100,000), and every one of them has been taken off their normal duty, and pressed into service confiscating guns, door-to-door, for the last 60 months. They have done their homework, digitized the existing bound-books, and know the rough whereabouts of about 5% of guns in circulation.
> 
> How many do you think they’d get?


I don't think we will see the increase in law enforcement numbers, EXCEPT, there will be a new agency. Its sole purpose will be to take guns, all guns, except some minor allowed long gun, like a single shot, or maybe a double barrel shot gun.

In five years all of "the willing" will have turned over their guns. Then it gets sporty. The famous words will be the SOP for the new agency. "_When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns_."

I don't think we can imagine a psyop as strong as will be put in place to remove guns. It will be worldwide, but in fact there is only one target - US.

AI will know every single gun owner, and it will know every gun you own. It is not a matter of if they come for your guns, it is a matter of when.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> you going to prison or worse when they come for the guns or just loss of the gun?
> 
> California and NY state registration compliance is around 5% a few years in , so it will take a long time.


I’m not saying what I would do. That’s poor form.

What I am pointing out is that my collection is 100% legal, from every muzzle to every butt plate, and “they” still only know about around 20% of my collection.

“They” only know the whereabouts of about 5% of the guns in our hands, writ-large.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I’m with G on this, but I think *the* event would be the first inner-city single mother who gets ATF’d off for refusing to hand over her 5-shot .38 spl.
> 
> The second act will be when a couple states’ attorneys general enact a statewide non-compliance policy. Several states have more sworn officers than the federal government has agents.


Ya'll are thinking way too small. There is only one reason to take our guns. It is to enslave us. That enslavement is THE EVENT


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I don't think we will see the increase in law enforcement numbers, EXCEPT, there will be a new agency. Its sole purpose will be to take guns, all guns, except some minor allowed long gun, like a single shot, or maybe a double barrel shot gun.
> 
> In five years all of "the willing" will have turned over their guns. Then it gets sporty. The the famous words will be the SOP for the new agency. "_When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns_."
> 
> ...


I know they won’t switch every agent over to confiscation, I was offering that as a worst-case bolster to your “it depends” dodge. My point was, even IF they switched every single federal agent over, and then DOUBLED the staffing, they’d have 72 badges per 100,000 Americans. How many agents do you think there will be in this new agency stood up for the confiscation?

It’s a much bigger job today than it ever was before. In the early 80’s, when I pooped my first diaper in a gun shop, citizens who could legally carry a concealed handgun were numbered like the teeth on Sasquatch’s hen. Today, over half the states have constitutional carry.

The vast majority of those pistols being carried, constitutionally, were either hand-me-downs, or purchased from independent dealers, most of whom destroy their records at 20 years.

This new agency is going to have to take an approach somewhere between asking nicely, and turning over every drawer in every house in the United States. What percentage is that going to net them?

I think the real question is how many guns they are going to get before the secession starts, and the federal focus shifts to trying to hold together a fractured Union.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Ya'll are thinking way too small. There is only one reason to take our guns. It is to enslave us. That enslavement is THE EVENT


Yes, there will be stages, chapters etc. But once something like that were to begin, it is no longer a conspiracy theory and the entire mindset changes. 
An escalation to that level is permanent because the veil is gone.
Once enforcement meets resistance, and resistance is met with force, liken it to closed fist slugging your wife right in the mouth, or screwing her sister.

Think of the granny scenario where she was thrown against the wall by New Orleans LEO who were confiscating guns during Katrina. Now magnify that nationwide and throw in say 250 gun owners who were shot/injured/arrested while resisting during a search, say in the first week.
Forget right wing extremists, how do you think that carries over with 100+ million Joe and Barb Lunchbox types?
Up until the present, your government knows when, where and how far to push on the pedal without going to fast.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

TripleD said:


> Arguing back and forth wont ever do anything. Old fuel drum I cut in half for a burn barrel needed ventilation yesterday. Colt 6920 did the trick!!!


That's an expensive cutting torch you have there.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Maybe Ukraine will help them.




nchobbyfarm said:


> We tried that here in May of 1861. It didn't go well for us.
> 
> Maybe y'all will have better luck.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Yes, there will be stages, chapters etc. But once something like that were to begin, it is no longer a conspiracy theory and the entire mindset changes.
> An escalation to that level is permanent because the veil is gone.
> Once enforcement meets resistance, and resistance is met with force, liken it to closed fist slugging your wife right in the mouth, or screwing her sister.
> 
> ...


I am talking about a post 2nd amendment era.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> your “it depends” dodge


It is not a dodge. It is a discussion. I am making this up as I go along.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> How many agents do you think there will be in this new agency stood up for the confiscation?


You are missing my larger point. All those citizen mask agents we had the last couple of years will amp up beyond our wildest dreams to take the guns. The new G Force will simply knock on your door, about 4:30 in the AM and you might get one with a lucky shot, and then game over, or they take 'em, take you, and the household is left shivering when they leave. 



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> turning over every drawer in every house


Again, you are missing a very important point I am trying to make. AI is going to inventory every gun, and every location of that gun. EVERY one.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> What percentage of the guns do you think they could manage to get?


Exactly none of mine.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> How many agents do you think there will be in this new agency stood up for the confiscation?


Brandon is talking about doubling the size of the "AFT".


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> It is not a dodge. It is a discussion. I am making this up as I go along.


Yeah. Sorry. “Dodge” may not have been the best word, but I put numbers (albeit rough ones) to what I thought a confiscation campaign might yield. You said you disagreed, but wouldn’t put your own number, even a rough one, to it. That makes it difficult to have any sort of substantive back and forth because I don’t know if you mean, as it sounds, like you think they’ll succeed in getting “all” the guns. 




HDRider said:


> You are missing my larger point. All those citizen mask agents we had the last couple of years will amp up beyond our wildest dreams to take the guns. The new G Force will simply knock on your door, about 4:30 in the AM and you might get one with a lucky shot, and then game over, or they take 'em, take you, and the household is left shivering when they leave.


The difference between masks and guns, though, is significant in this context. Your “citizen agents” were able to Karen-out because the thing they were latched onto was, by definition of its use, overt.

Guns, with the exception of sporting purposes, are exactly the opposite. The anti-gunners in my life may know that I have guns, but they don’t know what, where, or how many. Even the pro-gunners in my life don’t know those Ws (or the H).

As far as the actual agents go, as has been pointed out by several (even you), that process will take a (very) long time. If, going by my outlandishly impossible worst-case scenario where every federal agent got converted to confiscation duty, and they ran a 10-agent raid on every household (averaging out 5 people per household), it would still take them almost two years of doing a raid every night. In a more realistic agent deployment, you’re looking at 10 or 20 years to raid everyone. 



HDRider said:


> Again, you are missing a very important point I am trying to make. AI is going to inventory every gun, and every location of that gun. EVERY one.


Until you can substantiate that in at least some way, it’s not really a point. How is AI going to figure out that my granddad has a single-shot 20 gauge behind the tool box in his barn? He probably doesn’t even remember it is there, and he’s sure as hell never talked about it on Facebook.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

muleskinner2 said:


> Brandon is talking about doubling the size of the "AFT".


That’s certainly more realistic than the worst-case scenario I proposed which came out to 72 agents per 100,000 citizens. If Brandon doubled the ATF’s badge roll, and set them to work on the confiscations, that would provide 1.5 door-knockers per 100,000- so each one and a half agents would be responsible for about 20,000 doors, by themselves.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I don’t know if you mean, as it sounds, like you think they’ll succeed in getting “all” the guns.


I will say "most" of the targeted guns. The targeted guns will happen in waves. Ultimately it will be most, as I am talking about a post 2nd day.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Until you can substantiate that in at least some way, it’s not really a point.


If I could substantiate it, it would not be my point to make. Call it a theory, a conspiracy, an idea or a fear. I am not trying to make the case for what is happening. I am making the case for what could happen. Call it science fiction if it make you feel better.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> How is AI going to figure out that my granddad has a single-shot 20 gauge behind the tool box in his barn?


Granddad might be safe, and I think his 20 gauge most defiantly is safe. Have you ever used a search engine to shop ammo? BTW - You might want to change your user name.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Everything ever on the internet is a footprint.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> That's an expensive cutting torch you have there.


A few Presidents back forced us to spend some money!!?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Your “citizen agents” were able to Karen-out because the thing they were latched onto was, by definition of its use, overt.


It is believed that 1/8th of East Germany were informants


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I will say "most" of the targeted guns. The targeted guns will happen in waves. Ultimately it will be most, as I am talking about a post 2nd day.


Incremental bannings do make some hay, but they’re proven to be way less than efficient or effective. Look at how many unregistered ARs there are in California. Look at the massive flop it’s been in New Zealand… and those New Zealanders aren’t even Americans. 



HDRider said:


> If I could substantiate it, it would not be my point to make. Call it a theory, a conspiracy, an idea or a fear. I am not trying to make the case for what is happening. I am making the case for what could happen. Call it science fiction if it make you feel better.


Fair enough. You said “AI will…”, hence my confusion that it was more than a musing. 



HDRider said:


> Granddad might be safe, and I think his 20 gauge most defiantly is safe. Have you ever used a search engine to shop ammo? BTW - You might want to change your user name.


Yeah. That ship sailed a long time ago. I’ve been an RP on various FFLs, several with SOTs, continuously, for over 20 years. I’m on one now, but also have an S-Corp with my own. I’ll probably be adding an SOT to it later this year, as I’m working on a side hustle that will require me to accept bailment of DOD-owned machine guns for testing.

Funny story, but entirely true, when the ATF came out for the site-survey on my current FFL, we got to taking duty guns, and he opened his GunVault. His duty carbine was sold to the ATF by yours truly, at my last gig. I was able to produce an email for him that answered his nagging question as to why it had a full-auto lower (so legally a machine gun) but had a semi-auto fire control.

That is all to say that my name is already on “the list”.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> It is believed that 1/8th of East Germany were informants


And 100% of them were Germans. That’s not saying much.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And 100% of them were Germans. That’s not saying much.


I did not know Karen was a foreigner.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That is all to say that my name is already on “the list”.


Because you are overt. In this day and time, no one is covert in anything. It is simply a matter of being a target.

And remember, every person who has ever been in proximity of your personal tracking device is now suspect.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I did not know Karen was a foreigner.


Her proper name is Fraulein Karen von Schnozupassen.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Because you are overt. In this day and time, no one is covert in anything. It is simply a matter of being a target.
> 
> And remember, every person who has ever been in proximity of your personal tracking device is now suspect.


Going back to the example of my grand-dad, because I think he’s a pretty good example: 

It wouldn’t take an AI to successfully guess that he owns guns. He’s a conservative, fat old white guy with a tractor and two barns. No AI, however, is going to figure out how many guns he owns or where they are. My grandad could face a raid, decide to comply and hand over every gun he knows he owns, and sometime, months after Agent Beto backed out of his driveway, remember where he put “that other one”.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I am talking about a post 2nd amendment era.


You are going to have to give me a scenario that explains how we ultimately lost the 2nd amendment.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> My grandad could face a raid, decide to comply and hand over every gun he knows he owns, and sometime, months after Agent Beto backed out of his driveway, remember where he put “that other one”.


I never meant to imply there were no heroes in my scenario


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm simple in postings on here. I have seen one State Trooper with someone pulled over in two years. I walked two blocks to the post office @ 5:30 Saturday with a open container. Two deputies saw it and didn't say anything... No law enforcement officer in their right mind is coming to take guns.!!!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> You are going to have to give me a scenario that explains how we ultimately lost the 2nd amendment.


That is easy enough. 

We have had two Justices say the 2nd does not give a citizen the unfettered right to own a gun (Warren Burger), and that the 2nd should be repealed (John Paul Steven).

All we need is for five to agree on that at one time.

To think the 2nd is unassailable is hard for me to imagine, or conversely, it hangs in the balance with the Supreme Court.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> I'm simple in postings on here. I have seen one State Trooper with someone pulled over in two years. I walked two blocks to the post office @ 5:30 Saturday with a open container. Two deputies saw it and didn't say anything... No law enforcement officer in their right mind is coming to take guns.!!!


At least not today


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> That is easy enough.
> 
> We have had two Justices say the 2nd does not give a citizen the unfettered right to own a gun (Warren Burger), and that the 2nd should be repealed (John Paul Steven).
> 
> ...


So if I understand, the 2nd is overtuned, and the Federal Government soon after begins issuing directives and Congress passes new laws and the 3 letter agencies begin to assemble structures to disarm the general public?
There is no scenario that I can picture that would not entail the phrases "Wild West" and "Blood in the Streets" to borrow from the liberal song book.
Not in this generation nor the next.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> So if I understand, the 2nd is overtuned, and the Federal Government soon after begins issuing directives and Congress passes new laws and the 3 letter agencies begin to assemble structures to disarm the general public?
> There is no scenario that I can picture that would not entail the phrases "Wild West" and "Blood in the Streets" to borrow from the liberal song book.
> Not in this generation nor the next.


Your confidence in our governance exceeds mine

A certain percentage of gun owners, the hold outs, will be vigorous, and then gone like the old Chisholm Trail


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Your confidence in our governance exceeds mine
> 
> A certain percentage of gun owners, the hold outs, will be vigorous, and then gone like the old Chisholm Trail


I think the aspect you’re missing is the State sovereignty sentiment that has been building for the last 15-20 years. A secessionist movement driven by the People is likely to fizzle if stymied by its own State government. With all of the passion around illegal-immigration sanctuary cities and states,on the left, and the 2nd amendment sanctuary cities and states, on the right, the rhetorical battlefield is being prepped for a reinvigoration of the 10th.

I’m by no means saying that it is guaranteed to be successful, but a new harsh infringement on the 2nd would not be left to NGOs, alone, to fight. If Brandon managed to drag a semi-auto carbine ban across desk today, or next year, there would be at least a dozen states willing to throw the entire weight of their own law enforcement and, if need be, their national guard against its enforcement. Things would get really sporty, much quicker than if it were left to just the NRA to fight it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I think the aspect you’re missing is the State sovereignty sentiment that has been building for the last 15-20 years. A secessionist movement driven by the People is likely to fizzle if stymied by its own State government. With all of the passion around illegal-immigration sanctuary cities and states,on the left, and the 2nd amendment sanctuary cities and states, on the right, the rhetorical battlefield is being prepped for a reinvigoration of the 10th.
> 
> I’m by no means saying that it is guaranteed to be successful, but a new harsh infringement on the 2nd would not be left to NGOs, alone, to fight. If Brandon managed to drag a semi-auto carbine ban across desk today, or next year, there would be at least a dozen states willing to throw the entire weight of their own law enforcement and, if need be, their national guard against its enforcement. Things would get really sporty, much quicker than if it were left to just the NRA to fight it.


I do not disagree


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Which is why I am puzzled. The 2nd Amendment, as many American citizens understand it, is not able to be revoked, neither by Judge or politician.
It is not for any man to say.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness takes all kinds of forms, not just the one we recognize today.
That mindset is what makes us different than any other country in the world.
Should there be a day when our system of government tries to tell us otherwise, your fellow Americans will not disappoint you.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Which is why I am puzzled. The 2nd Amendment, as many American citizens understand it, is not able to be revoked, neither by Judge or politician.
> It is not for any man to say.
> Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness takes all kinds of forms, not just the one we recognize today.
> That mindset is what makes us different than any other country in the world.
> Should there be a day when our system of government tries to tell us otherwise, your fellow Americans will not disappoint you.


I may be wrong, but I think one amendment can revoke another, or a SC ruling can reinterpret a constitutional clause or amendment.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I may be wrong, but I think one amendment can revoke another, or a SC ruling can reinterpret a constitutional clause or amendment.


You’re not wrong. Apparently, a SCOTUS ruling can even override one of the 10 Commandments. They managed to find the hidden lines in the 4th which overrode _Thou shalt not murder._

What gives me faith in the durability of the 2nd is how much the arms culture has matured, and learned to focus on the real meaning of the 2nd in the last 20 years. I was literally raised, and have spent my entire adult life, in the gun industry. Things have changed, radically, for the better.

From the 1870s through the 1990s, the 2nd amendment, for what it was worth, largely just recognized your right to teach your kids to pheasant hunt, earn a Boy Scout merit badge, and, if you were a real “nut”, take them to the trap field a few times per year. For the last 20 years or so, people of the gun have actually been forcing an honest dialog about what it really means- and not just the wacko white supremacists.

I’ve posted this before, but it bears repeating. I think this is the single best illustration of the progress we people of the gun have made of late.









That animation cuts off early. Here is the current state of the Union:


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I may be wrong, but I think one amendment can revoke another, or a SC ruling can reinterpret a constitutional clause or amendment.


What I meant is that the first 3 rights were written to protect our personal liberties and widely considered to be God given rights or natural rights.
At a point in which an amendment is revoked, it won't matter to many people; their rights cannot be taken from them.
What would it take for you to no longer recognize our government as your government?
I remember my first time walking thru the main drag of a circus. Tents had large signs and posters of horrific looking half human creatures guranteed to shock and amaze you. It terrified me and gave me nightmares.
Later when I actually went inside one of those tents, I discovered they were scams.
Our rights are posted as legitimate God given rights. As long as they are up there for everyone to see, and believe in, all is well, no matter if it is a lie or not. Taking down those rights means this would no longer be the authentic United States of America.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Coming in late and circling back to the debate about how they know about your weapons - your children/grandchildren will also be used as detection vehicles. All it takes is some classes in school on how dangerous guns are, and a few innocuous questions like, "How many of your parents have a gun?" or "Have you ever seen a gun when you visited your grandparents?" As a former smoker, I know there was a lot of poking and prodding of my children's brains when they were in school about who smoked in the house and where they smoked and how often they smoked. And of course, the kids being concerned about smoking due to the classes they were taking, were more than willing to "help" me by telling their teachers. It's not hard to see how that could apply to anything the government, via the school system, wants to know about anyone who has children in their lives.

I also know I've also been asked at the doctor's office whether or not there were guns in the house (usually during the, "How are you feeling? Do you feel safe at home?" mental health check they do at the GP's office). Spying couched as concern often works, even on people you'd think would be smarter.

Just throwing in that it doesn't have to be a matter of overtly looking for your guns or relying on the masked Karens if they really want to find them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Mish said:


> Coming in late and circling back to the debate about how they know about your weapons - your children/grandchildren will also be used as detection vehicles. All it takes is some classes in school on how dangerous guns are, and a few innocuous questions like, "How many of your parents have a gun?" or "Have you ever seen a gun when you visited your grandparents?" As a former smoker, I know there was a lot of poking and prodding of my children's brains when they were in school about who smoked in the house and where they smoked and how often they smoked. And of course, the kids being concerned about smoking due to the classes they were taking, were more than willing to "help" me by telling their teachers. It's not hard to see how that could apply to anything the government, via the school system, wants to know about anyone who has children in their lives.
> 
> I also know I've also been asked at the doctor's office whether or not there were guns in the house (usually during the, "How are you feeling? Do you feel safe at home?" mental health check they do at the GP's office). Spying couched as concern often works, even on people you'd think would be smarter.
> 
> Just throwing in that it doesn't have to be a matter of overtly looking for your guns or relying on the masked Karens if they really want to find them.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

My doctor asked me once, and only once, if we had guns in the house. I said "before that horrible boating accident, I used to enjoy hunting". She got the hint.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Doc asked me once and I just acted like I didn’t hear it. If I said it was none of his business, I’m sure they had a procedure that took that to mean “_Yes. A lot, and I’m even likely to vote for an orange man even after my betters told me he was bad, so I should be watched accordingly._”

I don’t know what she wrote down after asking me three or four times, and me just staring at the cardio-vascular dummy beside the table I was sitting on, but, if she wrote down any answer, it wasn’t an answer she got from me.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

What I have in my house is not the business of anyone. Even what I have in my pocket is not their business.


----------



## Roy Gilbert (Apr 11, 2020)

I repeatedly see references to democrats about to do "a "gun grab" ... it's kind of cuckoo ... since the same dialogue goes on and on without the "grab" happening. It's right wing folk lore

I would like to ask a question ... who really thinks that Joe Citizen should be able to go to the arms store and buy an RPG or hand grenades?

BTW ... spare me if you have an urge to label me as a gun sissie . I own multiple firearms and I belong to a gun club


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Roy Gilbert said:


> I repeatedly see references to democrats about to do "a "gun grab" ... it's kind of cuckoo ... since the same dialogue goes on and on without the "grab" happening. It's right wing folk lore


Here’s two of the Democrat candidates for president who believe in your “right wing folk lore”. Hint: one of them actually became president, too.

For extra credit, watch the second video through to the end. _*Trigger Warning*: it does have commentary from a black man with guns, and I know how uncomfortable that makes you democrats. _











“Gun sissie” wouldn’t have exactly been my first choice of words, but you either do have an unusually short memory, or else an uncanny ability to memory-hole, on command, every inconvenient thing that the leaders of your party say.



Roy Gilbert said:


> I would like to ask a question ... who really thinks that Joe Citizen should be able to go to the arms store and buy an RPG or hand grenades?


Me. I do. This guy right here.

Now that I gave you a straightforward answer, please do me the same courtesy. Do you really think that Joe Citizen should be able to go on the internet, and instantly speak his mind to hundreds of millions of people with the click of a mouse?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

The average law abiding citizen, by God given rights and codified in the Constitution, ought to be able to own any weapon the national guard possesses.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Just read a gem this morning.

This sweetheart of a guy, obviously misunderstood and trying to stay on a path to a better life, was under electronic monitoring for allegedly carjacking, robbing and then murdering a disabled man outside a movie theatre while the victims girlfriend watched. 
After taking the dead man's life and Rolex he tried to steal his car but was unable to operate the controls custom made for a disabled person.

Now, the judge sets his bail at 300k and sends him home with an ankle bracelet. Shortly after, the police are summoned to his home due to a domestic assault call (beating his ho with a gun). While police are on scene, they discover a stolen rifle and a stolen handgun.
He is given a misdemeanor charge of illegal possession of a firearm.

Now, KC Rock wouldn't have been able to read this far before his msnbc commercial break ended, but maybe another person could comment on how removing guns from legal law abiding American citizens would have prevented any of the above from occuring.

Link below-
He had 2 stolen guns in his house while on electronic monitoring for 160 counts of murder, prosecutors say


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Criminals need to be treated and prosecuted like criminals. The US needs to stop babying all these perps and letting them literally get away with murder. Someone still awaiting trial *5 YEARS* after a murder is a ticking time bomb. 5 years is by no means a speedy trial or justice for the murder victim.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

8 more since I first posted this on April 17

















Mass Shootings in 2023 | Gun Violence Archive


Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and...




www.gunviolencearchive.org


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

We lost our grip on crime and punishment a long time ago. Too many lawyers I guess. Time to get back to short, swift punishment like public hangings and whippings in the town square instead of years of three hots and a cot.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

62 incidents in May









Mass Shootings in 2023 | Gun Violence Archive


Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and...




www.gunviolencearchive.org


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Here's California's answer to school shootings. Can anyone explain to me why this is a good idea? They passed a bill that no longer mandates that students who make threats against schools be reported. The new bill was backed by the ACLU of course, and their reasoning was that reporting students who make threats puts them in contact with law enforcement and most of those who make threats are minorities. Therefore, that made the requitement racist.

California Votes To End Mandatory Reporting On Students Who Threaten Schools | The Daily Caller


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

Sure. As long as California has enough gun laws to prevent those minority teens from carrying out the threats, why treat them like criminals just for threatening their fellow students and teachers?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Withdraw the Obama Administration’s "Dear Colleague" Letter on School Discipline


The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), which does great work, has written U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, urging her to withdraw an Obama-era “Dear Colleague” lettergiving school administrators “guidance” on how to comply with federal law when it comes to school discipline.




www.heritage.org


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Seems like almost all are Democrats shooting Democrats. Just ban Democrats from owning guns. Problem solved.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Vjk said:


> Seems like almost all are Democrats shooting Democrats. Just ban Democrats from owning guns. Problem solved.


FBI statistics say u r correct.


----------

