Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Why do you think, fool? Because I'm not superhuman, because debating with NRA folks is rarely honest & never fun, because there have been a lot of shootings and I don't have an endless capacity for this BS.  If I'd started this thread after Vegas, you'd be asking "well, why didn't you come to PPP for the previous shooting?" as a way to discredit the argument. On and on and on.

 

You want to make this about me. It isn't.

 

That's not an answer. Something compelled you to come down to a place you've never been before. I'm wondering what that is. Have you even stopped to ask yourself that same question? Or is this the first time you've considered it?

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

You want to make this about me. It isn't.

 

You made this thread about you already. I'm just sticking to the topic and genuinely trying to figure you out. 

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

That's not an answer. Something compelled you to come down to a place you've never been before. I'm wondering what that is. Have you even stopped to ask yourself that same question? Or is this the first time you've considered it?

 

You made this thread about you already. I'm just sticking to the topic and genuinely trying to figure you out. 

 

The topic is gun laws. The topic is lawful gun owners taking responsibility by agreeing to laws that may inconvenience the 'good guys' to take preventive measures against the 'bad guys.' 

 

If you want to "figure me out," that is a separate issue and you're free to PM me, I guess.

Edited February 26, 2018 by LA Grant

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

The topic is gun laws. The topic is lawful gun owners taking responsibility by agreeing to laws that may inconvenience the 'good guys' to take preventive measures against the 'bad guys.' 

 

If you want to "figure me out," that is a separate issue and you're free to PM me, I guess.

 

Why are you so afraid of answering a direct question that's on topic? 

[LA Grant]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

Why are you so afraid of answering a direct question that's on topic? 

 

It's not on topic, nor am I "afraid," ffs. I'm saying, again, that your questioning is off-topic, and pointing out that what you're doing is derailing the thread to focus on my posting history instead of restricting arms. A distraction tactic.

 

If you have a question about guns, which is the topic, then by all means... shoot.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

It's not on topic, nor am I "afraid," ffs. I'm saying, again, that your questioning is off-topic, and pointing out that what you're doing is derailing the thread to focus on my posting history instead of restricting arms. A distraction tactic.

 

If you have a question about guns, which is the topic, then by all means... shoot.

 

It's not off topic. The topic, which you started, is about gun violence. You chose to start this thread after Parkland but not after Vegas despite being on the board at both times, and despite both events happening within a close time frame. 

 

My question, about guns and how much you care about this topic, is why you chose to wait until now to start posting in PPP. What changed between now and Vegas for you?

[LA Grant]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

It's not off topic. The topic, which you started, is about gun violence. You chose to start this thread after Parkland but not after Vegas despite being on the board at both times, and despite both events happening within a close time frame. 

 

My question, about guns and how much you care about this topic, is why you chose to wait until now to start posting in PPP. What changed between now and Vegas for you?

 

Your question is not on the topic of gun violence. Your question is about my posting history. You're assuming that because I'm posting on PPP after Parkland but not after Vegas, that I only care about one and not the other. This is a logical fallacy based on the mistaken idea that I must have some ulterior motive. It's a pointless diversion. 

 

Sorry dude. Not playing your game anymore. 

[4merper4mer]

15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Why are you so afraid of answering a direct question that's on topic? 

He's a commie.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

John McCain.

 

Don’t ever change.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Your question is not on the topic of gun violence.

 

Yes it is. I'm asking why you seem to care now about gun violence but not after Vegas. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Your question is about my posting history.

 

No. I'm asking you sincerely to expand on your position in a thread you started. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

You're assuming that because I'm posting on PPP after Parkland but not after Vegas, that I only care about one and not the other.

 

If I was assuming that, I'd assume it. But I'm not, hence why I'm asking a question. 

 

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

This is a logical fallacy based on the mistaken idea that I must have some ulterior motive.

 

No, it's an honest question about the beliefs and opinions of a new poster to PPP. Nothing more. The fact you're instantly defensive about it though... is telling.

 

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 It's a pointless diversion. 

 

 

It's not pointless. It's a sincere question. One, for some reason, you are afraid to answer. Why is that?

 

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Sorry dude. Not playing your game anymore. 

 

Running from questions on this board is never a good move. You'd be better served to answer, just saying...

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Yes it is. I'm asking why you seem to care now about gun violence but not after Vegas. 

 

No. I'm asking you sincerely to expand on your position in a thread you started. 

 

If I was assuming that, I'd assume it. But I'm not, hence why I'm asking a question. 

 

No, it's an honest question about the beliefs and opinions of a new poster to PPP. Nothing more. The fact you're instantly defensive about it though... is telling.

 

It's not pointless. It's a sincere question. One, for some reason, you are afraid to answer. Why is that?

 

Running from questions on this board is never a good move. You'd be better served to answer, just saying...

 

Thank you for illustrating. The tactic you're employing is "shoot the messenger." See how this works? Even with nothing to go on, you're already scrambling for any way to discredit my argument. If you were actually curious, you'd have realized I already answered you about "why now." 

 

So, alright, I'm not answering any more of your notifications. Obviously the only explanation must be that I'm a deep state crisis actor, paid by the Soros & Hillary slush fund for oppressing lawful gun owners. Or whatever you think it is. It couldn't be the obvious answer right in front of your face. Conclude what you want, I guess. Whatever you need to avoid the issue of gun control.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Thank you for illustrating. The tactic you're employing is "shoot the messenger." See how this works? Even with nothing to go on, you're already scrambling for any way to discredit my argument. If you were actually curious, you'd have realized I already answered you about "why now." 

 

Then it should be easy enough for you to answer again, right? 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

So, alright, I'm not answering any more of your notifications. Obviously the only explanation must be that I'm a deep state crisis actor, paid by the Soros & Hillary slush fund for oppressing lawful gun owners. Or whatever you think it is. It couldn't be the obvious answer right in front of your face. Conclude what you want, I guess. Whatever you need to avoid the issue of gun control.

 

You can throw out "insults" if you want, but none of that has anything to do with me or the things I've discussed on this board for years. See, adults try to get to know the person before they insult them. Hence me continuing to show you patience and ask sincere questions. 

 

And your reaction is to lash out, get angry, and make up insults about people you don't know. 

 

Which one of us is really interested in a rational discussion again? The one asking sincere questions and engaging in honest debate with you, or the one who is afraid to answer direct questions and responds with insults?

 

You can do better than that, Grant. I know it. Try harder. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

Don’t ever change.

 

 

You teed that one up so well, how was I not supposed to swing for the end zone?  

2 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Who's being disingenuous? If that's your position, that position would also logically oppose the Supreme Court's ruling on child porn, which would absolutely qualify as an infringement on 1A. You don't oppose those infringements, because they don't serve your Constitutionalist/fundamentalist argument.

 

If you're arguing for any psycho to own any gun because any restriction violates 2A, you're also arguing for any psycho to own any media because any restriction violates 1A.

 

If that's your view, fine. That is at least a consistent position. I obviously disagree with it, but you don't get it both ways.

 

 

Well, obviously I'm being paid handsomely by George Soros to be a crisis actor.

 

Oh, so now you're telling me that you only want to see child pornographers inconvenienced?

 

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Oh, so now you're telling me that you only want to see child pornographers inconvenienced?

 

It's a bit unclear what you're asking. At first I read this with emphasis on "only" which didn't make any sense, because that's the position you're arguing for, the inconsistent one: "Restrictions for 1A are necessary, but restrictions for 2A are not."  

 

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Oh, so now you're telling me that you only want to see child pornographers inconvenienced?

 

But I think I see the question you're going for, with emphasis on "inconvenienced," right? Suggesting that, if I'm saying that all Amendments can be restricted, then I'm also saying the specific restrictions should be the same for all Amendments? The answer is that the laws should be nuanced, obviously. So is your actual point that you think that the current gun laws are suitably nuanced, and that the blame is only on individual bad actors, therefore the existing gun laws need no change? 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question? If so, please indulge.

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

It's a bit unclear what you're asking. At first I read this with emphasis on "only" which didn't make any sense, because that's the position you're arguing for, the inconsistent one: "Restrictions for 1A are necessary, but restrictions for 2A are not."  

 

 

But I think I see the question you're going for, with emphasis on "inconvenienced," right? Suggesting that, if I'm saying that all Amendments can be restricted, then I'm also saying the specific restrictions should be the same for all Amendments? The answer is that the laws should be nuanced, obviously. So is your actual point that you think that the current gun laws are suitably nuanced, and that the blame is only on individual bad actors, therefore the existing gun laws need no change? 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question? If so, please indulge.

 

You are misunderstanding.  I'm flipping your style of argument back on you - you take a fraction of what people post, interpret through your own warped sense of self-righteousness, and reply with something you think is parroting back what the poster said, but is actually complete bull ****.  Then act all butt-hurt when no one wants to play nice with you.  

[LA Grant]

Just now, DC Tom said:

You are misunderstanding.  I'm flipping your style of argument back on you - you take a fraction of what people post, interpret through your own warped sense of self-righteousness, and reply with something you think is parroting back what the poster said, but is actually complete bull ****.  Then act all butt-hurt when no one wants to play nice with you.  

 

Well, no, then I did understand, because I just showed you that I saw what you were doing. I simply saved us the time of you drawing out the actual point you were making.

 

Your other point: that also suitably describes yourself and the entirety of PPP. 

[DC Tom]

Yeah...!@#$ off, bozo.

[LA Grant]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Then it should be easy enough for you to answer again, right? 

 

You can throw out "insults" if you want, but none of that has anything to do with me or the things I've discussed on this board for years. See, adults try to get to know the person before they insult them. Hence me continuing to show you patience and ask sincere questions. 

 

And your reaction is to lash out, get angry, and make up insults about people you don't know. 

Which one of us is really interested in a rational discussion again? The one asking sincere questions and engaging in honest debate with you, or the one who is afraid to answer direct questions and responds with insults?

 

Okay. You want me to get to know you & you want to get to know me? Well, that is lovely, a wonderful gesture of friendship. It's not reflected well in this thread but generally I am friendly & affable. It doesn't matter to me if you believe that or not because I don't want to get to know you aside from the content of our posts here. Perhaps in another thread, you share a different side of yourself that we connect on — great. We can get to know each other that way. 

 

Here's the thing. This isn't the place for it. At the very least, not this thread, and not on page 20 after everything that preceded it. As they say on reality shows, "I'm not here to make friends." (It used to be unseemly to quote reality stars but then again now they get elected to Commander in Chief). 

 

I'm fine being the bad guy here. I accepted it walking in, I don't care, I can take it, it's fine. I see how "the left" is regarded on PPP; it's why I created this thread, rather than hijacking another one. I wanted the position to be specific & clear from the beginning. However. I'm not here to insult anyone personally, or any poster specifically — I will certainly return in kind. I'm not going to take crap without returning it. 

 

The original post specifically calls out "sensitive lawful gun owners," which is a label you can choose to ascribe to yourself, or choose not to. I'm posting it here because I suspected I'd find some that fit that label. I want them to know they are part of the problem and need to be part of the solution. They need to stop avoiding it. 

 

The reasons we do nothing are BS. We have to stop this conflation of "restrictions" and "bans," the various other conflations & dishonest arguments against changing gun laws in any way. The bottom line is that if we want to prevent mass shootings, the Lawful Gun Owners will need to accept a degree of added inconvenience into their lives, in some way. I am tired as hell of accepting "do nothing" as the solution.

"Don't politicize the tragedy" doesn't make sense for this reason. In our society, everything is politicized. There is no avoiding it. The tragedy is politics. It's politics because, for a variety of reasons, we can't agree on action.

 

When I was growing up, Republicans/conservatives were the party of "personal responsibility." It's been a looong time since the Republicans have been the party of personal responsibility, but it's disappointing that conservatives, as people, have also lost any sight of it. Lawful Gun Owners need to step up and take some responsibility to protect *(!#^)*( children and innocent people. They are not choosing to die for your right to own a gun. Yet often the same people will also tell you how important it is to ban abortion, empathizing with the fetus that they didn't choose to die. Or, the right won't support universal healthcare but will always blame "mental health" after shootings. It's never their fault, and never their responsibility. FOR ANYTHING, it seems. The amount of dishonesty, punting, and excuse-making from the right is often infuriating — but the carnage that has resulted from our collective laziness, for no better reason than an inability to address lax gun laws, is so dystopian and so preventable, that to do nothing is as much a political act as doing anything. 

 

I mentioned in another thread growing up with guns around. I mostly do have sympathy or empathy for gun owners. I'm not a military/hunting hobbyist so I don't pretend to be an expert, but I mostly understand or try to understand where they're coming from. As mentioned before, I think "ban" is wrong. I get why the AR-15 is popular, it's versatile, good for the price, I see that. I want it to be harder for some idiot psycho 18-year-old kid in Florida to get, or some psycho 60-year-old radical in Pennsylvania. It shouldn't only come down to "prior convictions" at the point of sale. Guns are too heavy of a responsibility to be given out so lightly. F*** the NRA, it's not your inalienable right to never be inconvenienced in acquiring an arm.

 

Universal background checks/regulation/tests, etc., have widespread voter support and have for years. They are not on the books because of a number of reasons. One of the major reasons is the NRA quite literally owns a fair amount of our government. Y'know, if you're looking for conspiracy theories, "money in government" might be one to consider instead of fixating on Hillary & Soros doing some kind of Mission Impossible plan to take away Joe Schmo's hunting rifles.

 

How do we lessen the NRA's control? Voting out Reps & Senators who take their money would be one. Another powerful one would be if Lawful Gun Owners stood up to them a little more, instead of just quoting their president. They have a vested interest in keeping their base scared, pissed, agitated. It benefits the gun industry tremendously. What I want — what most people want — are stronger controls across the board, more effort in weeding out the 'bad guys' from the 'good guys.'  However, the 'good guys' are always sticking up for the 'bad guys' because the NRA has their members convinced that any regulations on guns is an apocalyptic assault on their individual rights & lives. It's madness.
 

When Tasker compares my tactics to Saul Alinsky, he's not necessarily wrong. I read up on him more this afternoon, since I was only vaguely aware of him, mostly as his status as a right-wing talking point 'boogeyman' from Rush/Glenn, because Obama & Hillary had cited him as an influence. Well, I can see why. He seems fairly cool to me, lol. I agree with the idea that in our society, change does not come easy. Nobody wants to change. It can only come from agitation. If problems were solved by asking nicely, well... yeah, that'd be a better world, but it's not the one we live in. 

 

In conclusion: I am tired. I'm not so crazy that I'm expecting to get anything out of this. I'm not expecting to see messages of "oh wow you're so right" — but as someone who sometimes lurks on boards, I still think it's important to make the case even if there's not an immediate return. Who knows who you're reaching.

 

Honestly, all I've done is waste my damn week arguing with strangers on the internet because I still have this misguided optimism that people are ultimately reasonable creatures. That optimism dies a bit every time I argue with the overwhelming cynicism of NRArs, a group who only have optimism in things instead of people, though. "So I got that goin' for me, which is nice."

 

Again, though, it should not be about me— I'm a ghost. It's about making a point to people who need to hear it who really don't want to hear it. If my original post is mocking you, that's up to you. It doesn't need to be. But to anyone who feels it is them, I'm happy to tell them: "f*** you, grow up."

 

Quote

You can do better than that, Grant. I know it. Try harder. 

 

So now you're going to tell me in full where you're coming from on guns, right, Rhino? lol 

 

EDIT — Some reading:

 

Here is the Wikipedia article for the solution I keep advocating for. ("Wikipedia? That's not a real--") You can independently verify all of the sources with the links at the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_background_check

 

From CNN (fake news): Universal background checks are being proposed right now. Not for the first time. Along with improving criminal background check laws. There are also weaker measures backed by the NRA which may pass instead, and then be cited down the line as why gun control doesn't work because they're useless half-measures. Schumer's is the only proposal that makes sense.   https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/chuck-schumer-background-checks-parkland/index.html

 

But here are a list of the obstacles to action, also from CNN (fake news) https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/congress-obstacles-gun-law-control/index.html

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by LA Grant

[Paulus]

Old mem'

Wasn't Vegas dude a Bernie Bro?

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

35 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

In conclusion: I am tired. I'm not so crazy that I'm expecting to get anything out of this. I'm not expecting to see messages of "oh wow you're so right" — but as someone who sometimes lurks on boards, I still think it's important to make the case even if there's not an immediate return. Who knows who you're reaching.

 

Honestly, all I've done is waste my damn week arguing with strangers on the internet because I still have this misguided optimism that people are ultimately reasonable creatures. That optimism dies a bit every time I argue with the overwhelming cynicism of NRArs, a group who only have optimism in things instead of people, though. "So I got that goin' for me, which is nice."

 

Again, though, it should not be about me— I'm a ghost. It's about making a point to people who need to hear it who really don't want to hear it. If my original post is mocking you, that's up to you. It doesn't need to be. But to anyone who feels it is them, I'm happy to tell them: "f*** you, grow up."

 

 

First, thanks for the time and the reply. I don't agree with much of it, but agree with more than you probably think. Regardless, the time and thought put into it is appreciated. This board, despite what you may think of it, can be a place for rational, insult free discussion. It happens more often than you think. People don't have to agree on every point in order to have a reasonable discussion.

 

The dungeon community down here isn't large, and most people have known one another on (and off) this board for years. I only say that because it might help explain why someone would take the time to try to figure you out rather than dismiss you out of hand. The anonymity of this place makes it easy to lose site of the fact that, regardless of everything else, we are all here because at some point in our lives we were delusional enough to become Bills fans. That's a tie that binds.   

 

 

36 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

So now you're going to tell me in full where you're coming from on guns, right, Rhino? lol 

 

I've actually explained where I'm coming from up thread when we first were discussing this. I'm not a gun owner, I'm not a republican or a conservative. I work in the entertainment business, how right wing can I possibly be?  

 

I'm outraged by this tragedy, and the ones that have preceded it, just like everyone else. I also agree that there are plenty of rational, reasonable things we can do through legislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands that don't infringe on the second amendment. However legislation alone won't solve this issue, because imo it's not a gun issue alone. And it's certainly has nothing to do with law abiding gun. That's just divisive nonsense designed to preach moral superiority rather than find actual solutions to the problems. 

 

There are many factors which must be addressed and discussed simultaneously. That can only be accomplished by having a rational conversation and debate. But, there are powerful interests groups on both sides who don't want us to have that conversation so they push outrage, playing to our emotions so that we are too busy yelling at one another to listen. That's the reality - and, in my opinion, focusing solely on guns is playing into the hands of those who don't really want to solve this issue. 

 

From what you wrote above, and I say this without judgement, you are much more entrenched in the two party duality than I am. This, I think, is why you have misunderstood me throughout this discussion. This isn't about left or right for me. I question any organization that's pushing a message about gun violence that's rooted in that paradigm. That's not meant to sound conspiratorial, it's just the reality of the machines behind both sides of this discussion. They're trying to engineer arguing not discussion. 

 

So I don't get bogged down in the partisan squabbling on this issue - not because I don't care, but because I find it to be counter productive to the cause we all ultimately agree with. That's the thing that gets lost... we all - regardless of your opinion on gun control legislation or the second amendment - we all want to stop kids from getting shot in school.

But you cannot have a productive conversation with someone if that conversation begins with the declaration that one side is "good" and the other is "evil", which is how these debates are framed (again, on both sides) by the talking heads and organizations raising the money to fight for the "cause".

 

Their cause isn't stopping kids from getting killed. Their cause is raising more money to keep the cycle going. 

 

 

[LA Grant]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

First, thanks for the time and the reply. I don't agree with much of it, but agree with more than you probably think. Regardless, the time and thought put into it is appreciated. This board, despite what you may think of it, can be a place for rational, insult free discussion. It happens more often than you think. People don't have to agree on every point in order to have a reasonable discussion.

 

The dungeon community down here isn't large, and most people have known one another on (and off) this board for years. I only say that because it might help explain why someone would take the time to try to figure you out rather than dismiss you out of hand. The anonymity of this place makes it easy to lose site of the fact that, regardless of everything else, we are all here because at some point in our lives we were delusional enough to become Bills fans. That's a tie that binds.   

 

 

 

Ahhhh well fair enough, and, you know — the reason I am on PPP as opposed to whatever the politics board is on some other team's board is because we are Bills fans, that is the tie that binds, we are all dumb enough to root for this hopeless franchise and can't help but love the broken-ass city we come from or live in. ("It's gotten better actually I really like the waterfront area"). LA or elsewhere, its... whatever, but Buffalo is Buffalo and can't help but love the Bills whether it makes sense to or not. And it never makes sense to. The best player in franchise history is OJ Simpson if we're being honest with ourselves, or one of the top three at worst.  

So, like hoping the Bills find the franchise QB this year, it's coming from a place of useless optimism in the sense of, like, PPP may not be my community but TSW is, a little bit, whether it knows it or not, just by virtue of having the misfortune of being a Bills fan at a certain time. I feel like the only "no gun control" arguments I hear elsewhere come from proud nazis, abject a**holes or morons on social media, but they're often even more remote and anonymous, even if you know their names and faces. On TSW, I don't know your name or face, but I know you're a Bills fan, and that's all I need to know, really. That's all it is. Two Bills Drive: sharing the misery since 1998. There's a certain amount of credit just for the pure loyalty of sticking with a losing cause for no good reason because that's the binding thing, the Bills. And I'm not often having this debate in real life because, though I grew up with guns around, grew up around gun people, familiar with the gun rhetoric, they're not in my present day. So, to even have the discussion with the other side means you have to seek it out.

 

For guns, I want to have the debate honestly with 'the other side.' If the arguments that are presented are dishonest BS, then I want to clearly call it as such & why. Doing so often means being harsh in response to harshness. To have the discussion honestly means being bluntly honest. It's why I don't always want to have that argument with my family or friends and acquaintances. Not to mention, most of the people I choose to have in my real life would already agree on this issue. Most, not all. And those ones, it's like... ah, it's not worth it, let's not talk about it, it's Thanksgiving. It's an intense argument. It should be! You're talking about guns. That should have weight. It should not be such a flippant thing. The argument I have with liberal friends is that I also really think gun glorification in media is grossly irresponsible. I know way too many indie directors who have made gun movies simply because they don't have a budget and they're too lazy to think of other storytelling stakes besides guys shooting each other. Not that I don't love tons of gun movies, games, books, etc — the best example of that type of movie is Reservoir Dogs which is a great movie, but we're way too casual about how we present guns and shooting people. Not to mention, as gun hobbyists would know better than I would, movie/game depictions are also wildly off-base with how the weapons work in reality. 

 

The podcast I linked to several times earlier in the thread had a great joke toward the end, because they also wound up on the subject of media depiction. They proposed this rule: "For every gun or gun death you show in a movie, you also have to show full frontal male nudity on screen. One dick per gun. John Wick is an entirely different movie. Actually, Boogie Nights does this ratio perfectly." lol That makes me laugh even just typing it out. It's entirely absurd but its so funny because, it really is the same thing, it is just a goddamn phallic power fantasy. Guns are so insanely masturbatory to the ego, especially for men. Again — not a gun guy, obviously, but firing is fun. Holding a gun, carrying a gun, everything involved with it provides a tangible, palpable amount of power. Both the left and the right are guilty of being plainly dishonest about guns and about gun death to protect the satisfaction of the fantasy. I'm not saying that NRA is gay for guns, but... if the holster fits. Haha, that should be their new tagline... & inclusive is the new trend... isn't that horrible Milo Yiannaopolis guy looking for work? 

 

I have never killed anyone. I have no idea if anyone in this thread has. I wouldn't want to. I don't want firearms in the hands of non-military/law enforcement citizens who intend to use them to kill people. Gun culture needs to have more of a Bruce Lee mindset, man. Practicing it to know how to use it well, to defend yourself as the absolute last resort, is cool with me. If you fantasize about killing all of the classmates who bullied you, then you don't get it. That sh*t come out in some form if you know what to look for. Make a rigid and consistent behavioral and gun competency test, age 18 or 21, i dont care about the age, i see the argument for 18, same with specific weapon bans — its gotta be more about registration/background. You have to stop feeding the black market, and you have to stop feeding weapons to people who are telling you they're going to go murder people. If the Parkland kid wants to go try it with a samurai sword because he's able to get that on craigslist instead, then I like the chances of some dopey sheriff's deputy on miminum wage with a pea-shooter, or a coach with a baseball bat, taking him down before he kills nearly 20 people in 2 minutes. 

 

The gun debate is always ultimately framed around 2A and the importance of firearms in the Revolutionary War, but again, it's all part of this historical fantasy version of the war, there's this collective Hollywood dream of what it was like, but imagine the conversation if the war was won with something more obviously modernly destructive and less seductive. 

https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/12/in-america-some-say-guns-are-in-our-dna-but-is-history-on-the-side-of-gun-rights-or-gun-control  

 

Quote

Many Americans view [napalm] as a symbol of the historic quest to secure and protect personal freedoms, and they believe fervently that their right to bear arms will ensure protection against those who seek to subjugate them. Others see [napalm] as a threat to their personal safety, with violence such as the massacre of school children in Newtown, Conn., serving as a solemn reminder of the dark side of [napalm] in America.

 

I'm exaggerating to make the point - we need to take our weapons far more seriously. And besides, the whole fundamentalist 2A approach has so many holes and flaws. For yet another thing on it, the militia was mandatory in the 1780s, so 2A was drafted with people in mind who'd be trained and knew how to use the weapons. Not just every jackass. Not to mention that gun restrictions were there from day one on other groups. The idea of using guns to stand up to tyrannical government is also like, why didn't it make a difference with WWII Japanese internment? Were there no good guys with guns then? The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 against defining 2A as arms necessitating militia service, but there's no denying it was part of the context and assumptions of the time. btw, that same decision also stated that regulations on 2A were necessary -- we just don't have the right regulations yet.

 

EDIT -- There is the comprehensive conversation to "what makes somebody want to be a school shooter" which guns are only part of a much larger combination of factors, problems, and solutions, but guns are also too often pushed aside in favor of getting overwhelmed by the largeness of that. Because then again its like, the right just pushed against universal health care, so if its mental health, whats the answer then? And so it becomes that stalemate, and guns are ignored, the status quo accepted and we argue about different things, until it comes up again. At a certain point — at this point, maybe — it has to be about guns and doing the goddamn common sense universal background checks that everyone agrees about. It is both so simple yet also it's made to be this immovable, impossible task. As far as entrenched in two party duality, idk about that. I'm left, but i wouldnt self-identify as a Democrat. I don't think that gives an accurate representation of my overall views, not that it matters. A moderate socialist would be accurate, or independent maybe. I wouldn't self-identify as a Bernie Bro, if only for the misogynist connotation, but a moderate version of that. Whooooo cares. I know Lawful Gun Owners and could even see myself being one, but the idea of identifying as an NRA member is... i dont get it, the whole thing looks as bonkers as Scientology. Somehow people still sign up for both.

 

Anyway, idk. Didn't intend to write a toilet paper novel but f**k it, there ya go, you did request it, and I appreciate your forthcomingness and honesty in return. 

 

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I've actually explained where I'm coming from up thread when we first were discussing this. I'm not a gun owner, I'm not a republican or a conservative. I work in the entertainment business, how right wing can I possibly be?  

 

I'm outraged by this tragedy, and the ones that have preceded it, just like everyone else. I also agree that there are plenty of rational, reasonable things we can do through legislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands that don't infringe on the second amendment. However legislation alone won't solve this issue, because imo it's not a gun issue alone. And it's certainly has nothing to do with law abiding gun. That's just divisive nonsense designed to preach moral superiority rather than find actual solutions to the problems. 

 

There are many factors which must be addressed and discussed simultaneously. That can only be accomplished by having a rational conversation and debate. But, there are powerful interests groups on both sides who don't want us to have that conversation so they push outrage, playing to our emotions so that we are too busy yelling at one another to listen. That's the reality - and, in my opinion, focusing solely on guns is playing into the hands of those who don't really want to solve this issue. 

 

From what you wrote above, and I say this without judgement, you are much more entrenched in the two party duality than I am. This, I think, is why you have misunderstood me throughout this discussion. This isn't about left or right for me. I question any organization that's pushing a message about gun violence that's rooted in that paradigm. That's not meant to sound conspiratorial, it's just the reality of the machines behind both sides of this discussion. They're trying to engineer arguing not discussion. 

 

So I don't get bogged down in the partisan squabbling on this issue - not because I don't care, but because I find it to be counter productive to the cause we all ultimately agree with. That's the thing that gets lost... we all - regardless of your opinion on gun control legislation or the second amendment - we all want to stop kids from getting shot in school.

But you cannot have a productive conversation with someone if that conversation begins with the declaration that one side is "good" and the other is "evil", which is how these debates are framed (again, on both sides) by the talking heads and organizations raising the money to fight for the "cause".

 

Their cause isn't stopping kids from getting killed. Their cause is raising more money to keep the cycle going. 

Edited February 27, 2018 by LA Grant

[/dev/null]

6 hours ago, Paulus said:

Old mem'

Wasn't Vegas dude a Bernie Bro?

 

 

Then there was the attempted mass assassination of Republican Congresscritters by a Leftist. 

 

That news cycle went from wondering if that would affect Republican stance on guns, to the revelation the shooter was a Lefty, to one of the Capital police injured was a black lesbian, then back to RussiaRussiaRussia!!!

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

Then there was the attempted mass assassination of Republican Congresscritters by a Leftist. 

 

That news cycle went from wondering if that would affect Republican stance on guns, to the revelation the shooter was a Lefty, to one of the Capital police injured was a black lesbian, then back to RussiaRussiaRussia!!!

 

Oy, don't post dumb memes. https://www.snopes.com/democrat-shooters-list/

 

Also please stop electing people who get their information from dumb memes http://thehill.com/homenews/house/374941-gop-lawmaker-many-mass-shooters-end-up-being-democrats 

 

<from the back of the house> Background cheeeeeeecks http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-mass-shootings-video-games-politics-0917-story.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3D&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=13

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by LA Grant

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

52 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Oy, don't post dumb memes. https://www.snopes.com/democrat-shooters-list/

 

 

 

snopes

 

[LA Grant]

30 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

snopes

 

 

 

you, smart: "snopes "

 

snopes, dumb:

 

Sources:

Montagne, Renee.   “Who Was John Wilkes Booth Before He Became Lincoln’s Assassin?”
    NPR.   15 April 2015.

Hermann, Peter, Noah.   “‘Navy Yard Shooter Aaron Alexis Driven by Delusions.”
    Washington Post.   25 September 2013.

Rothman, Noah.   “‘He Was More of a Liberal Type’: CNN Guest Identifies Aaron Alexis as Having ‘Liked’ Obama Admin.”
    Mediate.   17 September 2013.

Reuters.   “Connecticut Gunman had Large Weapons Cache.”
    28 March 2013.

Tampa Bay Times.   “Frustrating Search for Newtown, Conn., Shooter Adam Lanza’s Motive.”
    24 December 2012.

Walsh, Paul.   “Gunman Lost His Job, Then Opened Fire, Killing 5.”
    Star Tribune.   29 September 2012.

Silverman, Craig.   “ABC News, Breitbart Fall Short in Owning Up to Mistakes on Colorado Theater Shooter.”
    Poynter.   20 July 2012.

Condon, Stephanie.   “Jared Lee Loughner a Registered Independent; Didn’t Vote in 2010.”
    CBS News.   11 January 2011.

Fader, Carole.   “Fact Check: Email was Wrong About Recent Mass Killers Being Liberals.”
    The Florida Times-Union.   14 March 2013.

USA Today.   “Plant Gunman ‘Mad at the World’.”
    7 August 2003.

Ross, Brian.   “Lockheed Workplace Murders Targeted Blacks.”
    ABC News.   12 May 2005.

Sanger, David.   “Officer Shoots Armed Man Near White House Fence.”
    New York Times.   8 February 2001.

CBS News.   “Who is Pickett.”
    7 February 2001.

Arter, Melanie.   “White House Shooter Sued the IRS.”
    CSN News.   7 July 2008.

Biema, David.   “Terror in the Sanctuary.”
    Time.   20 September 1999.

Kolker, Claudia.   “Texas Gunman Tied to Hate Groups; Writings Show Persecution Feelings.”
    LA Times.   18 September 1999.

New York Times.   “6 Die in Texas Office Shooting.”
    4 April 1995.

Chin, Paula.   “A Texas Massacre.”
    People.   4 November 1991.

Smothers, Ronald.   “Hazy Records Helped Florida Gunman Buy Arms.”
    New York Times.   20 June 1990.

Associated Press.   “Car Repossessed, He Kills 7 : Gunman a Suicide After Rampage in Jacksonville”
    18 June 1990.

Lamar, Jacob.   “Crazy Pat’s Revenge.”
    Time.   24 June 2001.

Bovsun, Mara.   “Mailman Massacre: 14 Die After Patrick Sherrill ‘Goes Postal’ in 1986 Shootings.”
    New York Post.   15 August 2010.

Houseman, Martin.   “Mass Murderer James Huberty Tried to Get Help From…”
    UPI.   2 August 1984.

Brown, Ronald.   “Dying on the Job: Murder and Mayhem in the American Workplace.”
    Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.   15 November 2012.

Newsweek.   “John W. Hinckley Jr.: Inside the Mind of Ronald Reagan’s Would-Be Assassin.”
    27 July 2016.

Parker, Ryan.   “Flashback: What John Hinckley Jr. Wrote to Jodie Foster Before He Shot Ronald Reagan.”
    The Hollywood Reporter.   27 July 2016.

Conradarens, John.   “The Leftists are the Haters and Assassins. Let’s Look at History, Shall We?”
    The Red State.   28 March 2010.

Breslow, Jason.   “8 Things You May Not Know About Lee Harvey Oswald.”
    PBS.   19 November 2013.

Resnick, Brian.   “This Is the Brain that Shot President James Garfield.”
    The Atlantic.   4 October 2015.

Biography.   “John Wilkes Booth.”
    Retrieved 16 June 2017.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Look at the shitlord who hasn't done his research on snopes.

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

 

snopes

 

 

The article's mostly correct, despite being obviously designed to mislead the soft-headed like Grant.

 

Mostly it demonstrates that shooters are too crazy to have a mainstream affiliation.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

The article's mostly correct, despite being obviously designed to mislead the soft-headed like Grant.

 

Mostly it demonstrates that shooters are too crazy to have a mainstream affiliation.

 

I'm more commenting on the dubious nature of snopes, but that's fair.

 

[boyst]

10 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Okay. You want me to get to know you & you want to get to know me? Well, that is lovely, a wonderful gesture of friendship. It's not reflected well in this thread but generally I am friendly & affable. It doesn't matter to me if you believe that or not because I don't want to get to know you aside from the content of our posts here. Perhaps in another thread, you share a different side of yourself that we connect on — great. We can get to know each other that way. 

 

Here's the thing. This isn't the place for it. At the very least, not this thread, and not on page 20 after everything that preceded it. As they say on reality shows, "I'm not here to make friends." (It used to be unseemly to quote reality stars but then again now they get elected to Commander in Chief). 

 

I'm fine being the bad guy here. I accepted it walking in, I don't care, I can take it, it's fine. I see how "the left" is regarded on PPP; it's why I created this thread, rather than hijacking another one. I wanted the position to be specific & clear from the beginning. However. I'm not here to insult anyone personally, or any poster specifically — I will certainly return in kind. I'm not going to take crap without returning it. 

 

The original post specifically calls out "sensitive lawful gun owners," which is a label you can choose to ascribe to yourself, or choose not to. I'm posting it here because I suspected I'd find some that fit that label. I want them to know they are part of the problem and need to be part of the solution. They need to stop avoiding it. 

 

The reasons we do nothing are BS. We have to stop this conflation of "restrictions" and "bans," the various other conflations & dishonest arguments against changing gun laws in any way. The bottom line is that if we want to prevent mass shootings, the Lawful Gun Owners will need to accept a degree of added inconvenience into their lives, in some way. I am tired as hell of accepting "do nothing" as the solution.

"Don't politicize the tragedy" doesn't make sense for this reason. In our society, everything is politicized. There is no avoiding it. The tragedy is politics. It's politics because, for a variety of reasons, we can't agree on action.

 

When I was growing up, Republicans/conservatives were the party of "personal responsibility." It's been a looong time since the Republicans have been the party of personal responsibility, but it's disappointing that conservatives, as people, have also lost any sight of it. Lawful Gun Owners need to step up and take some responsibility to protect *(!#^)*( children and innocent people. They are not choosing to die for your right to own a gun. Yet often the same people will also tell you how important it is to ban abortion, empathizing with the fetus that they didn't choose to die. Or, the right won't support universal healthcare but will always blame "mental health" after shootings. It's never their fault, and never their responsibility. FOR ANYTHING, it seems. The amount of dishonesty, punting, and excuse-making from the right is often infuriating — but the carnage that has resulted from our collective laziness, for no better reason than an inability to address lax gun laws, is so dystopian and so preventable, that to do nothing is as much a political act as doing anything. 

 

I mentioned in another thread growing up with guns around. I mostly do have sympathy or empathy for gun owners. I'm not a military/hunting hobbyist so I don't pretend to be an expert, but I mostly understand or try to understand where they're coming from. As mentioned before, I think "ban" is wrong. I get why the AR-15 is popular, it's versatile, good for the price, I see that. I want it to be harder for some idiot psycho 18-year-old kid in Florida to get, or some psycho 60-year-old radical in Pennsylvania. It shouldn't only come down to "prior convictions" at the point of sale. Guns are too heavy of a responsibility to be given out so lightly. F*** the NRA, it's not your inalienable right to never be inconvenienced in acquiring an arm.

 

Universal background checks/regulation/tests, etc., have widespread voter support and have for years. They are not on the books because of a number of reasons. One of the major reasons is the NRA quite literally owns a fair amount of our government. Y'know, if you're looking for conspiracy theories, "money in government" might be one to consider instead of fixating on Hillary & Soros doing some kind of Mission Impossible plan to take away Joe Schmo's hunting rifles.

 

How do we lessen the NRA's control? Voting out Reps & Senators who take their money would be one. Another powerful one would be if Lawful Gun Owners stood up to them a little more, instead of just quoting their president. They have a vested interest in keeping their base scared, pissed, agitated. It benefits the gun industry tremendously. What I want — what most people want — are stronger controls across the board, more effort in weeding out the 'bad guys' from the 'good guys.'  However, the 'good guys' are always sticking up for the 'bad guys' because the NRA has their members convinced that any regulations on guns is an apocalyptic assault on their individual rights & lives. It's madness.
 

When Tasker compares my tactics to Saul Alinsky, he's not necessarily wrong. I read up on him more this afternoon, since I was only vaguely aware of him, mostly as his status as a right-wing talking point 'boogeyman' from Rush/Glenn, because Obama & Hillary had cited him as an influence. Well, I can see why. He seems fairly cool to me, lol. I agree with the idea that in our society, change does not come easy. Nobody wants to change. It can only come from agitation. If problems were solved by asking nicely, well... yeah, that'd be a better world, but it's not the one we live in. 

 

In conclusion: I am tired. I'm not so crazy that I'm expecting to get anything out of this. I'm not expecting to see messages of "oh wow you're so right" — but as someone who sometimes lurks on boards, I still think it's important to make the case even if there's not an immediate return. Who knows who you're reaching.

 

Honestly, all I've done is waste my damn week arguing with strangers on the internet because I still have this misguided optimism that people are ultimately reasonable creatures. That optimism dies a bit every time I argue with the overwhelming cynicism of NRArs, a group who only have optimism in things instead of people, though. "So I got that goin' for me, which is nice."

 

Again, though, it should not be about me— I'm a ghost. It's about making a point to people who need to hear it who really don't want to hear it. If my original post is mocking you, that's up to you. It doesn't need to be. But to anyone who feels it is them, I'm happy to tell them: "f*** you, grow up."

 

 

So now you're going to tell me in full where you're coming from on guns, right, Rhino? lol 

 

EDIT — Some reading:

 

Here is the Wikipedia article for the solution I keep advocating for. ("Wikipedia? That's not a real--") You can independently verify all of the sources with the links at the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_background_check

 

From CNN (fake news): Universal background checks are being proposed right now. Not for the first time. Along with improving criminal background check laws. There are also weaker measures backed by the NRA which may pass instead, and then be cited down the line as why gun control doesn't work because they're useless half-measures. Schumer's is the only proposal that makes sense.   https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/chuck-schumer-background-checks-parkland/index.html

 

But here are a list of the obstacles to action, also from CNN (fake news) https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/congress-obstacles-gun-law-control/index.html

 

 

 

 

You write all of that and it was not worth it because based on your posting history people know you suck.

 

Why did you waste your time?

[IDBillzFan]

46 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I'm more commenting on the dubious nature of snopes, but that's fair.

 

 

At least it wasn't another VOX link. 

[row_33]

25 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

You write all of that and it was not worth it because based on your posting history people know you suck.

 

Why did you waste your time?

 

wish the ignore function didn't copy and paste his work in reply...

 

keep up the good work Boyst62...

 

 

[B-Man]

Drama King teen David Hogg plans to stay home.
 

Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg says he will not return to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School until more gun control is passed.

Hogg made the comments Sunday during a gun control rally held at Temple B’nai Abraham in Livingston, New Jersey.

 

The New York Daily News reports that Hogg said, “I’m not going back to school on Wednesday until one bill is passed.” He did not specify which law he wants most, only that he is not going back until at least one law garners the support of lawmakers.

[row_33]

i wouldn't want to go back if i saw the carnage and survived, a transfer would be requested, maybe do some volunteer work for the rest of the semester....

 

 

[Tiberius]

John Wilkes Booth was a full blown racist and thats why he shot Lincoln 

[Justice]

Like I’ve always said, the gun is only dangerous when you have ammo. If I were in charge here’s what I’ll do:

 

1. first thing I’d do is make it much more difficult to purchase a weapon. Background checks and even a psychological test must be done before you can purchase a gun. No more easy access to any type of gun. Rifles and AR-15s type guns must be as difficult to get as handguns. The gun shows and private sales must go through the same loops that any other gun store will have to go through. 

 

2. Once you pass through step one you get a registered gun owners license and you will have to renew it every year and go through those background checks and psychological tests all over again. 

 

3. Can’t buy ammo without a license. At the bare minimum this will make it much harder for the criminals to get their hands on ammo. They might think twice about practicing their aim if the ammo is harder to get making them much less efficient at hitting their target. 

 

I’m sure you guys will poke holes in this plan and that’s why we have these discussions. Like I said before, I’m uneducated when it comes to guns. Just throwing out ideas. 

Edited February 27, 2018 by Justice

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, Justice said:

Like I’ve always said, the gun is only dangerous when you have ammo. If I were in charge here’s what I’ll do:

 

1. first thing I’d do is make it much more difficult to purchase a weapon. Background checks and even a psychological test must be done before you can purchase a gun. No more easy access to any type of gun. Rifles and AR-15s type guns must be as difficult to get as handguns. The gun shows and private sales must go through the same loops that any other gun store will have to go through. 

 

2. Once you pass through step one you get a registered gun owners license and you will have to renew it every year and go through those background checks and psychological tests all over again. 

 

3. Can’t buy ammo without a license. At the bare minimum this will make it much harder for the criminals to get their hands on ammo. They might think twice about practicing their aim if the ammo is harder to get making them much less efficient at hitting their target. 

 

I’m sure you guys will poke holes in this plan and that’s why we have these discussions. Like I said before, I’m uneducated when it comes to guns. Just throwing out ideas. 

 

The horse is well out of the barn and on the planet Jupiter in it's galloping by this point in time...

 

Your views have been expressed a billion, maybe a trillion times, but they are now besides the point.

 

(even when correct...)

 

 

[Dante]

On 2/22/2018 at 5:20 AM, KW95 said:

 

 Sadly, you might be a great guy and a fellow Bills fan, but for me, you seem like the moron.

 

I think the big question is:  BAN THE MILITARY WEAPONS.  Why even have them?  

 

No one deserves being a parent of one of the girls who got shot and couldn't be identified because the damage to her body and face was so bad.  

 

AMERICA THE GREAT!

 

 

 

 

My question is why wasn't this guy id'ed as a kook well before any of this happened? The gun is just a method. That's all. What's scarier is that people like this exist. We should be asking how did they get like this? How can they be profiled and stopped? That's the important problem to solve. I'm sure our friends at the ACLU will do their best to end any of that kind of talk though.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Dante said:

My question is why wasn't this guy id'ed as a kook well before any of this happened? The gun is just a method. That's all. What's scarier is that people like this exist. We should be asking how did they get like this? How can they be profiled and stopped? That's the important problem to solve. I'm sure our friends at the ACLU will do their best to end any of that kind of talk though.

He actually had never been arrested, even if many people were complaining about him he had never done anything violent before. 

 

Happy with Kane trade? 

[Gary M]

39 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He actually had never been arrested,

 

But likely should have been.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/02/incompetence_wasnt_the_problem_in_broward_county.html#.WpSKOXDBPgE.twitter

[Dante]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

He actually had never been arrested, even if many people were complaining about him he had never done anything violent before. 

 

Happy with Kane trade? 

I think so. He can be good if he wants to play. Sharks got him for not much so I guess nothing to lose? I was hoping for a mega deal to land Taveras but that never happened. 

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

He actually had never been arrested, even if many people were complaining about him he had never done anything violent before. 

 

Happy with Kane trade? 

But don't you think the cause of this is the larger, more frightening issue? Is it drugs, mental illness, broken families?? I don't know but this is the bigger societal problem that has to be seriously looked at. It's like why cure cancer? Isn't it better to find out what's causing it? If it's bad water lets address it. If it's gmo shitey food lets address that.

[LA Grant]

5 hours ago, Justice said:

Like I’ve always said, the gun is only dangerous when you have ammo. If I were in charge here’s what I’ll do:

 

1. first thing I’d do is make it much more difficult to purchase a weapon. Background checks and even a psychological test must be done before you can purchase a gun. No more easy access to any type of gun. Rifles and AR-15s type guns must be as difficult to get as handguns. The gun shows and private sales must go through the same loops that any other gun store will have to go through. 

 

2. Once you pass through step one you get a registered gun owners license and you will have to renew it every year and go through those background checks and psychological tests all over again. 

 

3. Can’t buy ammo without a license. At the bare minimum this will make it much harder for the criminals to get their hands on ammo. They might think twice about practicing their aim if the ammo is harder to get making them much less efficient at hitting their target. 

 

I’m sure you guys will poke holes in this plan and that’s why we have these discussions. Like I said before, I’m uneducated when it comes to guns. Just throwing out ideas. 

 

This isn't uneducated. These are the common sense reforms that most of us support. The only key thing you left out is that we also need to stop needlessly preventing additional research on the issue from the CDC.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/375797-key-lawmaker-unlikely-congress-lifts-cdc-gun-research-limits