OT OT Did not know that. NC impersonating FL. ? I did wonder though as I always look at the background flora to see if I can place the location (yes, I’m a nerd) and I didn’t think it was FL. I have seen a few movies that I recognized the location instantly including Camp Blanding and Fakahatchee Strand. Sometimes, they don’t even try - I remember watching Dukes of Hazard thinking “that ain’t Georgia” - not even close. I forgave them though every time Daisy was onscreen.
Particularly bothersome to me is the SKS and AK-47 that I bought as an investment back when Clinton was about to ban them. They have increased in value considerably from the $100 (I had a gun dealer friend) I paid but the potential profit just isn’t worth the emotional strain of wondering what the buyer might do with them.
Guns are objectively awful. They buttress a false sense of control, e.g., I can use a gun exert control in a hypothetical situation while ignoring the far more likely situations in which I'm likely to hurt myself or someone I love. The argument for guns parallels the opposition to self drive cars, e.g., that I'm more likely to make a rational, moral, decision, in a highly stressful situation than I am a foolish, reckless in a highly stressful situation. Clearly this is wrong. However, I wonder why liberals don't put half as much energy into fighting far more pernicious substances like alcohol, than guns, if the end result is safety.
What are the chances this guy hits what he shoots at? I have seen a very elderly man pushing a walker with a gun on his hip in WalMart on more than one occasion.
The good guy with a gun happens more than the media report it. When it usually is one or two fatalities instance I guess the ghouls mock it because well its not a massacre at a school. I guess your hoping for dead kids to fuel your narrative. Saying other wise is BS. The bad guys shoot their cheating spouses is nothing new. Drunks shooting others or friends aren't good guys. Killing a boss isn't by a good guy either. Just keep your narrative. Its sick.
Did grammar fail you all at one time or was it more of a gradual thing? You're suggestion that anyone is "hoping for dead kids" is outrageously pathetic.
You for sure got them on a smoking deal. Military surplus has gotten out of control. I understand what you are saying about what a buyer might do with them, but I’m just going to say, if someone is willing to pay you a market price in today’s climate, they are most likely a collector. A Chinese SKS will get you $500-$700 based on condition and the AK perhaps double. Nefarious actors are not likely to pay that much to perpetrate something nefarious. If you want to go through an extra level of scrutiny, take a potential buyer to a licensed FFL and include the background check as a part of the cost of the firearm. It seems like these things are causing you stress. Might be time to get rid of them.
Wow... that's some sophist tripe. Appeal to hypocrisy, false equivalency and red herring in one, make-the reader-dumber, sentence. I just can't... [edit: okay, I will] First, it commits a fallacy of relative privation, also known as the "not as bad as" fallacy, by dismissing the issue of gun control in favor of the issue of alcohol. The fact that alcohol may also be a dangerous substance does not negate the need for addressing gun control. Second, it commits a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting the position of those advocating for gun control as if they are not concerned with other public safety issues. Third, it is a red herring fallacy by diverting attention away from the issue of gun control and focusing on alcohol. Lastly, it commits an appeal to hypocrisy be implying that because liberals do not put as much energy into fighting alcohol as they do into fighting guns, their argument about the necessity of gun control for public safety is invalid.
Maybe not hoping for dead kids but sure as hell eager to use them to pass gun control laws that have absolutely ZERO effect on these shootings. Here is effective gun control: 1) Recruit an army/police force willing to comply blindly with all orders without any sense of duty to the US Constitution. 2) Ban ownership, manufacture, sale, or transfer of all guns. 3) Send young men and women mentioned in number one, armed with guns (not banned of course) to remove now-banned guns from civilians. 4) Enjoy your little slice of heaven.
I see you're in the "it's too hard so don't try" camp regarding gun violence. It's been my experience that it's a common refuge for gun enthusiasts. Saying that minimizing gun violence in America is too hard is not a helpful statement when it comes to ideation on potential solutions. It is easy to become overwhelmed by the scale of the problem, but this defeatist attitude hinders progress. In fact, many factors contribute to gun violence, including access to guns, mental health issues, and societal attitudes toward violence. Rather than giving up, we need to approach the issue systematically and come up with concrete solutions. This could include measures like strengthening background checks, implementing red flag laws, promoting responsible gun ownership, and investing in mental health resources. These solutions may not be perfect or solve the problem completely, but they are steps in the right direction towards reducing gun violence in America. I think learning from other first-world countries that have successfully minimized gun violence is a good start in addressing our problem gun violence in the United States. Many of these countries have implemented strict gun control laws and regulations, including background checks, licensing requirements, and limitations on gun ownership. For example, Australia enacted strict gun control measures following a mass shooting in 1996 and has not experienced a mass shooting since. Similarly, Japan has implemented stringent gun control laws, including a requirement for rigorous training, extensive background checks, and yearly inspections. These countries' successful efforts to minimize gun violence suggest that it is not an insurmountable problem and that solutions do exist. Our country's large inventory of guns in civilian possession make it harder, but not impossible for an "exceptional" nation.
You must have misread my tone. That is my mistake for trying to be sarcastic. Enforcement of gun control is achieved through the use of guns and men/women willing to use them if necessary. That was my point. The same people who don’t trust the police are ok with only the police being armed. What could go wrong? Australia is not a beacon. It is a cautionary tale.
we This is hard to imagine given the quality of your reply. I have to see a gun control proposal that is likely to make a significant difference in the number of gun related deaths annually or make the public any appreciably safer, hence why conservatives almost always win the debates when you start from the premise that gun ownership is a right. Guns suck, but they are fact of life. Curtailing alcohol consumption, on the other hand, is an area where genuine social change is actually possible, and could save several times more people than gun control, and you would have a partner in conservative Christian groups. But yet not a peep out of liberals. Maybe because it's an activity liberals enjoy, sort of like guns for conservatives?
