Why?

(08-27-2015 07:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 11:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 10:58 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 03:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Stop making things up..




Stop making things up

This can't be quoted enough.

Tom should have done some more reading before making that statement. If we want to stop gun crime, then we need to legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs. That is the overwhelming reason for the majority of gun violence in this country.

You think all those criminals that deal and transport drugs are suddenly going to go straight and file the correct paperwork and pay the taxes and get business licenses to sell their drugs? There will always be a black market for any type of drug that's legalized, not to mention 'harder' drugs like cocaine and heroine that will never be legalized.

No, I think the money will dry up on their end. Which is what happens, if you've paid attention to history and this issue elsewhere in the world.

So what do these criminals do once the money dries up? Did they go straight or move to other areas of criminal activities? Do you have any statistics to prove gun crimes went down after legalizing drugs?

Everyone is doing a disservice to those who have real mental issues by labeling folks like Roof and this shooter as 'crazy' and 'madmen'. Most of these instances were planned, premeditated acts carried out by individuals who for whom in their minds, violence was the only remaining outlet to validate their frustrations.

(08-27-2015 08:00 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Everyone is doing a disservice to those who have real mental issues by labeling folks like Roof and this shooter as 'crazy' and 'madmen'. Most of these instances were planned, premeditated acts carried out by individuals who for whom in their minds, violence was the only remaining outlet to validate their frustrations.

The Left is responsible for policies making it virtually impossible to involuntarily commit mentally ill people. Instead, the mentally ill are left to drift until they commit serious enough crimes to become newsworthy.

Thanks, liberals.

(08-27-2015 07:53 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  It was announced yesterday that Walmart plans to end sales of rifles and other semi-automatic weapons in coming weeks. The retailer said it would focus gun sales toward hunters and shooting sports, CNN reported. Walmart said the change was made not for political reasons but because of declining sales.

Either way, I think that's good news.

It's a nonsensical PR stunt. Walmart doesn't sell handguns to start with and all rifles and shotguns are naturally focused on shooting sports. What else is their target market for long gun sales if not hunters and sport shooters?

If they end semi-auto sales that probably ends what I would assume to be their most popular guns sold in shotguns and .22LR's. Nobody that really knows guns goes to Walmart for a lower quality bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun.

(08-27-2015 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 11:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 10:58 PM)Kronke Wrote:  This can't be quoted enough.

Tom should have done some more reading before making that statement. If we want to stop gun crime, then we need to legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs. That is the overwhelming reason for the majority of gun violence in this country.

You think all those criminals that deal and transport drugs are suddenly going to go straight and file the correct paperwork and pay the taxes and get business licenses to sell their drugs? There will always be a black market for any type of drug that's legalized, not to mention 'harder' drugs like cocaine and heroine that will never be legalized.

No, I think the money will dry up on their end. Which is what happens, if you've paid attention to history and this issue elsewhere in the world.

So what do these criminals do once the money dries up? Did they go straight or move to other areas of criminal activities? Do you have any statistics to prove gun crimes went down after legalizing drugs?

I have evidence to show that violent crimes went up during prohibition and down in the US after the repeal of prohibition, but it's hard to find good data on the violent crime rates of Portugal before and after their decriminalization push a decade or so back. Though I do have information showing that their violent crime rate is still significantly lower than the US's despite having through the roof unemployment, though no good info on a trend. And it's important to note I'm not advocating for a free-market type legalization of all drugs, I'm advocating for a decriminalization of all user-based drug charges and a focus on treatment and protecting users from contracting HIV/Hep C/etc. As it stands right now, the reason there is so much crime associated with the drug trade is the same as any other illegal market; you cannot go to the police if you're a drug dealer and robbed, and similarly, you cannot simply just deposit your money in a bank. Thieves know drug dealers have cash, and can't call the police, so they're easy targets. Legalizing marijuana along the lines of alcohol will take a significant portion of that money and incentive for robbery out of the equation, as that is by a wide, wide margin the most used illegal drug and scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of significant enough negative health effects to keep it illegal while any number of other, far more dangerous legal substances exist.

Provide safe areas for those using drugs, bombard them with information on getting treatment and the benefits of getting clean while doing it, and stop forcing them into the dregs of society so that they are marginalized and afraid to get help.

(08-27-2015 08:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:00 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Everyone is doing a disservice to those who have real mental issues by labeling folks like Roof and this shooter as 'crazy' and 'madmen'. Most of these instances were planned, premeditated acts carried out by individuals who for whom in their minds, violence was the only remaining outlet to validate their frustrations.

The Left is responsible for policies making it virtually impossible to involuntarily commit mentally ill people. Instead, the mentally ill are left to drift until they commit serious enough crimes to become newsworthy.

Thanks, liberals.

I was under the impression this was a two-party solution; meaning liberals pushed for not forcing treatment on the mentally ill and conservatives were only too eager to stop spending money on that treatment anyways.

(08-27-2015 08:57 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:00 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Everyone is doing a disservice to those who have real mental issues by labeling folks like Roof and this shooter as 'crazy' and 'madmen'. Most of these instances were planned, premeditated acts carried out by individuals who for whom in their minds, violence was the only remaining outlet to validate their frustrations.

The Left is responsible for policies making it virtually impossible to involuntarily commit mentally ill people. Instead, the mentally ill are left to drift until they commit serious enough crimes to become newsworthy.

Thanks, liberals.

I was under the impression this was a two-party solution; meaning liberals pushed for not forcing treatment on the mentally ill and conservatives were only too eager to stop spending money on that treatment anyways.

No no no. This is America. We have to blame the other party, solely, for every ill deed.

Somewhere in Mosul, an ISIS flunky is busily re-writing the handbook to include a body camera and live uploads just like this guy, and working out how to tie in a drone with live video.

(08-27-2015 08:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 11:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Tom should have done some more reading before making that statement. If we want to stop gun crime, then we need to legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs. That is the overwhelming reason for the majority of gun violence in this country.

You think all those criminals that deal and transport drugs are suddenly going to go straight and file the correct paperwork and pay the taxes and get business licenses to sell their drugs? There will always be a black market for any type of drug that's legalized, not to mention 'harder' drugs like cocaine and heroine that will never be legalized.

No, I think the money will dry up on their end. Which is what happens, if you've paid attention to history and this issue elsewhere in the world.

So what do these criminals do once the money dries up? Did they go straight or move to other areas of criminal activities? Do you have any statistics to prove gun crimes went down after legalizing drugs?

I have evidence to show that violent crimes went up during prohibition and down in the US after the repeal of prohibition, but it's hard to find good data on the violent crime rates of Portugal before and after their decriminalization push a decade or so back. Though I do have information showing that their violent crime rate is still significantly lower than the US's despite having through the roof unemployment, though no good info on a trend. And it's important to note I'm not advocating for a free-market type legalization of all drugs, I'm advocating for a decriminalization of all user-based drug charges and a focus on treatment and protecting users from contracting HIV/Hep C/etc. As it stands right now, the reason there is so much crime associated with the drug trade is the same as any other illegal market; you cannot go to the police if you're a drug dealer and robbed, and similarly, you cannot simply just deposit your money in a bank. Thieves know drug dealers have cash, and can't call the police, so they're easy targets. Legalizing marijuana along the lines of alcohol will take a significant portion of that money and incentive for robbery out of the equation, as that is by a wide, wide margin the most used illegal drug and scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of significant enough negative health effects to keep it illegal while any number of other, far more dangerous legal substances exist.

Provide safe areas for those using drugs, bombard them with information on getting treatment and the benefits of getting clean while doing it, and stop forcing them into the dregs of society so that they are marginalized and afraid to get help.

And nowhere did you come close to answering my question. By what logic do you deduce that a reduction in drug related gun crimes will not lead to an increase in other non-drug related gun crimes by the same individuals now that their revenue from drugs has dried up?

This is a basic non-linear programming problem. Elimination of A (illegal drugs) does not automatically lead to a reduction of A1 (drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not explicitly eliminate the market for A. Likewise, reduction of A1 does not mean that there won't be an increase of B1 (non-drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not account for the quantity of individuals that must now look for alternatives to actionA and will likely turn to actionB (other illegal activities).


Simply put, making drugs legal does not solve the problem of drug related gun violence because those individuals will simple use their tool (gun) in other areas of crime.

(08-27-2015 08:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 11:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Tom should have done some more reading before making that statement. If we want to stop gun crime, then we need to legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs. That is the overwhelming reason for the majority of gun violence in this country.

You think all those criminals that deal and transport drugs are suddenly going to go straight and file the correct paperwork and pay the taxes and get business licenses to sell their drugs? There will always be a black market for any type of drug that's legalized, not to mention 'harder' drugs like cocaine and heroine that will never be legalized.

No, I think the money will dry up on their end. Which is what happens, if you've paid attention to history and this issue elsewhere in the world.

So what do these criminals do once the money dries up? Did they go straight or move to other areas of criminal activities? Do you have any statistics to prove gun crimes went down after legalizing drugs?

I have evidence to show that violent crimes went up during prohibition and down in the US after the repeal of prohibition, but it's hard to find good data on the violent crime rates of Portugal before and after their decriminalization push a decade or so back. Though I do have information showing that their violent crime rate is still significantly lower than the US's despite having through the roof unemployment, though no good info on a trend. And it's important to note I'm not advocating for a free-market type legalization of all drugs, I'm advocating for a decriminalization of all user-based drug charges and a focus on treatment and protecting users from contracting HIV/Hep C/etc. As it stands right now, the reason there is so much crime associated with the drug trade is the same as any other illegal market; you cannot go to the police if you're a drug dealer and robbed, and similarly, you cannot simply just deposit your money in a bank. Thieves know drug dealers have cash, and can't call the police, so they're easy targets. Legalizing marijuana along the lines of alcohol will take a significant portion of that money and incentive for robbery out of the equation, as that is by a wide, wide margin the most used illegal drug and scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of significant enough negative health effects to keep it illegal while any number of other, far more dangerous legal substances exist.

Provide safe areas for those using drugs, bombard them with information on getting treatment and the benefits of getting clean while doing it, and stop forcing them into the dregs of society so that they are marginalized and afraid to get help.

The issue I have with any data presented from the liberal side is that it is often twisted, or the procedures which determine the data perverted, so that it can be presented in a way that seems to support their statements.

Its kind of like the statement presented that after TN enforced mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, only 1 person was found to have failed a drug test,.

Liberals cheered, and then went on to explain how drug testing was a waste of money.

But of course, it was a farce. It didnt pass the smell test, unless you were a liberal.

And true enough, if you simply dig into the procedures, you find the problem; recipients were not drug tested unless they answered a questionaire where they admitted to have used drugs.

So you'll excuse me if I dont buy into the whole "portugal did this and its working great" statement. You see, when lawmakers do something, they will always tout it as a success. Show me an audit that says that its working. Show me the report from the other side who says its not, so I can see what points they make to see if they are valid or not.

But I'm not going to blindly believe some bureaucracy who passed a law, and showed its overwhelmingly successful, when its in their favor to show its working.

Just like I didnt believe the polar ice caps would melt by 2012.

(08-27-2015 09:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You think all those criminals that deal and transport drugs are suddenly going to go straight and file the correct paperwork and pay the taxes and get business licenses to sell their drugs? There will always be a black market for any type of drug that's legalized, not to mention 'harder' drugs like cocaine and heroine that will never be legalized.

No, I think the money will dry up on their end. Which is what happens, if you've paid attention to history and this issue elsewhere in the world.

So what do these criminals do once the money dries up? Did they go straight or move to other areas of criminal activities? Do you have any statistics to prove gun crimes went down after legalizing drugs?

I have evidence to show that violent crimes went up during prohibition and down in the US after the repeal of prohibition, but it's hard to find good data on the violent crime rates of Portugal before and after their decriminalization push a decade or so back. Though I do have information showing that their violent crime rate is still significantly lower than the US's despite having through the roof unemployment, though no good info on a trend. And it's important to note I'm not advocating for a free-market type legalization of all drugs, I'm advocating for a decriminalization of all user-based drug charges and a focus on treatment and protecting users from contracting HIV/Hep C/etc. As it stands right now, the reason there is so much crime associated with the drug trade is the same as any other illegal market; you cannot go to the police if you're a drug dealer and robbed, and similarly, you cannot simply just deposit your money in a bank. Thieves know drug dealers have cash, and can't call the police, so they're easy targets. Legalizing marijuana along the lines of alcohol will take a significant portion of that money and incentive for robbery out of the equation, as that is by a wide, wide margin the most used illegal drug and scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of significant enough negative health effects to keep it illegal while any number of other, far more dangerous legal substances exist.

Provide safe areas for those using drugs, bombard them with information on getting treatment and the benefits of getting clean while doing it, and stop forcing them into the dregs of society so that they are marginalized and afraid to get help.

The issue I have with any data presented from the liberal side is that it is often twisted, or the procedures which determine the data perverted, so that it can be presented in a way that seems to support their statements.

Its kind of like the statement presented that after TN enforced mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, only 1 person was found to have failed a drug test,.

Liberals cheered, and then went on to explain how drug testing was a waste of money.

But of course, it was a farce. It didnt pass the smell test, unless you were a liberal.

And true enough, if you simply dig into the procedures, you find the problem; recipients were not drug tested unless they answered a questionaire where they admitted to have used drugs.

So you'll excuse me if I dont buy into the whole "portugal did this and its working great" statement. You see, when lawmakers do something, they will always tout it as a success. Show me an audit that says that its working. Show me the report from the other side who says its not, so I can see what points they make to see if they are valid or not.

But I'm not going to blindly believe some bureaucracy who passed a law, and showed its overwhelmingly successful, when its in their favor to show its working.

Just like I didnt believe the polar ice caps would melt by 2012.

Most of the support and research for this comes from Libertarians and conservative think tanks like Cato. It's almost as if you define liberalism as anything you don't agree with.

(08-27-2015 09:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You think all those criminals that deal and transport drugs are suddenly going to go straight and file the correct paperwork and pay the taxes and get business licenses to sell their drugs? There will always be a black market for any type of drug that's legalized, not to mention 'harder' drugs like cocaine and heroine that will never be legalized.

No, I think the money will dry up on their end. Which is what happens, if you've paid attention to history and this issue elsewhere in the world.

So what do these criminals do once the money dries up? Did they go straight or move to other areas of criminal activities? Do you have any statistics to prove gun crimes went down after legalizing drugs?

I have evidence to show that violent crimes went up during prohibition and down in the US after the repeal of prohibition, but it's hard to find good data on the violent crime rates of Portugal before and after their decriminalization push a decade or so back. Though I do have information showing that their violent crime rate is still significantly lower than the US's despite having through the roof unemployment, though no good info on a trend. And it's important to note I'm not advocating for a free-market type legalization of all drugs, I'm advocating for a decriminalization of all user-based drug charges and a focus on treatment and protecting users from contracting HIV/Hep C/etc. As it stands right now, the reason there is so much crime associated with the drug trade is the same as any other illegal market; you cannot go to the police if you're a drug dealer and robbed, and similarly, you cannot simply just deposit your money in a bank. Thieves know drug dealers have cash, and can't call the police, so they're easy targets. Legalizing marijuana along the lines of alcohol will take a significant portion of that money and incentive for robbery out of the equation, as that is by a wide, wide margin the most used illegal drug and scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of significant enough negative health effects to keep it illegal while any number of other, far more dangerous legal substances exist.

Provide safe areas for those using drugs, bombard them with information on getting treatment and the benefits of getting clean while doing it, and stop forcing them into the dregs of society so that they are marginalized and afraid to get help.

And nowhere did you come close to answering my question. By what logic do you deduce that a reduction in drug related gun crimes will not lead to an increase in other non-drug related gun crimes by the same individuals now that their revenue from drugs has dried up?

This is a basic non-linear programming problem. Elimination of A (illegal drugs) does not automatically lead to a reduction of A1 (drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not explicitly eliminate the market for A. Likewise, reduction of A1 does not mean that there won't be an increase of B1 (non-drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not account for the quantity of individuals that must now look for alternatives to actionA and will likely turn to actionB (other illegal activities).


Simply put, making drugs legal does not solve the problem of drug related gun violence because those individuals will simple use their tool (gun) in other areas of crime.

I also think you might want to reread my post, because I pretty directly address your concerns regarding the reasons the drug trade are ideal for violent crime, and why those don't translate to legal businesses as well (mainly an inability to report the crime and to effectively protect the cash you gain).

I understand your stance to be "it won't stop all criminals because some will transition from drug related crime to non-drug related crime" which I'm assuming is probably true to an extent, but that discounts the long term effects it has on not enticing those to go into crime by seeing easy targets with lots of cash who cannot report your crimes to the police.

(08-27-2015 09:26 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, I think the money will dry up on their end. Which is what happens, if you've paid attention to history and this issue elsewhere in the world.

So what do these criminals do once the money dries up? Did they go straight or move to other areas of criminal activities? Do you have any statistics to prove gun crimes went down after legalizing drugs?

I have evidence to show that violent crimes went up during prohibition and down in the US after the repeal of prohibition, but it's hard to find good data on the violent crime rates of Portugal before and after their decriminalization push a decade or so back. Though I do have information showing that their violent crime rate is still significantly lower than the US's despite having through the roof unemployment, though no good info on a trend. And it's important to note I'm not advocating for a free-market type legalization of all drugs, I'm advocating for a decriminalization of all user-based drug charges and a focus on treatment and protecting users from contracting HIV/Hep C/etc. As it stands right now, the reason there is so much crime associated with the drug trade is the same as any other illegal market; you cannot go to the police if you're a drug dealer and robbed, and similarly, you cannot simply just deposit your money in a bank. Thieves know drug dealers have cash, and can't call the police, so they're easy targets. Legalizing marijuana along the lines of alcohol will take a significant portion of that money and incentive for robbery out of the equation, as that is by a wide, wide margin the most used illegal drug and scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of significant enough negative health effects to keep it illegal while any number of other, far more dangerous legal substances exist.

Provide safe areas for those using drugs, bombard them with information on getting treatment and the benefits of getting clean while doing it, and stop forcing them into the dregs of society so that they are marginalized and afraid to get help.

And nowhere did you come close to answering my question. By what logic do you deduce that a reduction in drug related gun crimes will not lead to an increase in other non-drug related gun crimes by the same individuals now that their revenue from drugs has dried up?

This is a basic non-linear programming problem. Elimination of A (illegal drugs) does not automatically lead to a reduction of A1 (drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not explicitly eliminate the market for A. Likewise, reduction of A1 does not mean that there won't be an increase of B1 (non-drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not account for the quantity of individuals that must now look for alternatives to actionA and will likely turn to actionB (other illegal activities).


Simply put, making drugs legal does not solve the problem of drug related gun violence because those individuals will simple use their tool (gun) in other areas of crime.

I also think you might want to reread my post, because I pretty directly address your concerns regarding the reasons the drug trade are ideal for violent crime, and why those don't translate to legal businesses as well (mainly an inability to report the crime and to effectively protect the cash you gain).

I understand your stance to be "it won't stop all criminals because some will transition from drug related crime to non-drug related crime" which I'm assuming is probably true to an extent, but that discounts the long term effects it has on not enticing those to go into crime by seeing easy targets with lots of cash who cannot report your crimes to the police.

It doesn't matter that the drug trade is ideal for violent crimes. You completely miss the point that if it isn't the drug trade, it will be something else that is the ideal. All you are doing in reducing once source and assuming another source won't take it's place.

Who is the one making assumptions? Because any rational person would say replacing one source with another source of crime is EXCATLY making an assumption. You are talking in circles.

(08-27-2015 07:31 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 01:28 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 01:22 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:43 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Who does this surprise? There needs to be some form of gun control that atleast bars crazies from acquiring weapons. Heck, suspected terrorists can acquire weapons legally with ease, let alone crazies like this guy.

With right wing clowns such as these ECU morons (not surprising), this nation is scroomed

Our problem is that, as a free country, we don't usually punish people for what we think they might do....only for what they actually do.

This puts a big damper on barring people from exercising their civil rights arbitrarily based on our suspicions of their potential creepiness.

Gun nuts will tell you second protects the first. When the government started spying on us and took away the freedom right to privacy, why did NRA nuts not throw a fit? This definitely limited freedom. Yet if you limit freedom through gun control, the outrage is 10000x greater. Why?

You realize the 1st amendment doesn't protect privacy right?

The 4th does. Second also protects the 4th

(08-27-2015 10:32 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:31 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 01:28 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 01:22 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:43 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Who does this surprise? There needs to be some form of gun control that atleast bars crazies from acquiring weapons. Heck, suspected terrorists can acquire weapons legally with ease, let alone crazies like this guy.

With right wing clowns such as these ECU morons (not surprising), this nation is scroomed

Our problem is that, as a free country, we don't usually punish people for what we think they might do....only for what they actually do.

This puts a big damper on barring people from exercising their civil rights arbitrarily based on our suspicions of their potential creepiness.

Gun nuts will tell you second protects the first. When the government started spying on us and took away the freedom right to privacy, why did NRA nuts not throw a fit? This definitely limited freedom. Yet if you limit freedom through gun control, the outrage is 10000x greater. Why?

You realize the 1st amendment doesn't protect privacy right?

The 4th does. Second also protects the 4th

Second protects all rights, most importantly free speech and the right to speak out against government. That's why second amendment supporters focus on the first amendment as being the most important one protected by the 2nd.

(08-27-2015 10:08 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Who is the one making assumptions? Because any rational person would say replacing one source with another source of crime is EXCATLY making an assumption. You are talking in circles.

Wrong. It's based on statistical data. Feel free to look at goggle for sources.

>Government spies on us on the interwebs
>Doesn't understand why the NRA didn't throw a fit
>Not sure he knows what the NRA is
>Please consider that the NRA getting upset about interweb privacy would be like the LBGTQUIA+JGEM community rallying against steroids in baseball

We don't have a gun problem, what we have is an evil lack of character, lack of responsibility combines with crazy people problem.

I don't care who carries a weapon into a store or into public, because I carry one to hedge that situation. I care about all these people taking psychotropic drugs. His e are the powder kegs that are causing these issues.

People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time