HelixDab

Oh, fuck off with that.

Rights are right, period. If you're denying a right to people that you disagree with politically, then it's not a right.

Sure, train everyone. But the right to keep and bear arms is, and should be, an individual right, not one that can only be exercised if the gov't decides that you should be permitted to do so. That's authoritarian bullshit.

No, you were quite clear; you aren't actually interested in real solutions, you're interested in gun control for the sake of gun control.

Also listed is Vintage Firearms, the store that sold the shooter the gun, and RMA Armament, the online retailer the shooter used to purchased body armor.

Assuming that Vintage Firearms and RMA Armament complied with the applicable ATF regulations, I'm not sure how they're responsible in any way, unless the point is to use lawsuits to bankrupt a legal business for acting in a legal way. It would make as much sense as suing Ford for manufacturing and selling a vehicle that was used to intentionally run over pedestrians. It's unreasonable to expect that a firearms retailer is going to be able to ascertain the future actions of every single person that purchases a firearm.

From what I understand, when people that are good become cops and try to hold fellow cops to the same standards, they end up getting hung out to dry and forced out.

Check this case out: https://archive.is/2jzIx, and then consider that this kind of thing is only slightly extreme.

Cops that stay in enable the shitty cops or become shitty themselves, good cops get forced out. The entire system is rotten, and needs to be entirely reformed. I think that it probably needs to be handled in a way similar to the way that Reagan handled striking air traffic controllers: fire every single cop, use National Guard MPs on a temporary basis while entirely new cops are recruited and trained, and have iron-clad oversight and standards established before the new cops take their positions.

I used to be a member of the NRA too, but I'm not willing to pay for some dude's $15,000 suits while he's kissing the asses of people that want to overturn every part of the constitution that isn't 2A rights. I'm slightly more okay with SAF and GOA, but they still often shill for Republicans.

The fact that a gun has a 'purpose' of killing is reductive and not useful. Killing is, by itself, neither good nor bad. Killing can be justified and moral, or it can be deeply immoral.

So, as I asked originally, if you could reduce the number of illegal and immoral uses of firearms without reducing the ability of people to exercise their civil rights, would you be open to that?

Fewer guns doesn't, by itself, mean less violence. We can see that in Australia and in England, where the combined rates of all violent crimes (battery, robbery, forcible rape, murder) are comparable to the US, and possibly higher, but the lethality is reduced. On the other hand, reducing the amount of violence in society, through programs that attack root causes in the most affected communities (which, notably, is not harsher policing and sentencing, but more like community improvement and poverty reduction), reduces both rates of violence and the homicide rates. Chicago actually had a pretty good violence intervention program going for a number of years before it was senselessly defunded.

You've avoiding the question.

Would you be open to solutions that do not involve removing guns, or is that the only solution you would accept?

Kimberly Edds, spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, told NPR the decision was made "as a result of having insufficient evidence" to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

...Which is pretty much par for the course for a lot of sexual assault cases as well. RAINN reports that, out of every 1000 sexual assaults, 310 get reported to police, 50 result in arrests, and only 28 result in convictions. So the DA dropping the case before even going to trial isn't all that surprising. It doesn't mean that he isn't guilty, just that the DA didn't think they were going to be able to prove it in court.

What's that machine intended to be used for?

I have been a machine operator. We were not allowed to wear gloves because of the risk of degloving accidents.

Most of the time I would agree. On the other hand, a serial child molester is not someone that is likely ever going to be able to change, even if they're given every opportunity through rehabilitation (which US prisons do not do in the first place), so I have a hard time feeling bad for him in particular.

Huh. A MAGAt rioter that wanted to undermine due process and civil rights also wants to be a cop.

Whoda thunk?

Love that people just ignore that violence doesn't happen in a vacuum, and since violence must happen in a vacuum without any causes at all the only solution is to remove the tools.

Guns are tools. A knife is a tool. A car is a tool. Even high explosives are tools.

BTW, I do have a kitchen gun, because that's where I need it when there's a problem bear outside. (Yes, bear - one of those 300+ pound animals with teeth and claws that are sometimes extremely aggressive.)

I assume that you want safe communities; would you be open to solutions that increase safety if they didn't involve removing firearms, or is that the only solution that you'd accept?

That's very interesting; it seems to have a progressive twist rate. I assume that this is from a large bore armament of some kind? I believe that gain twist is sometimes (usually?) used on artillery. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI-_CtmOzFs)