Gun control debate (merged)

I'd be more than a little curious in having the definition for "the behavior and purchasing patterns that can help identify and prevent mass shootings,”.

Fairly reeks of an end run in establishing an owner's database, including beyond firearms. (As an aside when the hell have night vision goggles been used in a mass shooting? Has it ever happened? I can't recall but it's specifically cited in the story)

With very few exceptions most mass shootings are actually carried out with weapons and ammunition that would be completely ubiquitous to literally millions of normal purchases.
Not sure if it was ITT or elsewhere but the new study done on mass shootings show that the majority of guns were legally purchased and typically only one gun is used.

Tracking purchases is a mess. In all sorts of ways. Cant imagine FFLs being happy with the idea.
 
Article says 75% of guns haven’t been turned in. I guess a little state sponsored violence against the citizenry to collect those will certainly be worth the safety it provides.

Who would have ever guessed , a government ran program being weaponized or what they like to called “ poorly managed “ to the point of harming its citizens . That would never happen here I tell you .
 
And that's why cigarettes should cost as much or more as they now do. The true societal cost of smoking should be reflected in the price.
And alcohol, sugar products, gasoline manufacturers, power companies that put ANY pollutants in the air.......yep, let's just litigate the **** out of everyone. Lawyers have got to be the most self serving POSes on the face of the planet.
 
And alcohol, sugar products, gasoline manufacturers, power companies that put ANY pollutants in the air.......yep, let's just litigate the **** out of everyone. Lawyers have got to be the most self serving POSes on the face of the planet.

This is not about litigation. It's about ensuring the costs of products/activities are reflected in their price. I would have thought the party of personal responsibility would think it's only fair that smokers, drinkers, etc should bear the costs of those activities (and not society at large) since they're the ones choosing to engage in those activities.
 
This is not about litigation. It's about ensuring the costs of products/activities are reflected in their price. I would have thought the party of personal responsibility would think it's only fair that smokers, drinkers, etc should bear the costs of those activities (and not society at large) since they're the ones choosing to engage in those activities.
Alcohol and tobacco are disproportionately consumed by poor people. Why do you hate poor people so much?
 
This is not about litigation. It's about ensuring the costs of products/activities are reflected in their price. I would have thought the party of personal responsibility would think it's only fair that smokers, drinkers, etc should bear the costs of those activities (and not society at large) since they're the ones choosing to engage in those activities.
Then a pack of cigs should be $500. Go solve that problem before you begin taking my rights away you sorry......
 
This is not about litigation. It's about ensuring the costs of products/activities are reflected in their price. I would have thought the party of personal responsibility would think it's only fair that smokers, drinkers, etc should bear the costs of those activities (and not society at large) since they're the ones choosing to engage in those activities.
So, should fat people and ones that eat like crap pay more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
So, should fat people and ones that eat like crap pay more?

I’ll agree to that if we can agree to force lawyers , used car salesmen and politicians to pay a heavy methane tax that goes into a save the climate fund . I don’t see a down side and it can only help all of us . 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
Advertisement





Back
Top