450+ million firearms. When they effectively banned firearms in Australia…60% was the turn in rate. You know how many millions will be left? Which the majority will stay in the crimals hands? And that’s if 60% handed them in. It’s not happening
270 million fewer firearms sounds great. Australia’s 60% turn in rate wasn’t 100% and it worked, and having fewer firearms in circulation means fewer firearm deaths and fewer firearms available to criminals and a continual reduction over time as new firearms aren’t added to the system.
Gun nuts just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks. Sometimes it’s that all those guns aren’t a problem, sometimes it’s that it’s too big a problem. You’re just tedious.
Australia had around 1mil firearms in civ hands, they also didn’t have anywhere near the level of violence we do. Those 270mil firearms will come from mainly people who collect them. It won’t magically make the other 180mil safer. Most criminals get their firearms from straw purchases, not theft.
Australia had around 1mil firearms in civ hands, they also didn’t have anywhere near the level of violence we do.
It’s almost like they impact each other.
Those 270mil firearms will come from mainly people who collect them.
Great. Find a new goddamned hobby that doesn’t end up distributing guns into communities through theft and careless transfers. Not to mention when one of those “collectors” just decides it’s time to start killing people like the Las Vegas shooter.
Most criminals get their firearms from straw purchases, not theft.
Buyback should be paired with greatly restricted purchasing. Fewer and harder purchases with more tracking means fewer straw purchases and over time fewer guns. Machine guns are hard and expensive to get in part because you’re not allowed to make or sell new ones.
Or, if you contend it’s really just straw purchases that are the problem (and want to ignore the legally purchased guns used in crimes all the time), then lets lock that down. Register every gun, require background checks for every sale, and hold the last known owner liable if it’s used in a crime and wasn’t reported stolen.
I wish you the best of luck in addressing that symptom in a society where such bans aren’t commonly-supported, where the law isn’t conducive to such, where there’s such an incredible established base of ownership, and where “fuck the government and/or police” is the prevailing theme.
By all means, when you’ve discovered some way of meaningfully and feaaibly surmounting these, share with the class. You’ll be the first to have done so.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will focus on the root issues - the pressures toward violence - rather than only caring someone decided to use a rifle to when finally pushed to the brink.
Sure. So do you mean fully legalizing all drugs for recreational use? Or just not cracking down on pot? Or something in between? I’d want to know exactly what you mean by this one, in detail.
Ending Qualified immunity
Disagree. Dramatically limit Qualified Immunity, but don’t eliminate it entirely. Sometimes violating a law is required in the process of enforcing other laws. So, only extend qualified immunity as far as the officer in question can prove to a jury that the officer’s violation was actually required for law enforcement.
Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.
Since schools are run at the state level, the simplest way to do this would be to pool all the tax revenue ear marked for schools at the state level and distribute based on student population. Something like $X + $Y/student, as some costs are basically fixed but others directly scale with student body size.
Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren’t 30-40 kids for one teacher.
The previous item would probably directly fix this for the worst outliers.
Single Payer healthcare
Obvious. Sure, it’ll raise everyone’s taxes but well implemented it would raise everyone’s taxes by less than what they are already paying for insurance + copays. The rough part would be when it first happens, as a bunch of people who have been avoiding medical care that wasn’t going to immediately kill them for financial reasons flood the system in the first months under it.
UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.
This is one of those things where it, something very like it, or some drastic change in the entire economic system is going to happen, and it would probably be better for everyone if it was well thought out. I’m personally fond of the idea of UBI + single payer healthcare, removing most other forms of public assistance aside from a few narrowly targeted programs (single payer eliminates most of your health care government programs, UBI replaces at least SNAP and TANF, etc). Then, eliminate the minimum wage, replacing it with a maximium wage (essentially the total compensation of the highest compensated employee must be no more than X% of the median employee or Y% of the lowest paid employee, whichever is lower - the C-suite can’t get a raise without the workers getting one too).
End for profit prisons
Another obvious one.
Enforce the laws already on the books
Your literal first item is specifically about not enforcing laws already on the books, and the second is about limiting what an officer can do to enforce the laws already on the books. I assume you have specific laws in mind with this item?
Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don’t turn to violence/gangs to survive.
UBI/single payer would already solve this.
Increase the minimum wage
This is very much a choose one or the other sort of thing - do you want UBI or a high minimum wage? Because they solve the same problem, and the UBI solution also doesn’t indirectly harm people who were making more than the new minimum wage but not dramatically more.
Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.
This should have been done 40 years ago. Roe was a shoddy decision from a legal standpoint. While I’m pro-choice from a policy standpoint, Roe was never more than a band-aid and should never have been treated as more than a band-aid.
Banning Insider Trading for Congress
Another obvious one. Though that would make them easier to bribe, so that might require additional enforcement. Maybe make them keep their assets in a blind trust while holding office.
Term limits
For who? Everyone? Just Senate? Just the House? All of Congress? SCOTUS? How many terms? This is one of those things where a lot of details are sorely needed.
Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system
Sure. Either Ranked Choice, Preference, or something else that approximates the Condorcet winner.
This is all pretty typical progressive policy positions but out of the entire list only 2-3 are actually about gun violence. No amount of term limits, ranked choice voting, or cracking down on Congressional insider trading is going to impact gun violence, for example.
I started reading your comment expecting to disagree with a lot of what you said but ended up doing the opposite. You seem like an intelligent person. Maximum wage in particular is something I’ve never heard of but seems good in theory. I could see this being easily circumvented by corporations just registering their different departments as their own businesses though.
That’s just a question of implementation. You could easily do something like count wholly owned subsidiaries as part of the parent corporation.
The whole point of a maximum wage is that it essentially creates a curve for compensation - the more the top gets paid, the more at least half the employees have to be paid and the more the bottom employees have to be paid.
This means that huge corps like Amazon and WalMart have to pay substantially more to be able to pay what the executives they want will demand but small businesses operating on thin margins can get away with lower pay. Which means it simultaneously promotes small business and does a measure of wealth redistribution from the obscenely wealthy.
Also UBI and minimum wage solve the same problem and UBI does it better so it makes sense to go with UBI and drop minimum wage.
Which is largely irrelevant; try comparing our rates of child death by violence overall to other countries. I think you’ll be surprised at how the US stacks up.
It’s not irrelevant to what I was saying in the first place, that it’s more likely than anywhere else in the world that you would need to explain to parents why their child got killed by a gun yet nothing is done to remove guns from people’s hands.
School shootings are rare even here in the USA. We’ve had 15 since columbine, still to many but acting like they happen every day is bullshit. Even NPR called it out with this article:
Nope, firearms… and have you seen that downward trend on car death as they’re getting safer and safer? Yeah, things don’t look great for the future of your argument bud!
And…
The database *does not include school shootings inwhich fewer than four people were killed*, which have become far more common in recent years.
Monday's shooting at a private Christian grade school in Nashville marked the 15th time since 1999 that gun violence has left *four or more* dead in a school in the United States.
2 dead and 10 more hurt? Not a mass shooting based on their definition.
Yeah… so you’re wrong.
Oh and, that’s just schools, funny that you assume that children deaths related to guns only happen in schools.
Yea gun control isn’t solving shit. We don’t have a gun problem we have a society one…mexico has some of the strictest gun control out there but tons of deaths. Same with Brazil… it’s society.
They do, however, provide the necessary institutions to reduce pressures and otherwise provide de-escalation options preventing those individuals from wanting to “go shoot up a school,office,building or anything”.
That would be the entire point to addressing the actual underlying issues.
That’s just idiots being idiots and an election system that doesn’t make sense.
Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.
In the meantime here’s reality when you’re the country with the most guns/people
Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.
There are a lot of single issue voters out there, who will vote for whoever takes their stance on their one issue regardless of anything else.
Frankly, this is one Democrats need to drop - any bill they might pass is either a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights or isn’t going to do much to curb actual gun violence. At the same time “Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to bare arms” is one of the easiest wedges to draw people to vote for ever-shittier Republicans. And most of the people doing the shooting don’t particularly care if their gun is owned legally or not.
The Constitution has been amended in the past and could still be amended and it wouldn’t be the first time that an amendment removed a right to ownership.
Is there a threshold of sensationalism of such events that changes the number of states required to ratify the thing? That would change the number of supporting Congressional members?
I’m amazed you still believe this is feasible despite the lack of support for such a measure.
The number of states required doesn’t change, but maybe people will someday realise that the number of deaths by guns in the USA is ridiculous and they’ll vote for people who want to solve the issue.
Right, but that requires, you know, amending the Constitution. Which requires 3/4 of the states sign on. 3/4 of the states are not going to sign on to throwing out the 2nd Amendment. 2/3 of states wouldn’t sign on to that. I don’t think you could even get 1/2 of the states to sign on to that.
Especially because no Republican is going to vote for it, and neither is anyone representing a rural area. And we’re talking state legislatures, and Dems aren’t great at expanding their influence in state legislatures.
You’re preaching to the choir. But that doesn’t change anything. Those idiots are a massive number of voters, and they were willing to elect an obvious terrible presidential candidate because of the threat of losing their guns.
Even if democrats wanted this, there is literally no path we could take towards this. So saying, “get rid of your guns and you won’t have a problem” is the least helpful thing somebody could say.
Guns aren’t the issue that makes fascists vote fascist. Even if you make gun violence activist shut up completely they’ll just lie and say they’re under threat anyway or that trans people are going to steal their children or Christians will be banned from buying gas stoves. Every single Democrat not appropriately muzzling themselves isn’t what causes Republicans to vote Republican.
No it is not, its not been called out multiple times for how error prone it is. People who use it as factual loose all credibility with anyone who knows anything about gun violence.
Funny how I search for “gun violence archive unreliable” and I don’t come up with anything… Except for the “Second amendment foundation”… Have you thought that maybe it’s the people calling them out that are unreliable and that have an agenda that GVA goes against? 🤔
With multiple-victim shootings more broadly, sites like Gun Violence Archive and Mass Shooting Tracker offer aggregation of news reports and data that could potentially be useful for further in-depth analysis.
Wow… that’s what I call “calling out bullshit”!
No mention at all in the other article.
Good job 👍
Playing with the definition of what is and isn’t a mass shooting and only considering people that died in the victims count doesn’t help your argument buddy.
One could suspect blue team politics of having stock in Ruger etc. given the sheer extent to which firearm sales spike every time in reaction to blue team’s nonsensical ban rhetoric.
You know what’s a good way to prevent shootings? People not having guns. You guys in the US should try that sometimes…
OR…we could actually tackle the problem at it’s core and create meaningful changes that would curb the violence over all without even touching guns:
Ending the War on Drugs
Ending Qualified immunity
Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.
Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren’t 30-40 kids for one teacher.
Single Payer healthcare
UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.
End for profit prisons
Enforce the laws already on the books
Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don’t turn to violence/gangs to survive.
Increase the minimum wage
Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don’t turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.
Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.
Banning Insider Trading for Congress
Term limits
Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system
Or we could just touch guns instead of pretending we only need to completely fix every aspect of our society instead.
450+ million firearms. When they effectively banned firearms in Australia…60% was the turn in rate. You know how many millions will be left? Which the majority will stay in the crimals hands? And that’s if 60% handed them in. It’s not happening
270 million fewer firearms sounds great. Australia’s 60% turn in rate wasn’t 100% and it worked, and having fewer firearms in circulation means fewer firearm deaths and fewer firearms available to criminals and a continual reduction over time as new firearms aren’t added to the system.
Gun nuts just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks. Sometimes it’s that all those guns aren’t a problem, sometimes it’s that it’s too big a problem. You’re just tedious.
Australia had around 1mil firearms in civ hands, they also didn’t have anywhere near the level of violence we do. Those 270mil firearms will come from mainly people who collect them. It won’t magically make the other 180mil safer. Most criminals get their firearms from straw purchases, not theft.
It’s almost like they impact each other.
Great. Find a new goddamned hobby that doesn’t end up distributing guns into communities through theft and careless transfers. Not to mention when one of those “collectors” just decides it’s time to start killing people like the Las Vegas shooter.
Buyback should be paired with greatly restricted purchasing. Fewer and harder purchases with more tracking means fewer straw purchases and over time fewer guns. Machine guns are hard and expensive to get in part because you’re not allowed to make or sell new ones.
Or, if you contend it’s really just straw purchases that are the problem (and want to ignore the legally purchased guns used in crimes all the time), then lets lock that down. Register every gun, require background checks for every sale, and hold the last known owner liable if it’s used in a crime and wasn’t reported stolen.
So you’re end goal is to ban guns completely?
Nah, people can still have hunting weapons as regulated by local ordinance and enjoy their right to bear arms in well-regulated militias.
Yeah, now Australia is having their human rights stripped away at an alarming rate. What a victory for liberty!
Owning guns is “Human Rights”. You guys are so fucking weird.
No, that sounds terrible
I wish you the best of luck in addressing that symptom in a society where such bans aren’t commonly-supported, where the law isn’t conducive to such, where there’s such an incredible established base of ownership, and where “fuck the government and/or police” is the prevailing theme.
By all means, when you’ve discovered some way of meaningfully and feaaibly surmounting these, share with the class. You’ll be the first to have done so.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will focus on the root issues - the pressures toward violence - rather than only caring someone decided to use a rifle to when finally pushed to the brink.
Sure. So do you mean fully legalizing all drugs for recreational use? Or just not cracking down on pot? Or something in between? I’d want to know exactly what you mean by this one, in detail.
Disagree. Dramatically limit Qualified Immunity, but don’t eliminate it entirely. Sometimes violating a law is required in the process of enforcing other laws. So, only extend qualified immunity as far as the officer in question can prove to a jury that the officer’s violation was actually required for law enforcement.
Since schools are run at the state level, the simplest way to do this would be to pool all the tax revenue ear marked for schools at the state level and distribute based on student population. Something like $X + $Y/student, as some costs are basically fixed but others directly scale with student body size.
The previous item would probably directly fix this for the worst outliers.
Obvious. Sure, it’ll raise everyone’s taxes but well implemented it would raise everyone’s taxes by less than what they are already paying for insurance + copays. The rough part would be when it first happens, as a bunch of people who have been avoiding medical care that wasn’t going to immediately kill them for financial reasons flood the system in the first months under it.
This is one of those things where it, something very like it, or some drastic change in the entire economic system is going to happen, and it would probably be better for everyone if it was well thought out. I’m personally fond of the idea of UBI + single payer healthcare, removing most other forms of public assistance aside from a few narrowly targeted programs (single payer eliminates most of your health care government programs, UBI replaces at least SNAP and TANF, etc). Then, eliminate the minimum wage, replacing it with a maximium wage (essentially the total compensation of the highest compensated employee must be no more than X% of the median employee or Y% of the lowest paid employee, whichever is lower - the C-suite can’t get a raise without the workers getting one too).
Another obvious one.
Your literal first item is specifically about not enforcing laws already on the books, and the second is about limiting what an officer can do to enforce the laws already on the books. I assume you have specific laws in mind with this item?
UBI/single payer would already solve this.
This is very much a choose one or the other sort of thing - do you want UBI or a high minimum wage? Because they solve the same problem, and the UBI solution also doesn’t indirectly harm people who were making more than the new minimum wage but not dramatically more.
This should have been done 40 years ago. Roe was a shoddy decision from a legal standpoint. While I’m pro-choice from a policy standpoint, Roe was never more than a band-aid and should never have been treated as more than a band-aid.
Another obvious one. Though that would make them easier to bribe, so that might require additional enforcement. Maybe make them keep their assets in a blind trust while holding office.
For who? Everyone? Just Senate? Just the House? All of Congress? SCOTUS? How many terms? This is one of those things where a lot of details are sorely needed.
Sure. Either Ranked Choice, Preference, or something else that approximates the Condorcet winner.
This is all pretty typical progressive policy positions but out of the entire list only 2-3 are actually about gun violence. No amount of term limits, ranked choice voting, or cracking down on Congressional insider trading is going to impact gun violence, for example.
I started reading your comment expecting to disagree with a lot of what you said but ended up doing the opposite. You seem like an intelligent person. Maximum wage in particular is something I’ve never heard of but seems good in theory. I could see this being easily circumvented by corporations just registering their different departments as their own businesses though.
That’s just a question of implementation. You could easily do something like count wholly owned subsidiaries as part of the parent corporation.
The whole point of a maximum wage is that it essentially creates a curve for compensation - the more the top gets paid, the more at least half the employees have to be paid and the more the bottom employees have to be paid.
This means that huge corps like Amazon and WalMart have to pay substantially more to be able to pay what the executives they want will demand but small businesses operating on thin margins can get away with lower pay. Which means it simultaneously promotes small business and does a measure of wealth redistribution from the obscenely wealthy.
Also UBI and minimum wage solve the same problem and UBI does it better so it makes sense to go with UBI and drop minimum wage.
Ok… what do you tell the parents of children that will get killed in the meantime? Because your solution is a good way to solve the issue in 30 years.
30 years!? If the US does five of these things in the next 50 years I’ll eat my hat.
Stay strapped or get clapped?
Yeah, let’s give guns to kids because clearly the solution to gun violence is more guns!
It’s a joke hun. 🙂
Will they? How likely is a parent to actually have to have that discussion?
More likely than anywhere else in the world!
Ah, you have nothing but hyperbole. Fair enough, this is about what I’d expected.
-Can’t handle the truth? Guns are the number one child killer in the USA, it’s the only country where it’s the case.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761
And cars are just getting safer and safer, can you say the same about guns? Oh no, you can’t, because killing is their purpose.
Which is largely irrelevant; try comparing our rates of child death by violence overall to other countries. I think you’ll be surprised at how the US stacks up.
It’s not irrelevant to what I was saying in the first place, that it’s more likely than anywhere else in the world that you would need to explain to parents why their child got killed by a gun yet nothing is done to remove guns from people’s hands.
School shootings are rare even here in the USA. We’ve had 15 since columbine, still to many but acting like they happen every day is bullshit. Even NPR called it out with this article:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
Source on the 15? Because your article dates from 2018.
What’s the leading cause of child mortality in the USA?
What’s the leading cause of child mortality in the Canada?
I’m using both these countries because they’re very close, geographically and culturally…
Hint: One starts with a G and it’s not the same as the other!
Edit: By the way, I didn’t bring up school shootings, just child death, funny you tried to switch it to school shootings only…
https://apnews.com/article/nashville-school-shooting-covenant-school-5da45b469ccb6c9533bbddf20c1bfe16
It’s near the bottom.
And child death? More children drown in pools each year than die from guns. Cars are still the number one cause of children dying.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761
Nope, firearms… and have you seen that downward trend on car death as they’re getting safer and safer? Yeah, things don’t look great for the future of your argument bud!
And…
The database *does not include school shootings in which fewer than four people were killed*, which have become far more common in recent years.Monday's shooting at a private Christian grade school in Nashville marked the 15th time since 1999 that gun violence has left *four or more* dead in a school in the United States.2 dead and 10 more hurt? Not a mass shooting based on their definition.
Yeah… so you’re wrong.
Oh and, that’s just schools, funny that you assume that children deaths related to guns only happen in schools.
Very good, very nicely done list. Add to it strict gun control and it will be very close to perfect
Yea gun control isn’t solving shit. We don’t have a gun problem we have a society one…mexico has some of the strictest gun control out there but tons of deaths. Same with Brazil… it’s society.
None of this changes the mentally ills right to go shoot up a school,office,building or anything.
They do, however, provide the necessary institutions to reduce pressures and otherwise provide de-escalation options preventing those individuals from wanting to “go shoot up a school,office,building or anything”.
That would be the entire point to addressing the actual underlying issues.
It’s also talks like this (or rather the threat of this) that got Trump elected. Guns in America are not going away.
That’s just idiots being idiots and an election system that doesn’t make sense.
Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.
In the meantime here’s reality when you’re the country with the most guns/people
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
There are a lot of single issue voters out there, who will vote for whoever takes their stance on their one issue regardless of anything else.
Frankly, this is one Democrats need to drop - any bill they might pass is either a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights or isn’t going to do much to curb actual gun violence. At the same time “Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to bare arms” is one of the easiest wedges to draw people to vote for ever-shittier Republicans. And most of the people doing the shooting don’t particularly care if their gun is owned legally or not.
The Constitution has been amended in the past and could still be amended and it wouldn’t be the first time that an amendment removed a right to ownership.
How likely do you believe that is?
Are you aware of what’s required to bring about such a thing?
I dunno, you tell me how many people, especially children, need to die for people to wake up
Is there a threshold of sensationalism of such events that changes the number of states required to ratify the thing? That would change the number of supporting Congressional members?
I’m amazed you still believe this is feasible despite the lack of support for such a measure.
The number of states required doesn’t change, but maybe people will someday realise that the number of deaths by guns in the USA is ridiculous and they’ll vote for people who want to solve the issue.
Right, but that requires, you know, amending the Constitution. Which requires 3/4 of the states sign on. 3/4 of the states are not going to sign on to throwing out the 2nd Amendment. 2/3 of states wouldn’t sign on to that. I don’t think you could even get 1/2 of the states to sign on to that.
Especially because no Republican is going to vote for it, and neither is anyone representing a rural area. And we’re talking state legislatures, and Dems aren’t great at expanding their influence in state legislatures.
You’re preaching to the choir. But that doesn’t change anything. Those idiots are a massive number of voters, and they were willing to elect an obvious terrible presidential candidate because of the threat of losing their guns.
Even if democrats wanted this, there is literally no path we could take towards this. So saying, “get rid of your guns and you won’t have a problem” is the least helpful thing somebody could say.
Have you considered… not making the threat?
No, surely it’s the voter’s faults for rejecting candidates for their stated positions…
Guns aren’t the issue that makes fascists vote fascist. Even if you make gun violence activist shut up completely they’ll just lie and say they’re under threat anyway or that trans people are going to steal their children or Christians will be banned from buying gas stoves. Every single Democrat not appropriately muzzling themselves isn’t what causes Republicans to vote Republican.
Yes please use the GVA as a source of truth…NPR and Mother Jones both called out that site as bullshit.
It’s just a list of all shootings in the USA, that’s data without analysis.
No it is not, its not been called out multiple times for how error prone it is. People who use it as factual loose all credibility with anyone who knows anything about gun violence.
Funny how I search for “gun violence archive unreliable” and I don’t come up with anything… Except for the “Second amendment foundation”… Have you thought that maybe it’s the people calling them out that are unreliable and that have an agenda that GVA goes against? 🤔
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gun-violence-archive/
They provide their methodology and a source for all shootings. Just because Jo nobody calls them out doesn’t make them unreliable.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/
That’s 5 seconds of liberal/left bias places calling out the bullshit numbers.
Mother Jones only mention of GVA:
With multiple-victim shootings more broadly, sites like Gun Violence Archive and Mass Shooting Tracker offer aggregation of news reports and data that could potentially be useful for further in-depth analysis.Wow… that’s what I call “calling out bullshit”!
No mention at all in the other article.
Good job 👍
Playing with the definition of what is and isn’t a mass shooting and only considering people that died in the victims count doesn’t help your argument buddy.
Gotta vote for the fascists so we can have our personal arms in case the fascists take power.
One could suspect blue team politics of having stock in Ruger etc. given the sheer extent to which firearm sales spike every time in reaction to blue team’s nonsensical ban rhetoric.
We try, but we are surrounded by stupid