GOP Representative threatens O'Rouke after AR comment

[JSt0rm]

You still haven't asked nicely.

i dont need to ask nicely. You have an opportunity to pwn me by showing me you arent a Russian. For some reason you wont do it. odd.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Curious how we never hear it wrt abortion.

Actually I think it is true about abortion, drug laws, and guns. All three can be put on the same shelf of useless laws that will be ignored in volume.

 

[blackangst1]

Why would that be the metric? Mass shootings are way over-represented in how we think about gun violence, what we should really be working to limit is the daily grind of handgun deaths. And while your argument of 'this is dumb' is compelling and all you're going to need to explain exactly why it is dumb. After all, gun ownership is a risk factor for both homicide and suicide even after controlling for all other measurable, relevant factors. Fewer guns benefits everyone.



I didn't say anything about what conservatives wanted in terms of policy - why are you inventing things for me to believe other than to cover for the weakness of your argument? It is ironic that you just stereotyped what you think my liberal friends believe though, especially since not one of them I know actually believes that. I certainly don't.

Except you did. "and that nothing can be done is similar to the arguments I see about, well, basically anything conservatives don't like."

The sort of restrictions I'm talking about have been implemented and are effective in other developed nations. If you want to declare America to be magically special in this regard you're going to need to provide evidence.

OK? Other countries are not like the USA. They dont have constitutions. They dont have alot of things. Again, all your proposal would do is make things difficult for legal gun owners. Not sure why thats a win for you. Im likely reading something that you dont intend, but Id like to ask anyway. Lets say I buy a gun legally. Lets say under your system someone buys it legally from me. Lets say he goes and shoots 4 people. How would that chain of registration help at all? Do you know how easy it is to ditch a gun?

And finally, this debate will never end because Im not going to change your mind, and you arent going to change mine based on this statement from you: Fewer guns benefits everyone.

I dont mind, and am open to common sense gun legislation, but when it infringes on law abiding citizens. Thats all your proposal would do.

 

[SlowSpyder]

i dont need to ask nicely. You have an opportunity to pwn me by showing me you arent a Russian. For some reason you wont do it. odd.

1) Referring to pwn/owning someone is racist. Why do you wish to harken back to a time where people where owned like property in order to show some kind of online dominance? Really disgusting, dude. Go pray to BLM and ask for forgiveness.

2) You seem a bit too eager to see my guns and I can't help but wonder why. It isn't an odd stretch to be a gun owner in America, and why you seem to be trying to maneuver me into showing mine to you is odd.

 

[dainthomas]

I dont mind, and am open to common sense gun legislation, but when it infringes on law abiding citizens. Thats all your proposal would do.

We're all for common sense gun legislation. Common sense says you don't need a semi-auto rifle with giant clips to hunt or defend yourself.

 

[Bird222]

By this logic we shouldn't have any laws because criminals won't obey them and they only restrict law abiding people. Does that sound like a good argument to you?



It won't make me feel either good or bad, it's just probably the most effective way to move forward. The idea that gun laws are magically impossible to enforce in America despite them being perfectly effective in large parts of the developed world and that nothing can be done is similar to the arguments I see about, well, basically anything conservatives don't like.

The logical disconnect here is that anti-2A folks are talking about laws that will somehow prevent these shootings when most of them won't. In my view most laws are really on good for being able to punish someone after the crime. For example, look at the death penalty. If anything was going to be deterrent to murder that would be it but it hasn't. However, it's good to have on the back end to be able to punish those who commit murder. We already have laws to deal with criminals that shoot people and very few of these new proposals are going to prevent some nut from going on a shooting spree. That's why people have a problem with them.

 

[blackangst1]

We're all for common sense gun legislation. Common sense says you don't need a semi-auto rifle with giant clips to hunt or defend yourself.

Fair enough. If only we could agree on the number.

 

[fskimospy]

Except you did. "and that nothing can be done is similar to the arguments I see about, well, basically anything conservatives don't like."

That doesn’t say anything about what I believe conservatives want in policy. They make the same arguments about universal health care, do you think I believe that means they want a Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman situation?

OK? Other countries are not like the USA. They dont have constitutions. They dont have alot of things. Again, all your proposal would do is make things difficult for legal gun owners.

As I said before this is an argument against ALL laws. It is not compelling.

Not sure why thats a win for you. Im likely reading something that you dont intend, but Id like to ask anyway. Lets say I buy a gun legally. Lets say under your system someone buys it legally from me. Lets say he goes and shoots 4 people. How would that chain of registration help at all? Do you know how easy it is to ditch a gun?

Who said it would help in that case? What my proposal would do is make it less likely that people would illegally transfer guns to those who couldn’t own them.

And finally, this debate will never end because Im not going to change your mind, and you arent going to change mine based on this statement from you: Fewer guns benefits everyone.

Fewer guns is associated with fewer homicides and suicides. I think that’s a benefit. After all the data shows guns just aren’t ineffective at personal defense, they are an active detriment.

I dont mind, and am open to common sense gun legislation, but when it infringes on law abiding citizens. Thats all your proposal would do.

I find people often use ‘common sense’ and ‘what I want’ interchangeably. Why are your policies common sense and what is the empirical basis for that determination?

 

[fskimospy]

The logical disconnect here is that anti-2A folks are talking about laws that will somehow prevent these shootings when most of them won't. In my view most laws are really on good for being able to punish someone after the crime. For example, look at the death penalty. If anything was going to be deterrent to murder that would be it but it hasn't. However, it's good to have on the back end to be able to punish those who commit murder. We already have laws to deal with criminals that shoot people and very few of these new proposals are going to prevent some nut from going on a shooting spree. That's why people have a problem with them.

Do you think reporting requirements for banks reduce money laundering and tax evasion or should we remove them and rely solely on identifying it and prosecuting it after the fact?

 

[JSt0rm]

1) Referring to pwn/owning someone is racist. Why do you wish to harken back to a time where people where owned like property in order to show some kind of online dominance? Really disgusting, dude. Go pray to BLM and ask for forgiveness.

2) You seem a bit too eager to see my guns and I can't help but wonder why. It isn't an odd stretch to be a gun owner in America, and why you seem to be trying to maneuver me into showing mine to you is odd.

you dont have any guns. Thats the reality.

 

[blackangst1]

Who said it would help in that case? What my proposal would do is make it less likely that people would illegally transfer guns to those who couldn’t own them.

Not me. I was asking a question. All youve done is talk in vague terms like "fewer guns result in fewer deaths". What I want to specifically want to know is, how would your proposal prevent a deadly mass shooting? Because thats what most of us really care about. When politicians go on the trail and talk about thier version of gun laws, they always bring up mass shootings. Almost never do they talk about suicides or accidental or gang shootings. Its always mass shootings.

Fewer guns is associated with fewer homicides and suicides. I think that’s a benefit. After all the data shows guns just aren’t ineffective at personal defense, they are an active detriment.

Youre truly ignorant if you think reducing guns will reduce suicides.

I find people often use ‘common sense’ and ‘what I want’ interchangeably. Why are your policies common sense and what is the empirical basis for that determination?

And thats the rub. What you think is common sense and what others think is common sense is ALWAYS subjective. Data can back up any point. Thats why people on every range of political spectrum cherry pock data, along with a little emotion thrown in for good measure. Look at Beto. So emotional. Aside from switching positions, his cry of hell yes we'll take away your AR15! is a joke. Its all emotional. Riles up his base. Its as ridiculous and laughable as some of the shit Trump says.

 

[blackangst1]

you dont have any guns. Thats the reality.

You have a learning disability. Thats the reality. Prove you dont.

 

[ivwshane]

You're the one surveying how many folks would shoot at police officers trying to disarm citizens if you got your way, that sort of "how many deaths can I cause in pursuit of my policy" is way more authoritarian. Not to mention sending police door to door to confiscate weapons sounds like a prime example of "putting your boot on the neck of others" since presumably the police will be empowered to shoot at the non-compliant to enforce the confiscation. How many would you be willing to have killed (citizens or police) as a direct result of your policy to have your "gun free" dream come true? If we go with the @fskimospy number of about 60mm gun owners that's a lot of folks who could refuse and lead to shootouts when that knock on the door happens.

I haven't advocated any such policy. Perhaps you could be a man and argue against what people said and not what you wish they said.

 

[cytg111]

1) Referring to pwn/owning someone is racist. Why do you wish to harken back to a time where people where owned like property in order to show some kind of online dominance? Really disgusting, dude. Go pray to BLM and ask for forgiveness.

2) You seem a bit too eager to see my guns and I can't help but wonder why. It isn't an odd stretch to be a gun owner in America, and why you seem to be trying to maneuver me into showing mine to you is odd.

95% of the population here believes you are a fake cat. As you are obviously on a propaganda offensive, this could help your campaign. If it were true that is. We know its not.

 

[fskimospy]

Not me. I was asking a question. All youve done is talk in vague terms like "fewer guns result in fewer deaths". What I want to specifically want to know is, how would your proposal prevent a deadly mass shooting? Because thats what most of us really care about. When politicians go on the trail and talk about thier version of gun laws, they always bring up mass shootings. Almost never do they talk about suicides or accidental or gang shootings. Its always mass shootings.

That’s not what I care about. I fail to see why I should focus on a dozen or a hundred people killed in a mass shooting as compared to thousands and thousands of other gun related deaths.

Youre truly ignorant if you think reducing guns will reduce suicides.

You are truly ignorant if you think they won’t. The empirical research is very well established on this. Honestly I’m not even aware of any debate on the issue anymore, that’s how strong the findings are. If you don’t want to google it yourself I can provide you large quantities of peer reviewed research on the topic.

And thats the rub. What you think is common sense and what others think is common sense is ALWAYS subjective.

You’re the one talking about common sense!

Data can back up any point. Thats why people on every range of political spectrum cherry pock data, along with a little emotion thrown in for good measure.

No, all points of view are not equal. Some are backed by the balance of the evidence and some are not.

Look at Beto. So emotional. Aside from switching positions, his cry of hell yes we'll take away your AR15! is a joke. Its all emotional. Riles up his base. Its as ridiculous and laughable as some of the shit Trump says.

Who cares what he says?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Are we still talking about an elected US politician threatening a (now) US Citizen and former fellow elected politician?

Yes, we are still talking about Beto's threats to forcibly steal citizens legal arms.

 

[cytg111]

Youre truly ignorant if you think reducing guns will reduce suicides.

Do you own googling. Its been proven that ease of accessibility to means to end your life is directly correlated with suicide rates. Even moving away from large container otc pain killers to smaller packages has an effect. Its about the time it takes from decision to execution, the longer it takes the more time you have to change your mind.

 

[cytg111]

Yes, we are still talking about Beto's threats to forcibly steal citizens legal arms.

Dont you have mandatory educational institutions over there? You missed one.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Mere assertion of distraction. Linky-linky.

My pleasure.

List of AR platform cartridges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• .17 Mach 2
• .17 HMR[1]
• .17 Winchester Super Magnum[1]
• .22 Long Rifle[2]
• .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire[1]
• 7 Mach IV
• .17 Remington Fireball
• .17 Remington[1]
• .17-223[3]
• .20 Practical[4]
• .204 Ruger[1]
• .222 Remington
• .223 Remington - Original AR-15 caliber: .223 cartridges may function in a 5.56×45mm rifle, however 5.56×45mm cartridges can produce excessive pressure in a .223 rifle. On the other hand, a .223 Wylde chamber is used on .223 caliber rifle barrels to allow them to safely fire either .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition.[5]
• .22 PPC
• .22 Nosler
• .224 Valkyrie
• .224 Kritzeck (Shortened .223 remington neck)[6]
• .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum[5]
• .243 LBC[7]
• .243 Winchester Super Short Magnum[5]
• .25 Winchester Super Short Magnum[5]
• .25-45 Sharps
• .277 Wolverine (6.8×39mm)
• .30 Carbine[1]
• .30 Remington AR[8]
• 30 American[9]
• 300 OSSM[5]
• 300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm)[8]
• .300 Whisper[8]
• .350 Legend[10]
• 358 Yeti - Wildcat[11]
• 375 SOCOM
• .40 S&W[12]
• .45 ACP[13]
• .450 Bushmaster[1]
• .458 SOCOM[14]
• .50 Action Express
• .50 Beowulf[15]
• .45×39mm[1]
• 5.56×45mm NATO - Original AR-15A2 caliber: can also safely fire .223 Remington[1]
• FN 5.7×28mm
• 6×45mm
• 6.5mm Grendel[1]
• 6.8×39mm (.277 Wolverine)[16][17]
• 6.8mm Remington SPC[8]
• 7.62×37mm Musang
• 7.62×39mm[8]
• 7.62×40mm Wilson Tactical[8]
• 7.92x33mm Kurz
• 9mm Parabellum[2]
• 10mm Auto[13]
• 9x39mm[18]

I'm always happy to help inform our more ignorant members on firearms. It's what I do.

 

[JSt0rm]

You have a learning disability. Thats the reality. Prove you dont.

pmed you proof

 

[JSt0rm]

slow its your turn. Show us your guns... "Yes Jst0rm, these are my guns"

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You can require all gun sales/transfers go through an FFL holder or some equivalent. It doesn't solve the problem overnight but generally speaking people aren't going to want to risk prison to transfer their guns to someone else so you'll get a steady reduction of who holds them over time.

I think @pcgeek11 had a great idea regarding private transfers. They must take place in a designated area of the Police department.
Simple, everyone has a Police station, anyone who won’t go to the station probably shouldn’t be getting a gun.

 

[SlowSpyder]

slow its your turn. Show us your guns... "Yes Jst0rm, these are my guns"

FFS dude. What is so difficult to believe about an American, particularly someone that lives in the middle of the country, owning guns?

Here are two of my guns. A KelTec PMR30 with two magazines and a couple boxes of rounds. I also have here my much older US Arms five shot revolver in .32. Lastly, in the lower corner are some bullets just for comparison. A .22 long rifle, the .22 magnum my PMR30 takes, and a 9mm just for size comparison. I used to have a Sig P290 (9mm) that I sold long ago as I hated the long and heavy double action trigger pull on such a small framed gun. It made shooting it accurately something I could do, but took too much concentration. Do I have to go get my rifle and shotguns, or are you good now?

Also, next up for my PMR30 is an extended / threaded barrel. It makes the gun very reliable and gives the rounds a another 75-100fps velocity. Lastly, it can take a suppressor, pretty cool.

 

[pcgeek11]

I think @pcgeek11 had a great idea regarding private transfers. They must take place in a designated area of the Police department.
Simple, everyone has a Police station, anyone who won’t go to the station probably shouldn’t be getting a gun.

Not my idea, but I would not have an issue with it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Not my idea, but I would not have an issue with it.

Pretty sure I posted that exact idea here some time ago. Take to the gun to the police station (or other designated area), the seller meets you there, background check on the spot.