Most dangerous job is gun repo men

[Lithium381]

common sense means different things to different people, especially when you compare gun-owners (who know a thing or two about guns) to people who have no clue whatsoever about guns.

many people are for magazine capacity limits. is it a "common sense" solution? my common sense tells me that anyone who wants to go on a shooting spree will do so, and will not stop until they encounter resistance. therefore, magazine size limits are virtually worthless, because no matter how many times the shooter needs to reload, they will not be opposed by anyone (until police arrive or unless there is someone on-scene with a CCW willing to provide immediate response)

many people are for "assault weapons" bans. what makes a firearm fall into the "assault weapon" category, and do these characteristics make them meaningfully more dangerous? many firearms owners will tell you a) "assault weapons" are just a made up category for legislation. there are only "assault rifles" which are select-fire (full-auto/burst/semi-auto or some combination of) and b) no, banning these firearms is neither effective nor sensible

is banning rifles with certain characteristics common sense? are they really any better or worse than any other semi-automatic weapon? there are plenty of other firearms that would do an equal or better job at killing people than an AR15. despite the expiration of the 1994 AWB, firearm homicide and violent crime rates have continued to fall from 2004-present. so does banning the AR15 and similar rifles make sense? to me and many other firearms owners, no, it doesn't.

does legislating restrictions on weapons that are used in ~5% of all firearm homicides seem sensible? shouldn't law enforcement and policy makers target high-crime areas and the root causes of said crime, rather than making sweeping restrictions or violations of 330 MILLION american citizens, including 100M+ law-abiding gun owners?

furthermore, the department of justice analysis has found that the 1994 AWB had no positive or negative effects on firearm homicides.

FBI crime data shows that both firearms homicides and violent crime have been dropping consistently for over 20 years. so despite the massive news coverage, america has never been safer

should we implement further restrictions, or perhaps even violate the 2nd amendment, despite the fact that we have data showing that current policies have been working?




the state or the public is no victim in personal drug use. using that logic, virtually anything could be legislated because it has a negative impact on society:

see Overlord Bloomberg in NYC.

banning sodas over 16oz
hiding tobacco products from countertops
using $12M of his own money to advance his anti-gun agenda

all in the name of "saving lives"

so much win!

 

[xj0hnx]

The victim is the general public, or the "state", in a possession case. The state maintains victim status, because drug addictions and dealings have a very negative impact on society overall from all aspects.

You don't have a specific victim, because we are all victims.

Except it's all based on circular reasoning, drugs are bad because they are illegal, drugs are illegal because they are bad. It's stupidity personified.

 

[Tom]

this is not the most dangerous job at all.

Its also a job that serves no purpose other than greed when many actually important and more dangerous jobs serve more important needs than someone's ability to be a money changer.

 

[Juror No. 8]

they are going after LEGAL prescribed drugs.

Then why are all those 24-hour pharmacies still in business where I live? How come they haven't been raided and shut down for selling all those addictive, deadly drugs?

"But, but, but..."

LOL.

 

[xj0hnx]

Then why are all those 24-hour pharmacies still in business where I live? How come they haven't been raided and shut down for selling all those addictive, deadly drugs?

"But, but, but..."

LOL.

Don't worry, as soon as some city council's daughter ends up in rehab for shooting dope, a habit that she gravitated to because the prescription pills street price was too high, those pill mills will be hit hard.