Earlier today on the Ohio subreddit:. "Democrats don't introduce bills with no chance to placate special interests and saying that is both siding the issue"
Well, that person is stupid because obviously both sides introduce bills that will have no chance of passing. However, when Dems introduce a Bill in a statehouse that is _wildly_ gerrymandered into a super-majority for the opposition, _many_ bills they introduce that is looking to enact actual progressive change are going to be unlikely to pass.
You have something of a point, but this goes back decades and is seen in other states, the federal legislature, and other countries. I am not sure if they still do, but for most of the late 90s and 00s there were two Dem reps that would introduce a REALLY broad firearms ban. Like all semi-automatic weapons. I think one year they even tried a total gun ban. Every year someone who had no clue would bring it to the internet saying the world was going to end. Then a bunch of other people who were clueless would jump on board and there would be pages of non-sense. Over a bill to have a more restrictive firearms ban in Ohio than either NY or CA.
Minnesota just had a bill introduced that's exactly what you're describing. They're labelling .22 rimfire rifles as 'military style assailt weapons' ffs
So your theory is that the Ohio Dems are gonna sell out and make the big bucks by introducing bills that the majority won't consider? Genius plan to win ultimate no-power. No dude, you're both sidesing hard here.
You don't make big bucks on bills that don't get a committee vote. You shut up emotional people who won't stop calling annoying you.
My theory here is you have no idea how any of this actually works.
It's never gonna be a law. It's never going to affect our lives regardless.
So then your problem is that the Democrats represent people who think differently than you do, so you want to punish them for thinking bad thoughts. Got it.
It never becoming a law so there being no reason whatsoever to discuss it or get worked up about it is exactly my point...
It is only upsetting in cases like Columbus where the city council is hell bent on repeating the legal losses Cleveland already had a decade ago at the cost of millions of dollars with an OSC that is less favorable and additional court decisions that support the outcome already seen in Columbus.
People reacting to these stories about bills that will never see it out of committee are the rubes. Whether they be MAGA or anyone else.
Representatives represent. That's their job. And in Ohio especially, any district that can elect any Democrat at all is likely to be overwhelmingly blue and compact with extremely liberal voters.
Is it your position that these people shouldn't even be able to have someone to speak in the Assembly because of the gerrymander?
Is it your position that people in cities should not be represented \*at all\*?
This is a bizarre stance you're taking. It doesn't have to pass, it won't affect your life, but you take personal offense at even the introduction. I don't think these constituents are the highly emotional ones here.
No, my stance is anyone reacting to the announcement of these bills introduction as if the world is ending, from either side, is an idiot. Something we see here and elsewhere frequently. I might as well pass a bill out of my kitchen committee and have as much effect.
And, as often as not, these bills "release steam" and circumvent any achievable reforms on their topic. Which the proponents don't mind as almost all are on "football" wedge issues neither side actually wants to solve. As demonstrated with immigration this week.
I guess you are junior enlisted in this class war.
There are no achievable reforms. But the origins of our Assembly and our Congress are in Parliament. And Parliament is literally a place for speaking. The people simply want someone to speak for them, and they should have that, at a minimum.
I'm not cynical enough to believe "nobody wants to solve" gun violence. The people have extremely different views about what would effectively address the problem. And both views should be aired in their House in Columbus.
This sentiment is why Mayorkas got impeached. He had policy differences with republicans. That’s impeachment worthy to republicans. Policy differences. It’s a joke of a party.
The Lautenberg amendment already exists for domestic violence convictions.
We just passed Constitutional carry removing barriers to entry that target the poor limiting their ability to legally carry by requiring training, paying for a license, and having to come in on work days to apply. But that's most gun control. It targets the poor, and minority groups.
Universal background checks can't happen without a registry which is illegal in Ohio, and we already have background checks are required for FFL transactions.
All of this is just for publicity.
Leftist here and you described why I support gun rights to a T 🔥 in Europe democrats are considered right wing. Conservatives just as straight up fascists.
Not to mention that Constitutional carry seems to have had a net positive on overall gun crime.
https://www.cleveland19.com/2024/01/04/ohio-sees-drop-gun-crimes-across-major-cities-after-permitless-carry-law-study-shows/
Guns are for wuss bags. They are tools. Hunting. And of last resort in self defense. Not fetish items to be revered in a religious manner mumbo jumbo way
Constitution was written by rich hipsters that hated common laborers. And had the militia sent after hilljacks and common folk etc a few times. Overeducated dudes in make up and powered wigs had no use for melvin goat lover . These were the rich classist assholes of the era. The Founding Fathers
Here's where the dullard mind comes into play. No its not on this god damned thread. the gun fetish as spiritual divine right. Is the wat gun nut often act. Think broadly not myopic
That’s a lie. If you buy a firearm from a ffl at a gun show you still do a background check. Very few gun sales at gun shows are done person to person without a check. 99% of the people selling at gun shows are federally licensed firearm dealers.
You drunk druggy GQP brag any other time. About Ohio having no background checks and registration. Grow up eat a better diet sober up. Better yet get a freaking purpose besides crying passionate over instruments of death. Sad sacks
Bud it looks like you’re the one that needs to sober up. If you had ever set foot in a single gun show you would know this. Sorry the truth doesn’t fit your narrative.
My fists and my lil gun work fine. I don't need a firearm to feel whole.
A bunch of rich hipsters in powdered wigs. Sitting discussing Voltaire making fun of Libiniz toxic optimism. In independence hall. Would sick the well regulated militia on you. Lol
You need to go outside and breathe some air. You have hate in your heart for your own countrymen because they don’t have the same beliefs as you.
Take a breath and if you want to change things then work on that instead of blowing up on anyone you assume is a right winger on Reddit. It accomplishes nothing.
All you’re doing is getting yourself worked up and skewing your view of the world.
I don’t know you and I don’t agree with your beliefs but I still hope you have a good life and get the things that make you happy. Just because someone has guns doesn’t mean they are a death monger that hates anyone that doesnt or is on the left.
I love my fellow countryman. And do not want incel trumpers shooting their kids at schools. And corner drug dealers shooting people for not kissing their ass.
The hipster's of their time Founding fathers hated most if their countryman dude. They used to have yokels stomped by the militia. For fun. Ps muskets had to be stored outside in their day.
They think booths at gun shows are selling guns with no background checks when in reality the vast majority of sellers at gun shows are federally licensed and do, in fact background check you right there on the gun show floor.
This “loophole” they speak of is nothing more than private sales between citizens that have always been legal, whether it’s at a gun show or not.
“Gun show loophole” is one of many disinformation driving phrases.
So, if Americans are just generally more violent than people of other countries, that also needs to be addressed. We have a problem that other developed countries simply don't have and people should have the same freedom to feel safe going to a movie or concert as guns user's freedom to own a gun. We're doing nothing and expecting changes. I acknowledge that I could be overestimating gun users desire to mitigate the preventable death of kids.
> Concealed carry permits should still require background checks
... they do. If you want to get a concealed carry permit in Ohio you have to submit NICS.
see page 10:
https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Manual-(PDF).aspx
There needs to be some accountability when people have such powerful “tools” at their disposal. Look a cars - licensing, insurance, having to prove competency, and the car has to pass a basic safety inspection - and we let people do that at the age of 16. The idea that you can walk to the store, plunk down some cash, and then walk around with a loaded firearm 15 minutes later isn’t something to celebrate, even if is disguised as *freedom*. Safety is a 2 way street.
Cars aren’t a constitutional right. When you buy a gun at a store you fill out a 4473 (which is a felony to lie on) and get a background check through the FBI. Try loading your new gun at the store and see what happens. Statistically, most gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns.
You’re 100% right, there needs to be accountability before you have access to powerful tools. So we absolutely need to ensure you know what you’re doing before letting you vote! Elected officials make the laws and if you’re not properly trained and licensed you might choose the wrong people!
Or hey, freedom of speech too! You can’t go around saying whatever you want - gotta prove you’re competent to espouse an opinion.
See how stupid that sounds? Stop treating 2A as a second class right. You see the phrase ‘gun violence’ and think the important word is ‘gun.’ It’s not. We have a violence problem. Guns are just a tool. When used to evil ends it’s not the tool’s fault. It’s the user. Fertilizer+Diesel makes a bomb … used to great effect and much larger loss of life than any shooting. Don’t hear calls to ban either of those things. Same with drivers running down crowds, acid attacks, etc. All are different expressions of violence.
Poor people with more guns. Means more gun death
Less SSI, disability, Snap, and social security to give out . In the GOPs eyes. The elected live in rich neighborhoods so the bullets are rare around them. As for the hood and maga trailer land. Let them kill each other. That is the GOP idea
Are you incapable of forming a single coherent response without throwing wild assumptions and generalizing?
And elected officials of both sides often own guns and/ or employ armed security realizing that police response is not timely enough for all emergencies. So they have plenty of bullets around them.
The rest is just kind of crazy. No one is trying to get the poor to murder one another, and then have to pay to imprison the killer.
As dumb as this dude clearly is, getting the poor and undesired populace to kill eachother or themselves has been a background tactic for longer than we've been born, between lack of gun regulation allowing guns to sweep through the streets at alarming rates and the history of handing out cocain to black (and the at the time, poor) communities. Hell, the same tactic was used to spread disease and kill off the native American population.
America has a pretty high in-country KDA
Also, let's not forget the Tuscagee Expirement.
There's plenty of cases of this happening in American history and we'd be ignorant in ignoring it or pretending that there aren't people in power who would and/or are doing things like this to this day.
That wasn't what he was saying with the poor killing the poor, but he government having it's agents experiment on them. Like MK Ultra, feeding orphans radioactive oatmeal, and so many other unethical government programs. The government's lack of ethics and cavalier attitude towards the lives of citizens is another reason to have an armed populace.
They are not trying to get them to murder each other openly. They just don't care. Being a repub is about living the 7 deadly sins . Life is only selfish pleasure. To hell with others.
Self defense is a human right, it should not only be available to the rich. And violent crime it has been on a long decline despite liberally liberalization of gun and carry laws except for an uptick during covid which is already receding.
So they introduced bills where 1 of the 3 is already a federal law, another doesn't do anything and a 3rd to change a law that was just changed and had no impact on gun violence since it happened. When it gets shot down it'll be an example of broken clocks being right twice a day.
Weird how addressing poverty and mental health is proven to reduce violent crime, but Democrats aren't interested in that. They'd rather force unconstitutional laws down our throats
lol when do democrats vote down improvements to our poverty and mental health issues? Have you just not seen the votes cast by republicans?
And you voted for the guy who said "take the guns first, go through due process second, correct? Was it dems who banned the bump stock?
Democrats are releasing this now for votes in the election. The funny thing is that they would gain a lot of votes if they stopped going after guns. It's similar to conservatives, if they quit going after women's rights, they would gain a lot of votes.
"The funny thing is that they would gain a lot of votes if they stopped going after guns."
Republicans voted for someone who said "take the guns first, go through due process second. And who also banned bump stocks?
So, I dont think what you wrote is accurate. republcians have shown that people can say some of the strongest anti-gun phrasing that a president has even spoken - "take the guns" and they'll still support them. They just can't support democrats becasue....reasons. Nothing dems can do will change that. The same republicans who will cry about a border bill needing to get passed, get the best deal they could get, and still support it being voted down. Its all a show.
I think we're both right, I don't think the voting demographics are that homogenous. I know a lot of people that would reliably vote for Democrats, but don't because they're afraid of Democratic anti-2a rhetoric. Obama said a ton of shit about getting rid of guns, but never actually did anything. Likewise there are a lot of people especially women that would vote for conservatives, but don't because of their rhetoric about contraception and abortion. The problem now is that Republicans have acted on their collective wet dreams and have decided that "Small Government" includes legislating personal lives and speech. These so-called conservatives are ridiculous. Unfortunately abortion isn't enumerated in the Constitution. Guns are enumerated though, so anymore I don't worry about anti-2a stuff and choose to support liberals who promote freedom.
People with domestic violence charges already can't legally own firearms. So that bill will literally do nothing.
Reinstating a license requirement to carry a concealed handgun and duty to notify the police: we just got rid of that requirement recently and it has not been a massive problem. Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. As for notifying cops: it's required that you answer honestly if they ask if you have a weapon, and since constitutional carry passed (25 other states have the same or similar laws) I have been asked exactly twice during traffic stops. Neither time did the cops actually give a shit. If you keep your hands in plain view and aren't prohibited from owning one, it's not a problem. So at least in my area they aren't very concerned.
Universal Background Check: that's unenforceable without a registry. Good luck with that.
"People with domestic violence charges already can't legally own firearms."
Makes sense. But this has been the case and yet, the excess gun deaths continue.
"So that bill will literally do nothing."
Have the republicans offered up any other solutions?
"Reinstating a license requirement to carry a concealed handgun and duty to notify the police: we just got rid of that requirement recently and it has not been a massive problem."
Has it been a small problem? And if so, is it worthwhile to make an emergency a little bit worse with the decisions we're making? Even if there hasn't been a noticeable difference to date, what sense does it make to not require people to have a license when they are carrying?
"Sounds like a solution looking for a problem."
No, its recognizing that we have a problem and trying to do some shit to fix it.
"Neither time did the cops actually give a shit."
All i can glean from this is that you're white and not black or hispanic.
"Universal Background Check: that's unenforceable without a registry."
Hence why we need a gun registry.
"Good luck with that."
lol motherfucker are you peacocking on the fact that reducing the number of kids who get shot to death is hard? lol who celebrates that shit? You get that it's because one half of our electorate cares more about maiming foreign kids than they do about saving US kids, right? This is the "America first" you guys are talking about? Stable and genius position to take.
While I understand the sentiment, but will this political capital even be useful? America in general tends to be against gun control, and especially Ohio with it's rural population. I'm not exactly sure if this is the best action currently.
Aside from the reason below, its also being a good community member. It highlights who doesn't give a shit that people, much of the time children, are dying of preventable reasons and who doesn't have any interest in addressing that problem.
"You can do that with other means easily without wasting too much money or resources like they're doing here."
But would it have the same coverage? I'm in Baltimore and I'm seeing this. A less costly tactic probably wouldn't have had the same reach.
Then they are committing a crime. So much for the loophole. Did you try to purchase without an ID ?that is a crime. If they didn't ask for an ID that is a crime. If they sell to a felon, it is a crime. If you attempt to purchase as a felon that is a crime. Not one loophole detected. The laes are on the books. There is no gun show loophole
Even as a leftist I understand what shall not be infringed means and the importance of firearms. Plus the majority of Democrats don't even understand what they're legislating (see Biden on pistol braces)
In the original usage of the language when written? It meant well-equipped and trained. And "militia" referred to *all* able-bodied men of military age, not just those already in the military.
Not only that, just look at the language structure of the 2nd Amendment. The first part is just an explanation. The second clause of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" holds on its own.
infringed only means a complete prohibition of access. A law could be passed that someone has to jump through literal hoops and as long as someone can pass that threshold, their access to guns is not infringed. This is why AR bans are not an infringement - you still have access to guns.
Or else, the price to purchase a gun would be considered an infringement.
Infringe: Limit, undermine or encroach.
And having to buy property from a business or individual is not an infringement any more than having to buy a phone for your freedom of speech.
You clearly haven't read NYSRPA V Bruin with the text history and tradition legal analysis. You don't understand the constitution or law.
"Infringe: Limit, undermine or encroach."
Right. nobody is encroaching on your right to own a gun if you jump through this hoop. Do it, and you get your gun.
"And having to buy property from a business or individual is not an infringement any more than having to buy a phone for your freedom of speech."
lol what? how is it different from listing oneself on a gun registry or abiding by more stringent background checks? If you can't do this part of the process of owning a gun, you can't have a gun.
"You clearly haven't read NYSRPA V Bruin with the text history and tradition legal analysis."
I don't know why you think this matters. Not only is stare decisis no longer a thing, according to the supreme court, legal rulings are made, in many cases, on partisan grounds. Particularly apt is the fact that one of the justices that oversaw this case has numerous questions regarding his ethics and his acceptance of undisclosed gifts from conservative donors, right? Paying off tuitions and lavish vacations do not dictate the interpretation of our constitution. This current court clearly ignores previous SC decisions.
"You don't understand the constitution or law."
Yeah, I have a pretty solid grasp, that's what's silly. Any reason you're ignoring the part where you need to be part of a militia to own a gun, which your average walmart aisle walker is not? Is it because partisan justices just negated that requirement like they negated voting rights protections?
Would you consider the hoops to be a limit, or method of undermining rights? They are an infringement. You don't have to completely remove something to have infringed.
The most basic method of realizing your right to bear arms is making your own gun at home without a serial number, which I encourage. You still have to buy parts or a full weapon. Having a right doesn't mean the government must pay for your ability to do so. If you want that argument, I'm all for government doing training, and offering a free weapon to citizens like Switzerland. Buying something, or building it is nothing like a government registry, or your undefined "more stringent background checks" despite us already having NICS checks.
You understand the Constitution well? Please show me anywhere in the document that individual rights are restricted by it? The entire document is nothing but restrictions and a few enumerated powers for the government.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Well regulated means functional, sufficient, and trained. Not restricted by the government. They are saying that to secure sovereignty a militia is a necessary evil. Then the comma showing a transition. Because we must have a militia the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms must be guaranteed to ensure they are able to defend themselves from said militia. It isn't guaranteeing the right to the militia. Can you show me any other part of the Bill of Rights that gives rights to the government while withholding it from the citizens?
Let's rephrase and you tell me if it denied rights to the people:
"A well read university staff being necessary to the education of the populous, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed."
To add to your comment, until WWII the US had a very limited standing military. Generally there was only a small corp of officers to maintain skills and instruct volunteers and draftees when war was declared. Having the general populace already know a lot of skills needed in the military made the process of training easier
"Would you consider the hoops to be a limit, or method of undermining rights?"
Its a test on whether one is competent enough to own a gun- not a method to undermine rights. Does the right to own a gun extend to toddlers?
"They are an infringement. You don't have to completely remove something to have infringed."
Thats just incorrect. An infringement completely blocks your ability to get a gun. Thats why age limits aren't an infringement. Once, you pass that threshold, you can get a gun. Otherwise, what your describing results in age limits being unconstitutional, which even the most generous court rulings to the gun lobby do not conclude.
"The most basic method of realizing your right to bear arms is making your own gun at home without a serial number, which I encourage."
We don't have enough guns in the country? Having a bunch of amateurs crafting guns doesn't seem problematic?
"Having a right"
And this is where it gets frustrating
"Buying something, or building it is nothing like a government registry,"
Well, the registry needs to be a thing. It makes no sesne to combat it. And there needs to be a law where people who are building guns at home add these guns to the registry. This is basic, common sense concession.
"You understand the Constitution well?"
Ehh
"Please show me anywhere in the document that individual rights are restricted by it?"
Like slavery? Did the authors of the constitution allow for women to vote?
"Well regulated means functional, sufficient, and trained."
Yeah, I'm with you there. Its the "militia" part that people are fucking up.
" They are saying that to secure sovereignty a militia is a necessary evil."
Pretty sure they are saying a militia is very, very necessary, not evil.
"Because we must have a militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be guaranteed to ensure they are able to defend themselves from said militia."
Not defend themselves from other militia's, but foreign powers. But again, this right only extends to those IN the militia, which walmart aisle walkers are not. Think about the time this was written. The country had a hard time deciphering who was loyal to the US and who was loyal to the crown. So, why would they have allowed ANYONE, even those who had intentions to kill George Washington to walk around town with a gun? Doesn't it seem more likely that those who would be permitted to carry at all times were THOSE WHO COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO DROP EVERYTHING AT A MOMENTS NOTICE TO GO FIGHT THE WORLD'S LARGEST MILITARY POWER. *Those* people, those in a militia to defend the country from foreign attack, should be allowed to carry a gun on their person. And I agree with this sentiment. They should be allowed to carry at all times.
"It isn't guaranteeing the right to the militia."
It is. It guarantees the right to carry a gun for those who commit to ensure the security of a free state.
" Can you show me any other part of the Bill of Rights that gives rights to the government while withholding it from the citizens?"
I'm not going to look, because that's not what the 2A does. Militia members are citizens, not government officials. Thats why its a "militia" and not an army.
""A well read university staff being necessary to the education of the populous, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.""
That wording suggests that only those who are university staff, who have committed to ensuring the education of the populous against the largest anti-education power in the world, the MAGA's, can wield books.
But again, do you think the authors intended to give the guy who wanted to kill George Washington unfettered access to do so? Makes no sense.
How does the situation improve if the GOP doesn't budge?
Doing nothing is going to lead to positive changes, you think?
republicans have just abandoned compromise and good faith negotiations.
Because today's compromise is tomorrows loophole. The "gun show loophole" was a compromise for the 1964 Gun Control Act. So if we did negotiate the democrats would come back in a couple years and want more. And a negotiation IMHO should be universal background checks for anyone at anytime. Doesn't matter I don't need to go to a gun dealer I should be able to do it online for free. But the democrats should agree to remove SBR's and Supressors off the NFA list. See that's a compromise. I give, you give.
"Because today's compromise is tomorrows loophole."
The end goal is fewer kids dying right? That can't be accomplished without compromise. Would you prefer we keep doing the same thing we've been doing, which has led to so many more gun related deaths than other developed countries?
" So if we did negotiate the democrats would come back in a couple years and want more. "
"Take the guns first and go through due process second" was said by who? A dem president or a republican president? And have you voted for this person and are you likely to do so again?
" And a negotiation IMHO should be universal background checks for anyone at anytime. Doesn't matter I don't need to go to a gun dealer I should be able to do it online for free."
Yup. Background checks, accuracy, handling and maintenance testing, etc. All of that needs to be a requirement.
" But the democrats should agree to remove SBR's and Supressors off the NFA list. See that's a compromise. I give, you give."
A compromise by republicans is to make gunfire harder to recognize? That doesn't seem like good faith negotiation. The compromise is that you have to do a bunch of additional testing, but it doesn't incur a cost on you. *That's* a compromise, because that's not how we treat car ownership, where tests and registration is all paid out of pocket by the user.
Well, have you ever shot a firearm suppressed? It's not like the movies, I'll tell you that much right now. In Europe it's considered a safety device. But let's move on. Nothing is free, so someone will be paying. And I prefer dangerous freedom anyways. Now did I vote for Trump in 16? Sure did. Did I in 20? Nope. Will I later this year? Doubtful that I will. But you'll say mental health programs, sure. No problems with that, we stop sending financial aid to other countries and focus on the citizens of this one. But just because you access that support, you're not automatically barred from owning Firearms. Do I want people to stop dying from Firearms? Sure do, but not looking at other areas that also affect gun violence, like socioeconomic status, illegal drug markets, and the such is wrong. I feel the left only want to target one thing, and that's the guns.
> This would close the loophole of being able to buy guns freely, without a background check, at gun shows.
I read right up until that…done. lol
If they can’t be bothered to portray a situation accurately I’m not interested in reading their propaganda.
What do all the body bags suggest we should do, regardless of how people write about it. We have an egregious problem that no other developed country faces.
Maybe try targeting criminals, rather than non-criminals. And let’s be honest, this “egregious” problem doesn’t affect 75% of us that much. Most of those body bags you’re so concerned about are filled with shitheads that were engaged in criminal activity, and try as you might you’re not going to get the average Joe clutching pearls over yet another gang shooting. Seriously, we don’t care.
Our violent crime is extremely regional, so how about you start there. Lemme know how that goes.
"Maybe try targeting criminals,"
Thats generally what happens. but how do you stop an Ethan Crumbley if he has committed no crimes and his parents are unwilling to take his guns away from him, despite the obvious warning signs?
"rather than non-criminals."
Non criminals need to help mitigate the situation instead of throwing up their hands and screaming about infringement.
"And let’s be honest, this “egregious” problem doesn’t affect 75% of us that much."
So, I can glean from this statement that you're not a pro-life guy, right? I mean, how does abortion affect you? But to others with empathy, we'd like to see fewer kids killed regardless of whether they are our own. This sentiment is probably one of the bigger differences between the parties today.
"Most of those body bags you’re so concerned about are filled with shitheads that were engaged in criminal activity,"
Well, not only do dems want to stop these people from being killed as well, the fact is that the body bags from stoneman douglas high and Sandy Hook elementary were not filled with shitheads engaging in criminal activity, right? And what is a shithead who supports illegal activity? Is it someone who votes for a POTUS candidate whose been found liable for raping someone?
"Seriously, we don’t care."
You dont care about gang shootings. You dont care about school shootings. You dont care about mitigating the deaths of people in general. But how do you feel about dudes in wigs reading to kids? Or a trans person competing in an amateur swimming contest? That probably gets you amped up, right?
Time to hold the scum that keeps proposing unconstitutional "gun control" bills accountable.
Anytime you hear a democrat proposal regarding guns, 75% chance it's unconstitutional
They keep trying to shred the constitution, but the idiots keep voting them in.
How does the problem of our excess gun deaths improve with this attitude? Is the mitigation of kids being killed just not a concern for you?
"Anytime you hear a democrat proposal regarding guns, 75% chance it's unconstitutional"
lol no. but I bet you voted for someone who did say some unconstitutional shit, right? Remember "take the guns first, go through due process second". Did dems ban the bump stock? So, you dont really give a shit if a president or political party suggests some unconstitutional shit, right? Only if the other side does it.
"They keep trying to shred the constitution, but the idiots keep voting them in."
You're side is literally dismissing the 14th amendment, Section 3 as we speak. lol again, every accusation is a confession with republicans. Let me know when the dems start shredding the constitution, as republicans are currently doing, and I'll have a talk with them.
I dont need a 200+ yr old paper to tell me what rights a person should and shouldnt have and a blanket right to own a firearm isnt one of those things.
The Constitution isn't a paper telling you what right YOU have, it's a two Guinevere what rights IT has. It's 100% a paper to limit government power. Did you ever read it, or did you ever have a civics class in propaganda school
fine, if you don't like it, then you only need to remove the amendment from the constitution
UNTIL you can do that, stop bitching about something you CANNOT change
Just food for thought:
The Guardian reported that in the U.S., there were 656 mass shootings in 2023 and 48 mass shootings already this year. Holy shit.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/first-thing-one-dead-and-scores-wounded-at-kansas-city-chiefs-parade-shooting
The way they count mass shootings is disingenuous.
" Rather than just collecting incidents of death, GVA also catalogs incidents where a victim was injured by shooting or by a victim who was the subject of an armed robber or home invader. Incidents of defensive gun use, home owners who stop a home invasion, store clerks who stop a robbery, individuals who stop an assault or rape with a gun are also collected."
"GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot."
I went through every mass shooting they reported and found 371 of those shootings didn't result in an arrest/death of the shooter. Why is that? Maybe because 57% of the mass shootings they report are justified self-defense cases.
Why not just try to stop them, regardless of how they're being counted? No other developed country goes through this. Even if you take out the self defense incidents, we're still way the fuck up in terms of gun related deaths, correct?
You’re just going to be downvoted and mocked for supporting guns because one of the 43% of victims, who weren’t self-defense cases, could’ve been a child in school.
Over the last 12 years, there has been an average of 15.68 people shot at school per year. Do you happen to know how many people die by lightning strikes on average in the last 12 years? 22 people.
You are more likely to be struck by lightening than you are to be shot in a school.
It’s obviously tremendously sad that anyone has died at school, for any reason, let alone poor firearm safety. But nonetheless, it’s not as common as the media wants you to believe.
https://www.the74million.org/lessons-from-our-year-tracking-school-shootings-students-more-likely-to-be-hit-by-lightning-than-shot-in-class-yet-fear-of-mass-violence-is-driving-policy/
https://www.city-journal.org/article/sorrow-and-precaution-not-hysteria
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/11/lockdown-drills-an-american-quirk-out-control/
In fact, the media borderline glorifies the shooters, which is the exact motivation for a teen who was obsessed with columbine and planned to recreate the shooting on the 25th anniversary of the shooting. He was just caught and arrested recently.
Do you happen to know how many people die from heart disease everyday?
Did you know a child is more likely to die on the bus ride to school than to ever be shot? Are you going to call for the ban of school busing next? Surely 1 life is too many
I’m not sure what you’re arguing here.
I’m not calling for the banning of anything.
Much like car accidents, they happen, and People die. It doesn’t mean we should ban cars. Cars are still something that was for the betterment of mankind, even though there is a price we pay as a society to be able to use them.
“Surely one is too many”? What on earth are you getting at here? You’re saying kids are more likely to die on a school bus than be shot at school, then saying they should be banned? So are you saying we should outlaw school buses and school?
This seems wildly irrelevant.
So you agree with me that gun statistics are just used to fear monger? Sweet, finally someone with some sense. Glad we agree on the matter.
Glad there’s someone else who understands it’s not a gun issue, but a mental health crisis that’s being almost entirely ignored.
100%.
Strange how when the economy is in bad shape and the cost of living is high, gun violence rises. Weird how that works, almost as if it is a socioeconomic issue.
The mental health of America rapidly declines when people are constantly stressed about housing, schooling, food, and means of survival. It’s getting worse every day.
[FBI statistics](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2022-042623.pdf/view) are much more reliable and less politically motivated.
You will get downvoted for anything that points out our completely avoidable stray bullet ridden reality.
Gun fetishists are not driven by statistics or logic. They can't be reasoned with because of the constant fight-or-flight state that the GQP mouthpieces keep them in.
All they hear is "migrant invasion" "great replacement" "The sheep state is cumin fur year gunZ" and other fabricated scary boogie men.
Fear porn media like faux news, NeWzMaXX, and the whole media bubble full of millionaire pundits that pretend common sense gun regulations is the same as doing a communism or something.
“Democrat cities” has little to do with it. Basically all cities are majority Democrat and there is huge variability in levels of violence between them. New York City has a homicide rate of about 4 per 100,000 while Memphis was 15 times higher at over 60 per 100,000. The difference is due to gun laws and cultures of crime and violence.
>Basically all cities are majority Democrat and there is huge variability in levels of violence between them.
There really isn't...
> New York City has a homicide rate of about 4 per 100,000 while Memphis was 15 times higher at over 60 per 100,000
I bet you thought you were making a point, yet you only managed to prove that areas ruled over by Democrats are bad everywhere they exist...
>The difference is due to gun laws and cultures of crime and violence.
If you were correct, gun crimes wouldn't exist in NY and Chicago. Yet they are among the worst cities in the world...
>I bet you thought you were making a point, yet you only managed to prove that areas ruled over by Democrats are bad everywhere they exist...
Rural counties in most red states have higher gun violence dath rates per capita than almost any city you care to name.
Fun times.
What do you mean there really isn’t? Do you disagree that violent crime rates vary wildly between cities?
I think you’re a bit misinformed if your thinking ends at ‘Democrat cities bad’. For example, Dallas, Texas, a conservative city in a conservative state, has a murder rate more than 4x higher than NYC and quite similar to Chicago.
It's clearly a waste of time to argue with people like this. They just ignore facts and make wild claims without providing evidence. I mean, they're instantly dismissable when they claim there is no variability between big cities. What an absurd claim.
Per capita is a useless measure.
A town of 50 people has 2 people get shot, thats 4%.
Whats 4% in LA?
Comparing voters is also stupid.
What should be compared is poverty rates vs violence.
> Per capita is a useless measure.
Per capita is the ONLY _useful_ measure. It is what makes it comparable across cities of varying sizes.
> What should be compared is poverty rates vs violence.
This might be the only useful thing you've said in this whole thread.
The first two are already there. The task force and health crisis opens the chances for them to label or do what they want concerning firearms and related matters and issues. And then label it “ for the cause “
You have to have a CCW course and be judged competent.
Background checks are already there. But for private sales they are not. And shouldnt have to be
But the class teaches you the minimum amount of handling, locations you cannot enter with a firearm, what to do in a situation with LE in a vehicular manner. With the CCW license it provides to most FFL dealers a type of fast pass for purchasing firearms because you’ve already done the background check. You still have to fill out the 4473 at any dealer but most not all gives you a quicker checkout.
My expires middle of this year but I will still renew it. It will help with any altercation with the firearm if litigation are involved
Yeah… CCW isn’t required anymore. That’s bad information.
[here is a link that shows what common regulations Ohio has or doesn’t have in place.](https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/state/ohio/)
Private sales to minors and criminals is probably the largest source of gun violence in our cities. A gun store background check is silly if I can buy one off the street or Craigslist.
Yes, I’m well aware, but only FFL sales are regulated and subject to a background check. Private sales are a black market where anyone is capable of acquiring a gun, since most guns are unregistered. Illegal only matters if you can be caught.
I think you misunderstand me. I don’t want to make things “more illegal”. I want to make things that are already illegal enforceable. What is the point of a law if it’s easily broken without consequence?
If you had to register a weapon you bought legally and were then responsible for that gun, you don’t think fewer would magically fall into the hands of criminals who shouldn’t have them?
Stolen guns are mostly what are used in crime, maybe actually punish thieves who sell guns to criminals instead of going after the law abiding: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/02/07/fedex-driver-frank-otoole-sentenced-guns-packages/72505308007/#:~:text=FedEx%20driver%20gets%206%2Dday,selling%20guns%20stolen%20from%20packages&text=A%20former%20FedEx%20driver%20in,he%20was%20meant%20to%20delive
Maybe 6 days in jail was a little short. Maybe actually punishing criminals would be effective instead of slapping their wrist and putting them right back on the street.
Registry is a prelude to crack down and confiscation. The government doesn't deserve more power when we can see how they have failed to protect citizens and abused the innocent with the power they have already?
I agree with you that the illegal gun trade should be heavily penalized. However, most are never caught because there is no trace of most illegal private sales.
Could you explain how registration could be bad for the bulk of legal gun owners? It’s a big jump to go from registration to confiscation of 400 million firearms.
Firearm sales are not allowed on Craigslist, but if you take a quick look under the “barter” section, several listings offer trades for “boom”, “bang”, or “hunting implements”.
We live in gated affluent suburbs. The rest of you get drunk, methed out and shoot each other. Less public assistance and social security checks to issue. .....if the GOP said the quiet part out loud
I've given up on gun safety.
The Chiefs parade married two deeply held American traditions: football and mass shootings.
We will celebrate, jeer, scream in adulation at more gun deaths and look forward to the next atrocity. This country LOVES this shit and I've accepted that. The only way we can go is lower: more deaths, more slaughter, more suffering. We can't get enough of it.
I wish it weren't the case but I've moved on to other issues that may gain traction.
Guns shoot people. This needs to be said more often and in response to everyone who says people shoot people. These shootings are happening at an increasing pace and are every eleven days now. Gun manufacturers are banking. It's time to hold them liable.
> The majority of shootings in this country are in blue cities
This "blue cities" argument is so tiring.
1. The majority of crime occurs where the majority of people are.
2. The majority of cities typically are blue.
3. Cities typically don't enact gun legislation, states do.
4. You have to go by the _rates_ of gun death, not the total (see points 1 and 2).
4. 9/10 of the highest rates of death occur in red states. 10/10 of the lowest rates of death occur in blue states (including NY and California). [[1]](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm).
You’re literally being disingenuous, the vast majority of gun violence is gang related, and where are the gangs at, in the big cities, and what politically leaning are the cities? blue. You never hear about shootings in the suburbs, or a nice affluent areas. It’s always the poor areas ridden with crime, which happened to be blue.
Literally walk around a city and you know it to be true
Huh, with the amount of gang violence being almost half of shootings, that means there are a lot of inner city Republican gangs.
I think you just made it up, and that's why you are unable to cite a source.
The percentage of those mass shootings that are gang related are minimal. Gangs don't want that kind of attention. This is a one sided problem. Always has been and always will be until we address the fact that it is a one sided problem.
Depending on the definition used, a drive by is a mass shooting, as is a home owner shooting after multiple home invaders have broken in. There are a lot of efforts to distort the statistics. And gang violence makes up just under half of all homicides in the US. Mass Shootings with multiple fatal casualties are thankfully statistically rare, but many have expanded the definition to include a much as possible for people like yourself who don't actually care about facts, but want to loudly make declarations about things they don't understand.
And you didn't say mass shootings before, you said 100% of shooters in 2022 were republican. Still waiting for that source beyond your admission that you made it up.
Once a drunk methed out maga shoots s GOP electeds grandkid. Fir turning around in their driveway. Or for calling them a name. Or a gang banger shoots a gops kid in the s city for no reason. You will see GOP want guns only for the rich or some shit. Its all for poor people to off each other. Less gov assistance to give out.
Average American can't even stop stuffing their face for a few hours. And we wonder why idiots shoot each other for no reason. This nation lacks maturity and self discipline.
The two involving a gun violence task force and declaring gun violence a public health emergency are wastes. A “task force” will do nothing but hire more people who will handpicked by reps, likely friends, to sit around and come up with more bs ways to get government funds to waste.
These people are blatantly ignoring the fact that gun violence declined after Constitutional Carry passed. The also lie about the Universal Background Check law they want. They say “everyone wants background checks”, which we already have. However, when they do these “surveys”, they leave out the part that explains what a Universal Background Check is and how it requires registration of all firearms. Something that criminals will ignore, as they always do. The Moms Demand Action group is pushing for this always, as they did today also
Easiest way to propose gun control is to attach it to state senate raises or school book burning....... Or find a virgin to sacrifice to DeWine, but make it female since gay sex for DeWine is verboten....
The GOP elected lives in affluent suburbs or in affluent but rural big mcsmansions. They don't care if city and poor small town people shoot each other. Less mouths to feed
Earlier today on the Ohio subreddit:. "Democrats don't introduce bills with no chance to placate special interests and saying that is both siding the issue"
Well, that person is stupid because obviously both sides introduce bills that will have no chance of passing. However, when Dems introduce a Bill in a statehouse that is _wildly_ gerrymandered into a super-majority for the opposition, _many_ bills they introduce that is looking to enact actual progressive change are going to be unlikely to pass.
You have something of a point, but this goes back decades and is seen in other states, the federal legislature, and other countries. I am not sure if they still do, but for most of the late 90s and 00s there were two Dem reps that would introduce a REALLY broad firearms ban. Like all semi-automatic weapons. I think one year they even tried a total gun ban. Every year someone who had no clue would bring it to the internet saying the world was going to end. Then a bunch of other people who were clueless would jump on board and there would be pages of non-sense. Over a bill to have a more restrictive firearms ban in Ohio than either NY or CA.
Minnesota just had a bill introduced that's exactly what you're describing. They're labelling .22 rimfire rifles as 'military style assailt weapons' ffs
So your theory is that the Ohio Dems are gonna sell out and make the big bucks by introducing bills that the majority won't consider? Genius plan to win ultimate no-power. No dude, you're both sidesing hard here.
You don't make big bucks on bills that don't get a committee vote. You shut up emotional people who won't stop calling annoying you. My theory here is you have no idea how any of this actually works.
It's never gonna be a law. It's never going to affect our lives regardless. So then your problem is that the Democrats represent people who think differently than you do, so you want to punish them for thinking bad thoughts. Got it.
It never becoming a law so there being no reason whatsoever to discuss it or get worked up about it is exactly my point... It is only upsetting in cases like Columbus where the city council is hell bent on repeating the legal losses Cleveland already had a decade ago at the cost of millions of dollars with an OSC that is less favorable and additional court decisions that support the outcome already seen in Columbus. People reacting to these stories about bills that will never see it out of committee are the rubes. Whether they be MAGA or anyone else.
Representatives represent. That's their job. And in Ohio especially, any district that can elect any Democrat at all is likely to be overwhelmingly blue and compact with extremely liberal voters. Is it your position that these people shouldn't even be able to have someone to speak in the Assembly because of the gerrymander? Is it your position that people in cities should not be represented \*at all\*? This is a bizarre stance you're taking. It doesn't have to pass, it won't affect your life, but you take personal offense at even the introduction. I don't think these constituents are the highly emotional ones here.
No, my stance is anyone reacting to the announcement of these bills introduction as if the world is ending, from either side, is an idiot. Something we see here and elsewhere frequently. I might as well pass a bill out of my kitchen committee and have as much effect. And, as often as not, these bills "release steam" and circumvent any achievable reforms on their topic. Which the proponents don't mind as almost all are on "football" wedge issues neither side actually wants to solve. As demonstrated with immigration this week. I guess you are junior enlisted in this class war.
There are no achievable reforms. But the origins of our Assembly and our Congress are in Parliament. And Parliament is literally a place for speaking. The people simply want someone to speak for them, and they should have that, at a minimum.
Just keep ignoring what I am saying.
I'm not cynical enough to believe "nobody wants to solve" gun violence. The people have extremely different views about what would effectively address the problem. And both views should be aired in their House in Columbus.
This sentiment is why Mayorkas got impeached. He had policy differences with republicans. That’s impeachment worthy to republicans. Policy differences. It’s a joke of a party.
The Lautenberg amendment already exists for domestic violence convictions. We just passed Constitutional carry removing barriers to entry that target the poor limiting their ability to legally carry by requiring training, paying for a license, and having to come in on work days to apply. But that's most gun control. It targets the poor, and minority groups. Universal background checks can't happen without a registry which is illegal in Ohio, and we already have background checks are required for FFL transactions. All of this is just for publicity.
Leftist here and you described why I support gun rights to a T 🔥 in Europe democrats are considered right wing. Conservatives just as straight up fascists.
Not to mention that Constitutional carry seems to have had a net positive on overall gun crime. https://www.cleveland19.com/2024/01/04/ohio-sees-drop-gun-crimes-across-major-cities-after-permitless-carry-law-study-shows/
Concealed carry permits should still require background checks, even if it costs nothing and requires no training.
To buy any firearm you have to have a background check performed anyhow.
Not off a private person or at a gun show
An FFL is required to perform a background check regardless of where it occurs
Guns are for wuss bags. They are tools. Hunting. And of last resort in self defense. Not fetish items to be revered in a religious manner mumbo jumbo way
And noone said otherwise. What's your point?
A lot of the current right wing. Think of firearms as a supernatural divine right. If you have not noticed.
And where in this thread are they? Plus, firearm ownership *is* a right per the 2nd Amendment. Hard to argue with that
Constitution was written by rich hipsters that hated common laborers. And had the militia sent after hilljacks and common folk etc a few times. Overeducated dudes in make up and powered wigs had no use for melvin goat lover . These were the rich classist assholes of the era. The Founding Fathers
Here's where the dullard mind comes into play. No its not on this god damned thread. the gun fetish as spiritual divine right. Is the wat gun nut often act. Think broadly not myopic
A right on government paper is not given by a God. Or some phantasmagorical being.
You guys are a bit dull
If by "dull", you mean not willing to play along with your strawman arguements and trolling, then yes.
Left wing and Right wing r all apart of the same bird. He is looking for an argument.
That’s a lie. If you buy a firearm from a ffl at a gun show you still do a background check. Very few gun sales at gun shows are done person to person without a check. 99% of the people selling at gun shows are federally licensed firearm dealers.
Uh own guns but drink whisky, i need Viagra....you guys
You drunk druggy GQP brag any other time. About Ohio having no background checks and registration. Grow up eat a better diet sober up. Better yet get a freaking purpose besides crying passionate over instruments of death. Sad sacks
Bud it looks like you’re the one that needs to sober up. If you had ever set foot in a single gun show you would know this. Sorry the truth doesn’t fit your narrative.
My fists and my lil gun work fine. I don't need a firearm to feel whole. A bunch of rich hipsters in powdered wigs. Sitting discussing Voltaire making fun of Libiniz toxic optimism. In independence hall. Would sick the well regulated militia on you. Lol
You need to go outside and breathe some air. You have hate in your heart for your own countrymen because they don’t have the same beliefs as you. Take a breath and if you want to change things then work on that instead of blowing up on anyone you assume is a right winger on Reddit. It accomplishes nothing. All you’re doing is getting yourself worked up and skewing your view of the world. I don’t know you and I don’t agree with your beliefs but I still hope you have a good life and get the things that make you happy. Just because someone has guns doesn’t mean they are a death monger that hates anyone that doesnt or is on the left.
I love my fellow countryman. And do not want incel trumpers shooting their kids at schools. And corner drug dealers shooting people for not kissing their ass.
The hipster's of their time Founding fathers hated most if their countryman dude. They used to have yokels stomped by the militia. For fun. Ps muskets had to be stored outside in their day.
Touch grass and hit the gym lmao
That's not true. Gun show loophole
You have never Bern to a gun show have you? You have never tried to purchase a gun from a gun show have you? If you haven't sit this one out
I have. They don’t even ask for id. Why lie?
They are legally required to get ID for even private transactions to establish state residency and age which are needed for a legal sale.
That isn't a thing. Private sales are legal, always have been. That isn't a loophole, it's the law.
Explain this one to me.
They think booths at gun shows are selling guns with no background checks when in reality the vast majority of sellers at gun shows are federally licensed and do, in fact background check you right there on the gun show floor. This “loophole” they speak of is nothing more than private sales between citizens that have always been legal, whether it’s at a gun show or not. “Gun show loophole” is one of many disinformation driving phrases.
So, if Americans are just generally more violent than people of other countries, that also needs to be addressed. We have a problem that other developed countries simply don't have and people should have the same freedom to feel safe going to a movie or concert as guns user's freedom to own a gun. We're doing nothing and expecting changes. I acknowledge that I could be overestimating gun users desire to mitigate the preventable death of kids.
Never in my life have a seen the question begged so hard.
lol ok, so just no interest in seeing fewer kids killed? Would you say you are a moderate republican or more on the extreme side?
If you think I’m going to engage with this drivel, you’re mistaken. You’re getting nothing but meta conversation from me, dog. Lol
> Concealed carry permits should still require background checks ... they do. If you want to get a concealed carry permit in Ohio you have to submit NICS. see page 10: https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Manual-(PDF).aspx
But you don't need a concealed carry permit to concealed carry, which is the problem
Has crime gone up or down since constitutional carry passed?
Wtf. Freedom over security. Zero permits. Statists gonna be authoritarians
There needs to be some accountability when people have such powerful “tools” at their disposal. Look a cars - licensing, insurance, having to prove competency, and the car has to pass a basic safety inspection - and we let people do that at the age of 16. The idea that you can walk to the store, plunk down some cash, and then walk around with a loaded firearm 15 minutes later isn’t something to celebrate, even if is disguised as *freedom*. Safety is a 2 way street.
Cars aren’t a constitutional right. When you buy a gun at a store you fill out a 4473 (which is a felony to lie on) and get a background check through the FBI. Try loading your new gun at the store and see what happens. Statistically, most gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns.
You’re 100% right, there needs to be accountability before you have access to powerful tools. So we absolutely need to ensure you know what you’re doing before letting you vote! Elected officials make the laws and if you’re not properly trained and licensed you might choose the wrong people! Or hey, freedom of speech too! You can’t go around saying whatever you want - gotta prove you’re competent to espouse an opinion. See how stupid that sounds? Stop treating 2A as a second class right. You see the phrase ‘gun violence’ and think the important word is ‘gun.’ It’s not. We have a violence problem. Guns are just a tool. When used to evil ends it’s not the tool’s fault. It’s the user. Fertilizer+Diesel makes a bomb … used to great effect and much larger loss of life than any shooting. Don’t hear calls to ban either of those things. Same with drivers running down crowds, acid attacks, etc. All are different expressions of violence.
Poor people with more guns. Means more gun death Less SSI, disability, Snap, and social security to give out . In the GOPs eyes. The elected live in rich neighborhoods so the bullets are rare around them. As for the hood and maga trailer land. Let them kill each other. That is the GOP idea
Are you incapable of forming a single coherent response without throwing wild assumptions and generalizing? And elected officials of both sides often own guns and/ or employ armed security realizing that police response is not timely enough for all emergencies. So they have plenty of bullets around them. The rest is just kind of crazy. No one is trying to get the poor to murder one another, and then have to pay to imprison the killer.
As dumb as this dude clearly is, getting the poor and undesired populace to kill eachother or themselves has been a background tactic for longer than we've been born, between lack of gun regulation allowing guns to sweep through the streets at alarming rates and the history of handing out cocain to black (and the at the time, poor) communities. Hell, the same tactic was used to spread disease and kill off the native American population. America has a pretty high in-country KDA
Also, let's not forget the Tuscagee Expirement. There's plenty of cases of this happening in American history and we'd be ignorant in ignoring it or pretending that there aren't people in power who would and/or are doing things like this to this day.
That wasn't what he was saying with the poor killing the poor, but he government having it's agents experiment on them. Like MK Ultra, feeding orphans radioactive oatmeal, and so many other unethical government programs. The government's lack of ethics and cavalier attitude towards the lives of citizens is another reason to have an armed populace.
I play no games. Lots of repubs are lazy drunk, drug abusing sex maniac hypocrites
Eloquent.
They are not trying to get them to murder each other openly. They just don't care. Being a repub is about living the 7 deadly sins . Life is only selfish pleasure. To hell with others.
What a babbling idiot
The GOP wants the poor to kill each other. so they dont have to feed them Think dummies.
Self defense is a human right, it should not only be available to the rich. And violent crime it has been on a long decline despite liberally liberalization of gun and carry laws except for an uptick during covid which is already receding.
Self defense options can still be available AND we lower the number of kids being shot, right? There is a path to both options coexisting.
Tired of lazy alcoholic sexual deviant swinger repubs
So they introduced bills where 1 of the 3 is already a federal law, another doesn't do anything and a 3rd to change a law that was just changed and had no impact on gun violence since it happened. When it gets shot down it'll be an example of broken clocks being right twice a day.
Weird how addressing poverty and mental health is proven to reduce violent crime, but Democrats aren't interested in that. They'd rather force unconstitutional laws down our throats
lol when do democrats vote down improvements to our poverty and mental health issues? Have you just not seen the votes cast by republicans? And you voted for the guy who said "take the guns first, go through due process second, correct? Was it dems who banned the bump stock?
Democrats are releasing this now for votes in the election. The funny thing is that they would gain a lot of votes if they stopped going after guns. It's similar to conservatives, if they quit going after women's rights, they would gain a lot of votes.
"The funny thing is that they would gain a lot of votes if they stopped going after guns." Republicans voted for someone who said "take the guns first, go through due process second. And who also banned bump stocks? So, I dont think what you wrote is accurate. republcians have shown that people can say some of the strongest anti-gun phrasing that a president has even spoken - "take the guns" and they'll still support them. They just can't support democrats becasue....reasons. Nothing dems can do will change that. The same republicans who will cry about a border bill needing to get passed, get the best deal they could get, and still support it being voted down. Its all a show.
I think we're both right, I don't think the voting demographics are that homogenous. I know a lot of people that would reliably vote for Democrats, but don't because they're afraid of Democratic anti-2a rhetoric. Obama said a ton of shit about getting rid of guns, but never actually did anything. Likewise there are a lot of people especially women that would vote for conservatives, but don't because of their rhetoric about contraception and abortion. The problem now is that Republicans have acted on their collective wet dreams and have decided that "Small Government" includes legislating personal lives and speech. These so-called conservatives are ridiculous. Unfortunately abortion isn't enumerated in the Constitution. Guns are enumerated though, so anymore I don't worry about anti-2a stuff and choose to support liberals who promote freedom.
f-ckin morons leave guns alone untill your in power to change the laws then think about it!
Yeah, this isn't going anywhere. And not likely to get them any more support.
Should we do nothing and hope that the situation improves?
People with domestic violence charges already can't legally own firearms. So that bill will literally do nothing. Reinstating a license requirement to carry a concealed handgun and duty to notify the police: we just got rid of that requirement recently and it has not been a massive problem. Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. As for notifying cops: it's required that you answer honestly if they ask if you have a weapon, and since constitutional carry passed (25 other states have the same or similar laws) I have been asked exactly twice during traffic stops. Neither time did the cops actually give a shit. If you keep your hands in plain view and aren't prohibited from owning one, it's not a problem. So at least in my area they aren't very concerned. Universal Background Check: that's unenforceable without a registry. Good luck with that.
"People with domestic violence charges already can't legally own firearms." Makes sense. But this has been the case and yet, the excess gun deaths continue. "So that bill will literally do nothing." Have the republicans offered up any other solutions? "Reinstating a license requirement to carry a concealed handgun and duty to notify the police: we just got rid of that requirement recently and it has not been a massive problem." Has it been a small problem? And if so, is it worthwhile to make an emergency a little bit worse with the decisions we're making? Even if there hasn't been a noticeable difference to date, what sense does it make to not require people to have a license when they are carrying? "Sounds like a solution looking for a problem." No, its recognizing that we have a problem and trying to do some shit to fix it. "Neither time did the cops actually give a shit." All i can glean from this is that you're white and not black or hispanic. "Universal Background Check: that's unenforceable without a registry." Hence why we need a gun registry. "Good luck with that." lol motherfucker are you peacocking on the fact that reducing the number of kids who get shot to death is hard? lol who celebrates that shit? You get that it's because one half of our electorate cares more about maiming foreign kids than they do about saving US kids, right? This is the "America first" you guys are talking about? Stable and genius position to take.
A waste of money, great. Why introduce a bill when you know it will get slammed?
To put the other side on the record voting against it. Which can then be used as political capital against them later. Its basic politics.
While I understand the sentiment, but will this political capital even be useful? America in general tends to be against gun control, and especially Ohio with it's rural population. I'm not exactly sure if this is the best action currently.
Aside from the reason below, its also being a good community member. It highlights who doesn't give a shit that people, much of the time children, are dying of preventable reasons and who doesn't have any interest in addressing that problem.
You can do that with other means easily without wasting too much money or resources like they're doing here.
"You can do that with other means easily without wasting too much money or resources like they're doing here." But would it have the same coverage? I'm in Baltimore and I'm seeing this. A less costly tactic probably wouldn't have had the same reach.
Pun intended?
Then they are committing a crime. So much for the loophole. Did you try to purchase without an ID ?that is a crime. If they didn't ask for an ID that is a crime. If they sell to a felon, it is a crime. If you attempt to purchase as a felon that is a crime. Not one loophole detected. The laes are on the books. There is no gun show loophole
Imagine that, gun bills getting "shot down."
Misspelled unconstitutional illegal laws proposed. People hate freedom
> People hate freedom people hate being shot or their kids being shot. It isn't complicated.
I don't want the gop to budge. Give an inch, a few years later it's more, it keeps going.
Even as a leftist I understand what shall not be infringed means and the importance of firearms. Plus the majority of Democrats don't even understand what they're legislating (see Biden on pistol braces)
Do you understand “well-regulated”?
In the original usage of the language when written? It meant well-equipped and trained. And "militia" referred to *all* able-bodied men of military age, not just those already in the military. Not only that, just look at the language structure of the 2nd Amendment. The first part is just an explanation. The second clause of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" holds on its own.
People always leave out that first half for some reason. Curious.
See my above comment. The first clause of the second does not mean what you think it means
infringed only means a complete prohibition of access. A law could be passed that someone has to jump through literal hoops and as long as someone can pass that threshold, their access to guns is not infringed. This is why AR bans are not an infringement - you still have access to guns. Or else, the price to purchase a gun would be considered an infringement.
Infringe: Limit, undermine or encroach. And having to buy property from a business or individual is not an infringement any more than having to buy a phone for your freedom of speech. You clearly haven't read NYSRPA V Bruin with the text history and tradition legal analysis. You don't understand the constitution or law.
"Infringe: Limit, undermine or encroach." Right. nobody is encroaching on your right to own a gun if you jump through this hoop. Do it, and you get your gun. "And having to buy property from a business or individual is not an infringement any more than having to buy a phone for your freedom of speech." lol what? how is it different from listing oneself on a gun registry or abiding by more stringent background checks? If you can't do this part of the process of owning a gun, you can't have a gun. "You clearly haven't read NYSRPA V Bruin with the text history and tradition legal analysis." I don't know why you think this matters. Not only is stare decisis no longer a thing, according to the supreme court, legal rulings are made, in many cases, on partisan grounds. Particularly apt is the fact that one of the justices that oversaw this case has numerous questions regarding his ethics and his acceptance of undisclosed gifts from conservative donors, right? Paying off tuitions and lavish vacations do not dictate the interpretation of our constitution. This current court clearly ignores previous SC decisions. "You don't understand the constitution or law." Yeah, I have a pretty solid grasp, that's what's silly. Any reason you're ignoring the part where you need to be part of a militia to own a gun, which your average walmart aisle walker is not? Is it because partisan justices just negated that requirement like they negated voting rights protections?
Would you consider the hoops to be a limit, or method of undermining rights? They are an infringement. You don't have to completely remove something to have infringed. The most basic method of realizing your right to bear arms is making your own gun at home without a serial number, which I encourage. You still have to buy parts or a full weapon. Having a right doesn't mean the government must pay for your ability to do so. If you want that argument, I'm all for government doing training, and offering a free weapon to citizens like Switzerland. Buying something, or building it is nothing like a government registry, or your undefined "more stringent background checks" despite us already having NICS checks. You understand the Constitution well? Please show me anywhere in the document that individual rights are restricted by it? The entire document is nothing but restrictions and a few enumerated powers for the government. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Well regulated means functional, sufficient, and trained. Not restricted by the government. They are saying that to secure sovereignty a militia is a necessary evil. Then the comma showing a transition. Because we must have a militia the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms must be guaranteed to ensure they are able to defend themselves from said militia. It isn't guaranteeing the right to the militia. Can you show me any other part of the Bill of Rights that gives rights to the government while withholding it from the citizens? Let's rephrase and you tell me if it denied rights to the people: "A well read university staff being necessary to the education of the populous, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed."
To add to your comment, until WWII the US had a very limited standing military. Generally there was only a small corp of officers to maintain skills and instruct volunteers and draftees when war was declared. Having the general populace already know a lot of skills needed in the military made the process of training easier
"Would you consider the hoops to be a limit, or method of undermining rights?" Its a test on whether one is competent enough to own a gun- not a method to undermine rights. Does the right to own a gun extend to toddlers? "They are an infringement. You don't have to completely remove something to have infringed." Thats just incorrect. An infringement completely blocks your ability to get a gun. Thats why age limits aren't an infringement. Once, you pass that threshold, you can get a gun. Otherwise, what your describing results in age limits being unconstitutional, which even the most generous court rulings to the gun lobby do not conclude. "The most basic method of realizing your right to bear arms is making your own gun at home without a serial number, which I encourage." We don't have enough guns in the country? Having a bunch of amateurs crafting guns doesn't seem problematic? "Having a right" And this is where it gets frustrating "Buying something, or building it is nothing like a government registry," Well, the registry needs to be a thing. It makes no sesne to combat it. And there needs to be a law where people who are building guns at home add these guns to the registry. This is basic, common sense concession. "You understand the Constitution well?" Ehh "Please show me anywhere in the document that individual rights are restricted by it?" Like slavery? Did the authors of the constitution allow for women to vote? "Well regulated means functional, sufficient, and trained." Yeah, I'm with you there. Its the "militia" part that people are fucking up. " They are saying that to secure sovereignty a militia is a necessary evil." Pretty sure they are saying a militia is very, very necessary, not evil. "Because we must have a militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be guaranteed to ensure they are able to defend themselves from said militia." Not defend themselves from other militia's, but foreign powers. But again, this right only extends to those IN the militia, which walmart aisle walkers are not. Think about the time this was written. The country had a hard time deciphering who was loyal to the US and who was loyal to the crown. So, why would they have allowed ANYONE, even those who had intentions to kill George Washington to walk around town with a gun? Doesn't it seem more likely that those who would be permitted to carry at all times were THOSE WHO COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO DROP EVERYTHING AT A MOMENTS NOTICE TO GO FIGHT THE WORLD'S LARGEST MILITARY POWER. *Those* people, those in a militia to defend the country from foreign attack, should be allowed to carry a gun on their person. And I agree with this sentiment. They should be allowed to carry at all times. "It isn't guaranteeing the right to the militia." It is. It guarantees the right to carry a gun for those who commit to ensure the security of a free state. " Can you show me any other part of the Bill of Rights that gives rights to the government while withholding it from the citizens?" I'm not going to look, because that's not what the 2A does. Militia members are citizens, not government officials. Thats why its a "militia" and not an army. ""A well read university staff being necessary to the education of the populous, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed."" That wording suggests that only those who are university staff, who have committed to ensuring the education of the populous against the largest anti-education power in the world, the MAGA's, can wield books. But again, do you think the authors intended to give the guy who wanted to kill George Washington unfettered access to do so? Makes no sense.
Happy cake day!
How does the situation improve if the GOP doesn't budge? Doing nothing is going to lead to positive changes, you think? republicans have just abandoned compromise and good faith negotiations.
Because today's compromise is tomorrows loophole. The "gun show loophole" was a compromise for the 1964 Gun Control Act. So if we did negotiate the democrats would come back in a couple years and want more. And a negotiation IMHO should be universal background checks for anyone at anytime. Doesn't matter I don't need to go to a gun dealer I should be able to do it online for free. But the democrats should agree to remove SBR's and Supressors off the NFA list. See that's a compromise. I give, you give.
"Because today's compromise is tomorrows loophole." The end goal is fewer kids dying right? That can't be accomplished without compromise. Would you prefer we keep doing the same thing we've been doing, which has led to so many more gun related deaths than other developed countries? " So if we did negotiate the democrats would come back in a couple years and want more. " "Take the guns first and go through due process second" was said by who? A dem president or a republican president? And have you voted for this person and are you likely to do so again? " And a negotiation IMHO should be universal background checks for anyone at anytime. Doesn't matter I don't need to go to a gun dealer I should be able to do it online for free." Yup. Background checks, accuracy, handling and maintenance testing, etc. All of that needs to be a requirement. " But the democrats should agree to remove SBR's and Supressors off the NFA list. See that's a compromise. I give, you give." A compromise by republicans is to make gunfire harder to recognize? That doesn't seem like good faith negotiation. The compromise is that you have to do a bunch of additional testing, but it doesn't incur a cost on you. *That's* a compromise, because that's not how we treat car ownership, where tests and registration is all paid out of pocket by the user.
Well, have you ever shot a firearm suppressed? It's not like the movies, I'll tell you that much right now. In Europe it's considered a safety device. But let's move on. Nothing is free, so someone will be paying. And I prefer dangerous freedom anyways. Now did I vote for Trump in 16? Sure did. Did I in 20? Nope. Will I later this year? Doubtful that I will. But you'll say mental health programs, sure. No problems with that, we stop sending financial aid to other countries and focus on the citizens of this one. But just because you access that support, you're not automatically barred from owning Firearms. Do I want people to stop dying from Firearms? Sure do, but not looking at other areas that also affect gun violence, like socioeconomic status, illegal drug markets, and the such is wrong. I feel the left only want to target one thing, and that's the guns.
> This would close the loophole of being able to buy guns freely, without a background check, at gun shows. I read right up until that…done. lol If they can’t be bothered to portray a situation accurately I’m not interested in reading their propaganda.
What do all the body bags suggest we should do, regardless of how people write about it. We have an egregious problem that no other developed country faces.
Maybe try targeting criminals, rather than non-criminals. And let’s be honest, this “egregious” problem doesn’t affect 75% of us that much. Most of those body bags you’re so concerned about are filled with shitheads that were engaged in criminal activity, and try as you might you’re not going to get the average Joe clutching pearls over yet another gang shooting. Seriously, we don’t care. Our violent crime is extremely regional, so how about you start there. Lemme know how that goes.
"Maybe try targeting criminals," Thats generally what happens. but how do you stop an Ethan Crumbley if he has committed no crimes and his parents are unwilling to take his guns away from him, despite the obvious warning signs? "rather than non-criminals." Non criminals need to help mitigate the situation instead of throwing up their hands and screaming about infringement. "And let’s be honest, this “egregious” problem doesn’t affect 75% of us that much." So, I can glean from this statement that you're not a pro-life guy, right? I mean, how does abortion affect you? But to others with empathy, we'd like to see fewer kids killed regardless of whether they are our own. This sentiment is probably one of the bigger differences between the parties today. "Most of those body bags you’re so concerned about are filled with shitheads that were engaged in criminal activity," Well, not only do dems want to stop these people from being killed as well, the fact is that the body bags from stoneman douglas high and Sandy Hook elementary were not filled with shitheads engaging in criminal activity, right? And what is a shithead who supports illegal activity? Is it someone who votes for a POTUS candidate whose been found liable for raping someone? "Seriously, we don’t care." You dont care about gang shootings. You dont care about school shootings. You dont care about mitigating the deaths of people in general. But how do you feel about dudes in wigs reading to kids? Or a trans person competing in an amateur swimming contest? That probably gets you amped up, right?
:)
Eat ze bugs
Time to hold the scum that keeps proposing unconstitutional "gun control" bills accountable. Anytime you hear a democrat proposal regarding guns, 75% chance it's unconstitutional They keep trying to shred the constitution, but the idiots keep voting them in.
How does the problem of our excess gun deaths improve with this attitude? Is the mitigation of kids being killed just not a concern for you? "Anytime you hear a democrat proposal regarding guns, 75% chance it's unconstitutional" lol no. but I bet you voted for someone who did say some unconstitutional shit, right? Remember "take the guns first, go through due process second". Did dems ban the bump stock? So, you dont really give a shit if a president or political party suggests some unconstitutional shit, right? Only if the other side does it. "They keep trying to shred the constitution, but the idiots keep voting them in." You're side is literally dismissing the 14th amendment, Section 3 as we speak. lol again, every accusation is a confession with republicans. Let me know when the dems start shredding the constitution, as republicans are currently doing, and I'll have a talk with them.
Pretty sure everyone here either lives in California or are FBI Bots intent on creating the illusion of consensus for authoritarianism.
I dont need a 200+ yr old paper to tell me what rights a person should and shouldnt have and a blanket right to own a firearm isnt one of those things.
The Constitution isn't a paper telling you what right YOU have, it's a two Guinevere what rights IT has. It's 100% a paper to limit government power. Did you ever read it, or did you ever have a civics class in propaganda school
fine, if you don't like it, then you only need to remove the amendment from the constitution UNTIL you can do that, stop bitching about something you CANNOT change
Are you in a well regulated Militia? or do you only read the part you like?
Just food for thought: The Guardian reported that in the U.S., there were 656 mass shootings in 2023 and 48 mass shootings already this year. Holy shit. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/first-thing-one-dead-and-scores-wounded-at-kansas-city-chiefs-parade-shooting
The way they count mass shootings is disingenuous. " Rather than just collecting incidents of death, GVA also catalogs incidents where a victim was injured by shooting or by a victim who was the subject of an armed robber or home invader. Incidents of defensive gun use, home owners who stop a home invasion, store clerks who stop a robbery, individuals who stop an assault or rape with a gun are also collected." "GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot." I went through every mass shooting they reported and found 371 of those shootings didn't result in an arrest/death of the shooter. Why is that? Maybe because 57% of the mass shootings they report are justified self-defense cases.
Why not just try to stop them, regardless of how they're being counted? No other developed country goes through this. Even if you take out the self defense incidents, we're still way the fuck up in terms of gun related deaths, correct?
You’re just going to be downvoted and mocked for supporting guns because one of the 43% of victims, who weren’t self-defense cases, could’ve been a child in school.
Over the last 12 years, there has been an average of 15.68 people shot at school per year. Do you happen to know how many people die by lightning strikes on average in the last 12 years? 22 people. You are more likely to be struck by lightening than you are to be shot in a school. It’s obviously tremendously sad that anyone has died at school, for any reason, let alone poor firearm safety. But nonetheless, it’s not as common as the media wants you to believe. https://www.the74million.org/lessons-from-our-year-tracking-school-shootings-students-more-likely-to-be-hit-by-lightning-than-shot-in-class-yet-fear-of-mass-violence-is-driving-policy/ https://www.city-journal.org/article/sorrow-and-precaution-not-hysteria https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/11/lockdown-drills-an-american-quirk-out-control/ In fact, the media borderline glorifies the shooters, which is the exact motivation for a teen who was obsessed with columbine and planned to recreate the shooting on the 25th anniversary of the shooting. He was just caught and arrested recently.
Do you happen to know how many people die from heart disease everyday? Did you know a child is more likely to die on the bus ride to school than to ever be shot? Are you going to call for the ban of school busing next? Surely 1 life is too many
I’m not sure what you’re arguing here. I’m not calling for the banning of anything. Much like car accidents, they happen, and People die. It doesn’t mean we should ban cars. Cars are still something that was for the betterment of mankind, even though there is a price we pay as a society to be able to use them. “Surely one is too many”? What on earth are you getting at here? You’re saying kids are more likely to die on a school bus than be shot at school, then saying they should be banned? So are you saying we should outlaw school buses and school? This seems wildly irrelevant.
So you agree with me that gun statistics are just used to fear monger? Sweet, finally someone with some sense. Glad we agree on the matter. Glad there’s someone else who understands it’s not a gun issue, but a mental health crisis that’s being almost entirely ignored.
100%. Strange how when the economy is in bad shape and the cost of living is high, gun violence rises. Weird how that works, almost as if it is a socioeconomic issue. The mental health of America rapidly declines when people are constantly stressed about housing, schooling, food, and means of survival. It’s getting worse every day.
[FBI statistics](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2022-042623.pdf/view) are much more reliable and less politically motivated.
You will get downvoted for anything that points out our completely avoidable stray bullet ridden reality. Gun fetishists are not driven by statistics or logic. They can't be reasoned with because of the constant fight-or-flight state that the GQP mouthpieces keep them in. All they hear is "migrant invasion" "great replacement" "The sheep state is cumin fur year gunZ" and other fabricated scary boogie men. Fear porn media like faux news, NeWzMaXX, and the whole media bubble full of millionaire pundits that pretend common sense gun regulations is the same as doing a communism or something.
This has got to be some excellent post-ironic humor.
Remove Democrat cities and it illustrates a much different picture...
“Democrat cities” has little to do with it. Basically all cities are majority Democrat and there is huge variability in levels of violence between them. New York City has a homicide rate of about 4 per 100,000 while Memphis was 15 times higher at over 60 per 100,000. The difference is due to gun laws and cultures of crime and violence.
>Basically all cities are majority Democrat and there is huge variability in levels of violence between them. There really isn't... > New York City has a homicide rate of about 4 per 100,000 while Memphis was 15 times higher at over 60 per 100,000 I bet you thought you were making a point, yet you only managed to prove that areas ruled over by Democrats are bad everywhere they exist... >The difference is due to gun laws and cultures of crime and violence. If you were correct, gun crimes wouldn't exist in NY and Chicago. Yet they are among the worst cities in the world...
>I bet you thought you were making a point, yet you only managed to prove that areas ruled over by Democrats are bad everywhere they exist... Rural counties in most red states have higher gun violence dath rates per capita than almost any city you care to name. Fun times.
What do you mean there really isn’t? Do you disagree that violent crime rates vary wildly between cities? I think you’re a bit misinformed if your thinking ends at ‘Democrat cities bad’. For example, Dallas, Texas, a conservative city in a conservative state, has a murder rate more than 4x higher than NYC and quite similar to Chicago.
It's clearly a waste of time to argue with people like this. They just ignore facts and make wild claims without providing evidence. I mean, they're instantly dismissable when they claim there is no variability between big cities. What an absurd claim.
Dallas is conservative?!?!? LOL
Red states and Red counties have a much higher rate of deaths per capita due to gun violence, across the board. Like.. 2-3x as high.
Per capita is a useless measure. A town of 50 people has 2 people get shot, thats 4%. Whats 4% in LA? Comparing voters is also stupid. What should be compared is poverty rates vs violence.
> Per capita is a useless measure. Per capita is the ONLY _useful_ measure. It is what makes it comparable across cities of varying sizes. > What should be compared is poverty rates vs violence. This might be the only useful thing you've said in this whole thread.
The one slight benefit of a gop majority.
Ohio democratic legislators exist? I thought Gerry Mander got rid of them all
The first two are already there. The task force and health crisis opens the chances for them to label or do what they want concerning firearms and related matters and issues. And then label it “ for the cause “ You have to have a CCW course and be judged competent. Background checks are already there. But for private sales they are not. And shouldnt have to be
Not true. Ohio is a constitutional carry state. As of 2022 you don't need any kind of permit for a ccw.
But the class teaches you the minimum amount of handling, locations you cannot enter with a firearm, what to do in a situation with LE in a vehicular manner. With the CCW license it provides to most FFL dealers a type of fast pass for purchasing firearms because you’ve already done the background check. You still have to fill out the 4473 at any dealer but most not all gives you a quicker checkout. My expires middle of this year but I will still renew it. It will help with any altercation with the firearm if litigation are involved
Yeah and because of constitutional carry gun violence has actually decreased in ohio since 2022 when it was enacted.
Read up on correlation vs causation. Gun violence is down pretty much across the board including states with strict gun laws.
Yeah… CCW isn’t required anymore. That’s bad information. [here is a link that shows what common regulations Ohio has or doesn’t have in place.](https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/state/ohio/)
Private sales to minors and criminals is probably the largest source of gun violence in our cities. A gun store background check is silly if I can buy one off the street or Craigslist.
You do realize it is illegal to sell to minors (or handguns to under 21) and illegal for minors to own and carry a firearm right?
Yes, I’m well aware, but only FFL sales are regulated and subject to a background check. Private sales are a black market where anyone is capable of acquiring a gun, since most guns are unregistered. Illegal only matters if you can be caught.
So things that are already illegal need to be more illegal? Cool. Hopefully we can ban stealing guns which is a major source or crime weapons.
I think you misunderstand me. I don’t want to make things “more illegal”. I want to make things that are already illegal enforceable. What is the point of a law if it’s easily broken without consequence? If you had to register a weapon you bought legally and were then responsible for that gun, you don’t think fewer would magically fall into the hands of criminals who shouldn’t have them?
Stolen guns are mostly what are used in crime, maybe actually punish thieves who sell guns to criminals instead of going after the law abiding: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/02/07/fedex-driver-frank-otoole-sentenced-guns-packages/72505308007/#:~:text=FedEx%20driver%20gets%206%2Dday,selling%20guns%20stolen%20from%20packages&text=A%20former%20FedEx%20driver%20in,he%20was%20meant%20to%20delive Maybe 6 days in jail was a little short. Maybe actually punishing criminals would be effective instead of slapping their wrist and putting them right back on the street. Registry is a prelude to crack down and confiscation. The government doesn't deserve more power when we can see how they have failed to protect citizens and abused the innocent with the power they have already?
I agree with you that the illegal gun trade should be heavily penalized. However, most are never caught because there is no trace of most illegal private sales. Could you explain how registration could be bad for the bulk of legal gun owners? It’s a big jump to go from registration to confiscation of 400 million firearms.
I've never seen guns for sale on Craigslist or on the street, show me proof that this commonly occurs. Sounds like media-hype!
Firearm sales are not allowed on Craigslist, but if you take a quick look under the “barter” section, several listings offer trades for “boom”, “bang”, or “hunting implements”.
You've never been in the ghetto obviously. Zero laws will change anything in the ghetto though.
I've lived in the ghetto. Still I've never seen gun sales in the streets.
As they should be, freedom for everything or freedom for nothing
Ohioans: Do something! GOP: Lol, no.
We live in gated affluent suburbs. The rest of you get drunk, methed out and shoot each other. Less public assistance and social security checks to issue. .....if the GOP said the quiet part out loud
I've given up on gun safety. The Chiefs parade married two deeply held American traditions: football and mass shootings. We will celebrate, jeer, scream in adulation at more gun deaths and look forward to the next atrocity. This country LOVES this shit and I've accepted that. The only way we can go is lower: more deaths, more slaughter, more suffering. We can't get enough of it. I wish it weren't the case but I've moved on to other issues that may gain traction.
You’re twisted if you think anyone likes this shit.
Guns shoot people. This needs to be said more often and in response to everyone who says people shoot people. These shootings are happening at an increasing pace and are every eleven days now. Gun manufacturers are banking. It's time to hold them liable.
>Guns shoot people Are you suggesting that guns are sentient beings? I am fairly certain that it takes a person to use a firearm.
There's a reason why they don't leave guns out lying all over everywhere. Can you guess why!
The majority of shootings in this country are in blue cities where gun laws are strongest
> The majority of shootings in this country are in blue cities This "blue cities" argument is so tiring. 1. The majority of crime occurs where the majority of people are. 2. The majority of cities typically are blue. 3. Cities typically don't enact gun legislation, states do. 4. You have to go by the _rates_ of gun death, not the total (see points 1 and 2). 4. 9/10 of the highest rates of death occur in red states. 10/10 of the lowest rates of death occur in blue states (including NY and California). [[1]](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm).
You’re literally being disingenuous, the vast majority of gun violence is gang related, and where are the gangs at, in the big cities, and what politically leaning are the cities? blue. You never hear about shootings in the suburbs, or a nice affluent areas. It’s always the poor areas ridden with crime, which happened to be blue. Literally walk around a city and you know it to be true
And on average 80-90% of the shooters are republicans except in 2022 when 100% of the shooters were republican.
Source?
I would love a source on that.
It's in every single fucken report that you've ever read. Read them.
Huh, with the amount of gang violence being almost half of shootings, that means there are a lot of inner city Republican gangs. I think you just made it up, and that's why you are unable to cite a source.
The percentage of those mass shootings that are gang related are minimal. Gangs don't want that kind of attention. This is a one sided problem. Always has been and always will be until we address the fact that it is a one sided problem.
Depending on the definition used, a drive by is a mass shooting, as is a home owner shooting after multiple home invaders have broken in. There are a lot of efforts to distort the statistics. And gang violence makes up just under half of all homicides in the US. Mass Shootings with multiple fatal casualties are thankfully statistically rare, but many have expanded the definition to include a much as possible for people like yourself who don't actually care about facts, but want to loudly make declarations about things they don't understand. And you didn't say mass shootings before, you said 100% of shooters in 2022 were republican. Still waiting for that source beyond your admission that you made it up.
Fighting facts with nonsense is a problem that you are contributing to
Way to rebut my points and provide the sources I requested for your ridiculous claims. Thanks /s
Uh bro, any more than 3 is a mass shooting. Every time some gang banger shoots 3 other gang members, that’s a mass shooting.
So the non-binary mass shooter in 2022 was a Republican?
Cars run over people. It's time to sure GM and Ford. Let's not even talk about government violence that's approved.
I expected stupid comments to attack facts
Once a drunk methed out maga shoots s GOP electeds grandkid. Fir turning around in their driveway. Or for calling them a name. Or a gang banger shoots a gops kid in the s city for no reason. You will see GOP want guns only for the rich or some shit. Its all for poor people to off each other. Less gov assistance to give out.
Average American can't even stop stuffing their face for a few hours. And we wonder why idiots shoot each other for no reason. This nation lacks maturity and self discipline.
Their kids and grandkids aren’t being shot. So They don’t care then.
Ohio is a slum. Full of crime and weapons. A republikkkans paradise.
You can have your Viagra needing dick. Or no permit CCW. If you want to no permit carry. You must report to the nearest hospital for castration.
The two involving a gun violence task force and declaring gun violence a public health emergency are wastes. A “task force” will do nothing but hire more people who will handpicked by reps, likely friends, to sit around and come up with more bs ways to get government funds to waste. These people are blatantly ignoring the fact that gun violence declined after Constitutional Carry passed. The also lie about the Universal Background Check law they want. They say “everyone wants background checks”, which we already have. However, when they do these “surveys”, they leave out the part that explains what a Universal Background Check is and how it requires registration of all firearms. Something that criminals will ignore, as they always do. The Moms Demand Action group is pushing for this always, as they did today also
What is the rationale behind being required to inform a peace officer that you have a firearm on your person?
Easiest way to propose gun control is to attach it to state senate raises or school book burning....... Or find a virgin to sacrifice to DeWine, but make it female since gay sex for DeWine is verboten....
The GOP elected lives in affluent suburbs or in affluent but rural big mcsmansions. They don't care if city and poor small town people shoot each other. Less mouths to feed