It was a graveyard graph

uncomfortable AWS noises

You’ve never talked to a single socialist, anarchist, leftist, etc. about civilian firearm ownership before? It’s very commonly thought of as a necessary evil to prevent systemic oppression. Maybe don’t spend so much of your time talking to trumpers and neoconservatives?

To wit: there is no “right people” to want to shoot, and anyone who thinks there is probably has their own tribalism issue to work out. Community defense specifically does not have a target right up until the point someone else is an aggressor, and ends when violence is no longer needed. This is why you never saw “antifa burns down trump supporter’s house” or whatever in the news.

Your point isn’t completely invalid, but it’s a circular argument. Whatever the external force was, the system had the ability to complete the objective.

One could actually argue that sending a person to the moon didn’t directly achieve anything for the people, so that wouldn’t necessarily have been a goal by itself anyway and was a waste of resources.

Yeah, but there’s a solution for that.

Are they still victims when they become violent? Or when they promote violence? At some point the threshold is crossed.

I hear this point all the time, but it’s simply not true. The total power that humanity consumes could perhaps eventually be generated with wind and solar, but they don’t generate on demand, scalable power to provide the actual base load needed.

Don’t get me wrong, I think every new building (and probably the old ones too) should have solar panels, but that doesn’t negate the need to move the base power generation to nuclear from coal and oil.

I mean, he is old af too.

It’s simple. Rural parents and older people have been convinced over time via propaganda that “the school system” is why younger people don’t generally share their values and ideology. This can be used in all kinds of ways to create emotional responses later.

For example, many conservatives in the western states are convinced young arsonists are burning down forests and fields because they are homeless and feel entitled to housing. Of course, there is no proof of this, and they don’t think it can be climate change because they don’t think climate change is real.

As a result of all this, they are very willing to take their kids out of school and switch to some homeschooling program so they don’t raise homeless arsonists.

I wish I was kidding.

Or, just maybe, I’ve expanded on your original point.

Because neither party would? The red koolaide people would dismiss this idea immediately, because it’s clearly scary communism. The blue koolaide people would pretend to support it while asking for your votes, then proceed to conveniently forget about it entirely, or pretend to try to do it while also receiving lobbying money from nearly every corporation and anti-workers-union type organization.

The people that would support this are not part of either party.

Or even regular ones

Still is too.

Cat.

Ehhh, you’ve got the right spirit, but that won’t happen lol.

What would be useful is banning, or at least limiting, speculative real estate ownership. A liveable home being unoccupied for no productive reason is a massively arrogant thing for a society to allow.

This is really the case for all essential services (which I believe factual new is). Just look at the mess healthcare has made, or the ‘food industry’, or education.

Well, you’re clearly not listening to what I’m actually saying, and instead arguing points that don’t even apply.

Conservatives, and particularly neoconservatives, don’t have a monopoly on the concept of armed citizens. Try googling the phrase “if you go far enough left you get your guns back”

Until you can repeat back to me what that means, I think it’s pretty clear you’re a sentiment bot or shill of some kind.

Bruh. You’re talking to an atheist socialist. I don’t know how to be any more clear: your generic talking points literally don’t make sense in any context, and certainly aren’t a coherent response to anything I’m saying.

Many other modernized countries have the basic components that create a functional society. I’m not suggesting someone invent Star Trek replicators and magically solve all the problems. I’m saying the basic psychology that leads someone to commit atrocities almost always leads to a root cause that can be addressed at a macro level with the resources already available right now. We simply choose not to and allow the ultra wealthy to create an environment more and more conducive to enriching themselves further. This includes just about every piece of legislation that passes anywhere in the country - both for limiting and expanding firearm rights.

More guns surely isn’t the answer either, they are already prolific. You couldn’t get more even if you wanted. If you want to talk about realistic legislation a competence-based graduated ownership (or use, depending on how you define legal terms) permit addresses the vast majority of issues that both colors of koolaide drinkers ramble on about. In fact, we already do this with cars and motorcycless and airplanes and mining equipment and dangerous chemicals. It’s not a difficult problem to solve. And yet, the actual legislation that is created to placate moderate liberals is always feature bans, and almost always only applies to new purchases instead of ownership or use.

You’d have to be an actual crypt dwelling sould eating ghoul to not acknowledge a realistic solution to the problem you are actively crying about, because that would mean you don’t actually care at all and are just here for the drama and churn.

I think you need to go re-read and do some research. I never suggested a solution to school shootings at all. If you want one it’s simple: better quality of life overall, better quality education, and guaranteed social services of various kinds. This is quite straightforward.

Now, if you’ll stop putting words in my mouth I’ll give you one more try. Otherwise, it seems like it’s you that’s sticking to the talking points and not at all paying attention.

Consider this: not everyone familiar with firearms is a right wing lunatic. In fact, there is a surprisingly large and generally quite chunk of the population that is moderate to left leaning with various levels of support for civilian firearm ownership. If you go far enough left you find the people actually willing to fight for the good of the people and against tyranny (not like, "no step on snek tyranny, but more a long the lines of the black Panthers of old, or the current volunteers providing armed protection to lgbtq events in Texas, etc).

How would you suggest that such a person point out to you that you’re using emotionally charged language to create a false dichotomy and ramble off blatant ad hominem attacks?

Here’s something else to consider: the US government is bad at writing laws. If you want a great example, check the CAFE emissions standards. Using a chart that effectively allows bigger vehicles to get lower mileage has not resulted in manufactures making more fuel efficient vehicles, it’s resulted in larger vehicles. This is why you can’t buy a small pickup truck like the old ranger or s-10. So people are forced to buy larger vehicles (that use more resources to manufacture) that get worse mileage, and in turn actually increasing total fuel consumption. That’s obviously really stupid if you think about it for a few minutes.

Most gun laws are equally as stupid and short sighted, but because the topic is more political and constantly in the news (even though the planet burning up is way more important, but I digress) it is debated more emotionally. In the example above if one doesn’t take the time to understand general concepts about modern vehicles, legislation, and the various terms used to describe it, they won’t have an educated opinion. An uneducated opinion is just noise.

This is relevant to firearms because most laws are feature restrictions of some kind. For example, banning a vertical foregrip. Defining what that is surprisingly tricky, and the government gets it wrong, or leaves loopholes, or has some other weird side effect. That’s ignoring the fact that the purpose of a foregrip is to give the shooter better ergonomics and control. More control is safer and the odds of a shooter missing a target are reduced. So why would the government decide to ban something that is effectively a safety device while using incorrect jargon? Great question! Go ask the state of California, and new Jersey, etc.

At the end of the day, the only way to eliminate gun violence is to eliminate all guns. In the US that is logically impossible even if the constitution and will of the people is ignored. Calling something “assault” is as meaningless as cereal manufacturers saying a bowl of sugary carbs in milk is good for your heart.