Columbine was 23yrs ago. We’ve tried it for 23 years with no meaningful gun control and it’s been a continuous disaster.
I thinks it’s worthwhile and fair we now try 23yrs of intrusive comprehensive gun control, and then we can compare results and make a decision.
So let’s do it again and get it right this time!
The Biden Dems agree with the NRA:
—
—
The most likely style of gun law reform to be pushed by the Dems is something akin to Clinton’s assault weapon ban. Something aimed at the aesthetics of militaria more than actual function, and something targeted at the long guns favoured by mass shooters.
This may have some slight effect on the massacre rate; aesthetics do have an impact on culture.
It’ll do next to nothing for the actual death toll, though. Because the overwhelming bulk of that is not done by spree killers with assault rifles, it’s done by misogynists with handguns who kill their wives/children/selves.
Meanwhile, from the white parents of a white male shooter that they themselves bullied:
How about supporting police re-education?
i know, i’m nutty
OTOH, the two issues are not unrelated.
It’s worth pointing out that Adams, while a Democrat, is also a former police captain and has been extremely vocal about his support of the police in the face of any and all argument. A quote from him supporting the police is a “water is still wet” moment.
Adams was supported into the mayorship by the Dem establishment precisely because he’s a fucking cop.
70% -> 0.1%. Raise that 70% to 100% and it might round up to 0.2% if you’re lucky.
Which is not to suggest that a society saturated in assault rifles is a good idea.
But the rifles that are the main danger, and the rifles that need to be dealt with first, are the rifles held by the rich white suburbanites and the cops.
And that just ain’t gonna happen without a revolutionary change.
Apparently, any criticism of the NRA’s policies is now “blood libel”.
Also, starts out with this gem:
Some of the speakers you will hear later today recently received demands from the media—specifically, from Reuters and from Law360—asking if they would cancel their presentations here today because of the Uvalde murderer.
Which are they, demands, or asking? If they’re coming from media like Reuters, I seriously doubt “demands” is the correct word. But saying they’ve had people ask if they will be cancelling just doesn’t have the same ring of “we’re being persecuted!”, does it?
He’s Gerald Ford, Dem. Version 2.0.
I mean… that’s true?
It’s always sad how Presidential campaigns have to use this image of power over things that really require the backing and commitment of Congress.
When we had POTUSes who could and would bring Congress in-line.
