Gun Control


100% yes.

I also live in CT but I don’t own guns. This is probably for the best, as you’ll see shortly.

I’m a person who thinks guns and explosions and sharp objects and the like are cool. In this respect I’m still somewhere between like 6 and 13. Pure child like enjoyment of certain subjects (hell if you’re interested you can check out another thread where I made a sword from a piece of soft rolled steel)

Unrelated to that, I’m prone to some pretty wild emotional roller-coasters. Not to delve too deep into my psyche, but for the purposes of this explanation I need not say more than that at my absolute lows, which often don’t last very long, maybe an hour at most, I’ve 100% considered suicide in very pragmatic terms.

My childlike enjoyment of firearms combined with my yuppy salary mean that if it was ever convenient, I’d probably purchase one and safely play around with it for a little while, maybe shoot a few targets, I’m honestly not too sure what gun owners generally do with their guns, before storing it safely, gun safe, yadda yadda yadda.

The fact is that in my state, it’s never been convenient. So I’ve never bothered with the purchase. I don’t put a lot of thought into this sort of thing, I’ve never even bothered to look into what the process is, other than the time my coworker told me she owned firearms and I asked what the process of acquiring them in CT was like.

Conversely, were I ever to own or have easy access to firearms, and I hit one of my lowest lows…

The point is that yes. These laws absolutely do something. Maybe not against a motivated person with funds or whatever. But laws generally aren’t designed to stop exactly one person from doing something, they’re designed for populations, populations with various levels of care, various use cases, various financial situations, backgrounds, etc etc.

The question isn’t, does it help in a particular case. It’s are they, on balance good for society at large? For my part, I’m vibrantly grateful we have them.


Yeah I’m mostly in agreement. The barriers to entry we have are viable and do help. I have no problem with adding various and layered speedbumps, barriers, and other gateways a person must pass thru and be better by. In large part no state does enough. If you were more specifically into shooting, the barriers even in CT are not so onerous that it would be a huge deterrent. Correct me if I’m misjudging it, but seems the fact being you’re only curious, and not particularly interested in buying any guns is likely as much to your credit of not fuxxing with them as any legal barriers that do exist.

So yeah it works enough. It’s not perfect. Could be abused. But it’s not bad.

1 Like

Maybe, but maybe not. I’m not always in the frame of mind to admit these things. Certainly not in public. If an opportunity presented itself I’d still probably take it even today. Because owning a gun would be pretty cool. I guess the fact that it’s never been easy means my own credit has never been tested in practice.


Moving outside the United States…


The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported a fundraising page has been created to cover the boy’s legal fees and help him purchase “more eggs.”

1 Like

From Twitter:

When the cops turned up and [the kid] was being held to the ground, he said, “here comes the bacon for the egg.”

What a fucking hero


“Right now we’re facing an attack that’s unprecedented not just in the history of the NRA, but in the entire history of our country."

Really LaPierre?


Who are these New York Bureaucrats and how can we throw our full support behind them?


How to Sell a Massacre


Oh, and one county sheriff would rather go to jail than see it passed.


He called for instead reducing the requirements to place someone in a mental health hold, and increasing the requirements for freeing that person.

“I feel very strongly about a (white) man’s agency to posses firearms, I think this issue could be solved by making it easier to incarcerate people rather than deny them access to weapons”


Yes, throw them in jail (or an asylum) where they will be denied access to weapons instead of… denying them access to weapons…

From what I understood, it seems like you have 14 days to establish whether or not the claim that you’re “too dangerous to possess weapons” is legit or not. If you establish that you are a safe weapon owner, then you’ll get your weapons back after those 14 days. If not, well, the 14 days is part of the due process to get them taken away permanently.

I’m not sure what the average jail time before a hearing/trial would be, but my gut tells me it could very well be longer than 14 days…


I’m feeling a bit more cynical in that I assume by making mental health the vector to reduce firearm violence you can continue to deny that America has a growing white male terrorist problem by branding white male shooters as crazy people instead of white supremacists


That’s a separate, but valid, issue. There are two types of people who go on shooting sprees: crazy and evil, and the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

Someone who goes on a shooting spree, white male or otherwise, because his neighbor’s dog told him to go shoot people, yeah, he’s probably crazy.

Someone who goes on a shooting spree because he thinks Mexicans are here to steal jobs, yeah, he’s evil.

Of course, you can have the case where the person gets messages from his neighbor’s dog and decides to shoot up Mexicans for being Mexican, and in that case you get both crazy and evil and your reason for the spree in this case still boils down to being evil.

In neither case should said person be allowed to own guns. However, the way that person should be handled differs between the two. And yes, given the way things are, a while male is far more likely to be labeled “crazy,” no matter his actual motivation, than a person of color would be – e.g. the person of color who got messages to shoot people from his neighbor’s dog probably would still be considered “evil” even though he’s obviously crazy, but hey, only white males seem to be allowed to be crazy, right?


Mad dudebro is mad.

Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., drafted a provision that would strip stalkers, current or former boyfriends or dating partners convicted of domestic abuse of their firearms.
1 Like