These are things that people say the reinforce my conclusion that nobody on the other side is telling the truth.
First of all, everybody with a functioning brain knows that it's deceptive do claim that we've had more mass shootings than we've had days this year. If it were true that events that stick in our heads as "mass shootings" were happening more than once a day in this country, MSNBC and The View and TYT wouldn't shut up for two seconds about it.
Especially if we were actually having a Uvalde and a Nashville even more than once a day, in red states with classically liberal gun laws, people like Whoopie Goldberg and Cenk Uyger would never be able to stop hanging that over our heads and showing receipts.
The thing is, they're playing mind games. And, by the way, if you're a person on the other side of this issue, who has parroted this talking point, and you're going to claim that you've always known (or, at least assumed) that that number included incidents like a Crip firing an illegally obtained gun into a Bloods hang out with more than four people present, that resulted in zero deaths, and you also thought that everybody else would think that too, I'm gonna call you a "liar" right now. Nobody in his or her right mind thinks that it's intellectually honest to classify gang shootings and school shootings as the exact same thing.
This guy also evoked another one of your false numbers -- that gun violence is the number one killer of children.
This is a case where, when I was pointing out that the anti-2A people were wrong, I was originally wrong, too. The differences are was that me being wrong was actually charitable to the other side, I issued the correction, and I wasn't lying -- I just got it wrong.
What I said was that, in order to get that number, they needed to clump everyone from birth to the age of seventeen into the same category. I was wrong. In order to get that number, they needed to declassify children under the age of one as being children in order to throw out any infants who died from SIDS, or any of the dozens of other ailments that kill kids while they're still fragile; and, they did this while including younger, legal adults as children.
How is this honest? How am I supposed to respect the other side, here? Even in the rare cases where I'm wrong, I'm still closer to the truth than anybody I've found on the other side.
Red flag laws are popular enough that people like David French supports them, and he's not a man of the left. It's a popular proposal to support as a "common sense" law. Of course, the problem is that it's a direct violation of due process.
It was actually rather refreshing to see Mr. Das, who again, is a lawyer, repeat the rhetoric that he doesn't want to disarms law-abiding citizens, just "future criminals."
At least he's semi-honest there.
The thing that's lost on the anti-2A side is that this is taking Kafka's The Trial and using it as a fucking blueprint for society.
Red flag laws have been passed in a few states, and they gain steam because they're pushed under the impression that they'll stop the next mass shooting before it happens.
Now, to be fair, it would be dishonest for me to ask anybody to show evidence that something that didn't happen, would have happened had we not had a law in place. I don't need to make that jump to still be right. When I have pressed a leftist, in absolute support for red flag laws, on the issue of providing any evidence where they worked, all he could point to was a man -- with record, no arrests, no charges, and no warrents -- being shot in his own home by police because he answered the door holding a gun in the middle of the night. This was the best example that a dude who is full "abolish the police" could come up with, and it involved the police killing a man who hadn't even been suspected of committing a crime.
The massive fucking elephant in this room that none of these people seem to be willing to deal with is that everyone is a law-abiding citizen until he or she isn't, and most of these people who go on these rampages have no criminal records.
The Vegas shooter (I know his name; but, I don't give these people publicity) spent more than half a century on this planet before committing his evil act. The Texas Belltower shooter was ex-military, and had no criminal records before he went off. Really, name a mass shooter who you can demonstrate wouldn't have passed a background check.
Well, I'll help you out, and then pull the rug out from under you.
If you want to pad the mass shooting numbers by including gang violence and people with histories of violent behavior, fine; but, what you're gonna find is that the people who are committing those acts on a daily basis are usually people in dark blue districts, with heavy gun control, and radical leftist politics.
Even in the case of Houston, which has seen an explosion of violent crime in one of the reddist states in the country, the crime spike happened in a deep blue city.
The gun crimes that we can prevent without using Kafka as a blueprint are cases like what just happened in Houston, wherein a man awaiting trial for assaulting a cop and stealing his gun, and violated the conditions of his bail, and got arrested again to only spend one night in jail before shooting an innocent father of four to death to steal his truck. The thing is, that's a product of bullshit, soft on crime, nonsensical, leftist policies. That's not a product of a lack of gun laws.
We can prevent some of these crimes if we keep demonstrated criminals in jail. It's obviously reckless, and morally indefensible to abridge the rights of people who have committed no crimes for what they may do some day. That's what these people are proposing.
Finally, I know that this is another long one; but, I'm pissed off at morons who are gaining ground with the clear intent to pass laws that'll condemn more people to prison -- any claim that resembles an insinuation that the law-abiding have nothing to fear is a lie.
Okay, who is more likely to face jail time just for illegally possessing a firearm?
If mens rea isn't a factor, which it isn't in bastions of despotism like New York, it's orders of magnitude more likely that a good person, who wants to follow the law, will face prison time for accidentally transporting a gun for self-defense, than a person who brought a gun with the intention of killing a bunch of people.
There's a reason why I spend a certain amount of money each month for access to legal council regarding firearms despite never having even thrown a punch in my life, much less having shot somebody.
I'm flying to Georgia in less than a month. I have a stable job. I have no criminal record. I've never been arrested. I have an Arizona concealed carry permit. I've taken firearm classes. I train. I know that Georgia has reciprocity with Arizona in regard to concealed carry permits. I've even sought legal council to make sure that I've got everything right in regard to transporting my gun to Georgia, and legally carrying it.
Who's more likely to end up in legal trouble because of breaking the law in regard to having a gun: me, or somebody who wants to shoot a bunch of innocent people?
If you're a smart person, you know that the answer is "me."
You might have heard the story of a woman who flew from Florida to New York, went through the same due-diligence that I have, was cleared by TSA on the way in; but, on the way out, the Feds thought that she was worthy of felony charges.
If a person uses a gun to murder a bunch of people, and the prosecution has a solid case to put that person away for several life sentences, or to death, their last concern is the illegal possession of the firearm -- which is a misdemeanor in semi-sane states and a lesser felony in bat-shit states.
Bottom line, the violent criminal isn't in danger of being in prison because he or she had a gun. That person would be in prison because of what he or she did with it.
By far, the most likely people to face jail time, lose their jobs, lose their livelihoods because they had a gun are the people who haven't hurt anyone, and just misread some poorly written, fine-print of some bullshit law somewhere.
Yeah, if you're on the other side, I'm done debating you. I'm just gonna lecture you about why you're wrong.