Usually don’t do the comment history thing but I was specifically curious about said state, which appears to possibly be Ohio?

If so yes, people do carry in Ohio.

Tbf they actually view the other side as the tyrannical one and think their side is the savior, it isn’t actually that hard to understand their feelings on that one.

Not saying that they’re right, just that this is the explanation for this oft cited “disconnect.” Basically just “nobody thinks they’re the bad guy.”

You could, for example, make it illegal to sell/own guns under 30.

When do people become adults? I think if we’re doing shit like this we also have to raise the age of adulthood to (in this case 30). Meaning no military until 30, no smoking/vaping/drinking until 30, on your parent’s insurance, they can’t kick you out until then, can’t be tried as an adult, age of consent, etc, and frankly we likely shouldn’t trust kids with other deadly instruments such as cars until then either, they’re clearly causing problems with those too considering the numbers on car accidents.

Frankly there is some scientific basis for all this, being that our brains don’t stop developing until 25, but this half-adult stage where all of the negatives but none of the benefits apply is ridiculous to me. Fwiw I have this exact same argument about raising the smoking age, etc, it’s not just guns, but talk of raising the age makes them relevant to that opinion for me. I’m not even necesarily against it, but for me personally to be on board it has to be bigger than “no guns til 30 just because.” Besides, people 18-29, especially women, have a very good reason to have tools with which to defend themselves, and I personally think it’d be a shame to deny say a woman who is escaping an abusive ex those tools, especially considering often women date slightly older men meaning he may be able to get them while she can’t, if she’s 25ish and he’s 30+.

You could ban magazines

Not really. You could ban detachable magazines, which is 99% of guns made after 1910, but that won’t fly here because duh, you could ban detachable magazines over 10rnds, but that is entirely ineffective as it’s defeated by “carrying another magazine or two,” and reloading takes less than 2sec literally (way less if you train it which you can do in your room while watching TV.) That also includes almost every 9mm pistol in the country btw, which mostly have 14-17rnds standard, magazines aren’t only in AKs and ARs.

You could limit the caliber of bullets sold.

I mean, in theory maybe that is legally possible? Maybe? But even still the venn diagram of “the deadliest calibre” and “the smallest calibre” is actually just a circle containing the word “.22lr” This is mostly due to quantity (availability/price), of course, but at any rate it illustrates that limiting calibre wouldn’t do much since even the smallest calibre commonly available can kill with ease. On top of that the .223 rnd commonly used by mass shooters for example is .003" bigger in diameter than a .22lr, about 25gr heavier of a bullet, but with more powder making it carry about as much kinetic energy as a hot .357 rnd, they don’t usw “high powered” rounds like the .50bmg or .338 lapua already, .223 is one of the weakest rifle rounds commonly used for self defense or hunting coyotes.

You could make gun manufacturers civilly liable for the advertisements they put out.

Where are you guys seeing gun ads, like, in Guns & Ammo magazine or something? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one but I hear about them with the whole Daniel Defense scandal. At any rate, they already would be to a degree, like Juul was, that would apply to guns too if it is proven to target kids or something. But there would be a court case to determine culpability which they could win, that’s just the way our system works really. Seems easy enough to just not buy those magazines for your kids or whatever. Do they even still have print magazines?

I’m not opposed to something that would actually work and couldn’t be abused by some racist sheriff or governor to deny guns to POC et al. But most of the proposed legislation I’ve seen falls short of one or both of those (personal) requirements. Most things will be used to further burden marginalized populations in overpoliced neighborhoods just like drug prohibition is, it won’t affect the people in gated communities at all.

Tbf, they have before. Ron Paul for instance was a Libertarian who ran as a Republican and won, and they do run for local offices a lot (at least the Libertarians, never seen a local Green on the ballot), they just also put forth a presidential candidate because if they can get like 5% or 15% of the vote (I can’t remember which) they get federal funding and have to get included in the next debates instead of the debates only being R vs D.

Idk about the other third parties, but the Libertarians are doing exactly that.

You don’t have a authority that decides what is useful and useless, what gets produced and what doesn’t.

Well sort of, the “authority” in the case of a truly free market is The Market (or The People, if you will.) If it sells it sells, if it doesn’t it doesn’t, The Market will decide.

That said, I agree with the rest of your statement and realize that you meant authority in a truer sense, and I in more of a metaphorical sense.

Wellll there’s two types of bikers, there’s those that want to seem like rebels, and there’s meth dealers that will kill you. There’s also people who ride motorcycles that aren’t “bikers” too.

True and all that makes a difference, like in the states with restrictive laws on carry you’re less likely to have someone armed to defend, etc. Guns can only be a good defense when they’re there.

I’d be interested to find the total number who carry regularly though, but I couldn’t unfortunately.

Duh. They use phones mostly. A lot of the gen z people I know are just as bad as boomers with tech. Millennials and gen x had that sweet spot of “actually having to learn how shit works not just iphone go brrr.”

I’d assume so as well. I figure if the unarmed defender had a gun there they probably would have used it lol.

Also important to note a few things about this data, the frequency which people carry and the likelihood of the shooting happening in an area where one isn’t legally allowed to carry.

According to this https://checkyourfact.com/2018/03/05/fact-check-what-percentage-of-americans-have-concealed-carry-permits/

Just 6.6% of Americans have a CCW permit. Some do also open carry, but the number can’t be that much higher, and not all of those people even carry regularly, some only do sometimes, let’s call it a generous 10-12% carry regularly. Even at 10%, that isn’t very many, you’re more likely to not have anyone armed around you.

Especially considering that most often, the type of mass shootings we’re talking about are public mass shootings, not mass shootings at someone’s house party that are gang related. Clubs, bars, schools, theaters, concerts, etc, are by and large areas where you’re not allowed to carry. Even some stores like walmart prohibit carrying guns inside (and have had shootings before.) This is also going to lessen the likelihood that someone will be armed to respond. Depending on sources the numbers of how many mass shootings take place in said gun free zones varies wildly. If we’re cutting out robberies and gang activity, John Lott at the Crime Prevention Research Center puts the number at 98%, if we’re including the gangs, drugs, and robberies, Everytown puts the number at 10%.

For an armed civilian to respond, one of those 6.6% of people has to be legally allowed to carry, and have happened to bring their gun today, and even then they still have a gunfight to win they can easily lose. 22/433 is 5.08% of times an armed civilian was the one who stopped the crime, at 6.6% or even 10% of people carrying, I’m gonna say 5.08% is not that bad and the number could go up if more sane people would carry and be ready to save themselves and others should the need arise.

clearly working

lmao

Something like that, yeah. They don’t all notify.

Unfortunately a vegan who is a good person isn’t alwayd out there proselytizing at every chance they get in a non intrusive manner,

That’s the thing imo, if a vegan is alwayd out there proselytizing at every chance they get then they are by default not a good person even if they do it in a supposed non intrusive manner and are by default vegan extremists imo. Proselytizing is in and of itself intrusive by definition imo, like ads.

I know that, you know that, many know that, but many don’t. Imo they should be required to inform you, preferably with a splash screen on boot or something similar that says “monitored by XXXXX” or something. Especially for things like schools where it’s more likely kids won’t know it (and will be more likely to become privacy advocates for life from knowingly having theirs violated.)

Uh oh, Candlejack must’ve got him! Oh no, now he’ll get me ne-

I would argue that your pet didn’t consent to being imprisoned rescued and should be free. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, and forced sterilization are antithetical to vegan ideology.

You’d hate a snake lol.

Also my cat ruthlessly murders any creature unfortunate enough to stumble into her den simply for the pleasure of doing so. She doesn’t eat them, usually, but she isn’t exactly gentle regardless of whether or not she consumes her quarry. I think I may end up her next victim should I attempt to completely change her very nature against her will.

While we’re philosophising, is the concept of pet ownership at all vegan? I mean, if milking a cow is rape and eating it is murder, owning a dog (et cetera) is forcible detainment (or rather false imprisonment, unless the dog was convicted in a court of law by a jury of its peers) of an animal that deserves autonomy just the same. Dog can’t consent to being owned, but if it understood the concepts of ownership and autonomy I have my bet placed on what it’d say on this matter…

I’m just saying, I don’t think vegans imprisoning innocent creatures for their enjoyment, be they vegan creatures or otherwise, is ideologically consistent.

That’s how it starts. Gabba gabba we accept you, one of us, one of us.