Why, because they call for exactly what you're talking about? They are the first ones to scream for actual enforcement of actual laws. The vast majority of murders involving guns are at the hands of criminals already blocked from owning and possessing firearms, most of whom have already been busted doing so in the past. And yet they walk around free to keep doing the same.
They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be.
Which is exactly what they do. But they have ALSO had to mobilize to fight back against the Democrats' increasingly overt message that nobody should be allowed to own guns. These are not mutually exclusive tasks.
No, the millions and millions of people who own guns not for sporting purposes own them for self defense. They choose the one best suited to prevent a killing from happening. That's what self defense is all about - avoiding injury and death on your own part, or those people around you.
There may be a *limited* sport & hunting usage we have now
If by "limited" you mean "as practiced by millions and millions of people with millions and millions of guns purchased for that exact purpose," then yes.
Gun by comparison are not so pervasive, take little part of our life and yet kill nearly as many people as car, and murder take a significant slice of it.
Yeah, not so pervasive. Only a few hundred million in private legal ownership. And they play a part in your every day life whether you know it or not. Everywhere you go, you are passing people who have them as part of their uniformed duty to protect you, or out of sight where you don't see them, and are blissfully unaware of the enormous responsibility those people have taken on carrying, right along with their willingness to defend you. But since you have no taste for any of that, you can indeed just pretend it's not part of what's going on around you. Carry on! Pick up that latte, and don't sweat the details of that very important deterrent that's all around you.
Those 5.56 "assault" weapons you're so worried about are used so infrequently by criminals to murder people that they're a healthy order of magnitude less involved in deaths than are bare fists and baseball bats, to say nothing of knives.
Hey, look! Another liberal who immediately - when confronted with the notion of rape - can't resist thinking of a black guy doing it. I've never met a more consistent, evil bunch of racists than every single Progressive I've ever encountered. And bonus points for being a misogynist who assumes all women are simple-minded fools who can't defend themselves with a firearm. Maybe you should go for the trifecta and find a way to get some homophobia in there, too?
There are no corporations that aren't run by people. You do not surrender your constitutionally protected rights just because you gather together as a group to run a landscaping business, a charity, a consultancy, or an internet messaging operation.
Including this quote by the turtle Mitch McConnell “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Leaving aside your inability to quote someone without sounding like you're a six year old... why shouldn't he have said that? Obama promised things (and DID things) that are completely antithetical to the constitution and very nature of the republic. When someone tells you that they're going to be like that, why wouldn't you set your focus on limiting that person's ability to behave that way? Anything less than opposing a second term of someone shown to be deliberately violating the constitution's separation of powers (as Obama did routinely, and was spanked by the courts for having done) as an overt, ongoing approach to governing, why shouldn't a coalition of people who disagree with that posture make limiting that person's tenure a top priority?
Notice how you never complain about the people who start the conversation, only the people who remind you how and why the camp you're shilling for lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters who walked away from the vitriol coming out of your employers' mouths.
Call it what it was. The deliberate mis-handling of classified information under conditions that would have seen any other federal employee convicted of a felony. The deliberate destruction of federal records under subpoena. The serial lying about all of it, over and over again. The getting off the hook on all of this through the politicized assistance of people way up the food chain in Obama's DoJ.
her involvement with the US governments sabotage of haitian minimum wage
No, call it (and related activity) for what it was: the Clintons becoming personally wealthy through the abuse of their foundation's posturing, and the use of highly paid foundation positions as rewards for political supporters. The Clinton's personally raking in millions while she was a public servant, through the selling of political access to highly placed people in places like Russia. Any particular side effect on things like wages in Haiti is absolutely chump change, compared to the big picture.
her untenable platform of lecturing blue collar workers
No, call it what it was: she expressed her loathing contempt for millions of American women, calling them racists and worse. She's just wrapped up another leg of her book tour, confirming that she has an abiding hatred of all women who didn't want to see the Clinton regain the money-making political power they so craved to have back, and felt sure they'd be handed. Her hatred of the blue collar Americans who make the food she eats, the vehicles her and her family's multiple Secret Service details drive around in, and all the rest of those horrible backwards people in flyover country was on display when she wouldn't even set foot in states like Wisconsin... and then blamed the Russians and Comey and a women doing what their husbands tell them to when she lost in states like Wisconsin.
And despite all of that, she had a better chance at winning than the never-had-a-job old white guy socialist with multiple expensive homes in New England.
Sorry, you'll have to explain this. Are you trying to say that it is impossible to implement gun-control in Baltimore?
No, I'm saying that they've already implemented very stringent gun control in Baltimore. As a result, it has long since been very difficult for people to legally possess (let alone use, for self defense) guns there. Needless to say, the rampant problem they have with crime there involves life-long criminals that really don't care, at all, about legally owning or using guns. Such laws only impact the law-abiding. As a result, virtually all of the guns confiscated from criminals and collected from crime scenes are - of course - not legally owned, possessed, or transported. Because criminals are criminals.
The best he could obtain was an ordinary shotgun.
Or, he could have spent $50 on stuff from the kitchen and hardware stores, and easily killed dozens of people if he could read. Not sure what your point is. Terrorists using cars and trucks have killed dozens and dozens of people multiple times, by simply running them down. I'm guessing you're thinking it was all about the cars and trucks, though.
Good answer. I like how you corrected your misunderstanding. Oops, my mistake. You can't muster the intellectual honesty to actually read the thread. But just to help you out:
So we're going to post this story, but completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded with Trump" turned out to be entirely false?
No, House Republicans came up with that conclusion, somehow opposing the entire US intelligence community in the process.
So, the post expresses frustration that we're going to ignore the news that the committee finds the "Russia colluded with Trump" notion is false. A response to that comment says that the entire US intelligence community is in opposition to that finding. I replied to that patently absurd assertion. Which was the stupid part, exactly? Be specific.
So what you're saying is that you can't actually read the words in the post to which I responded. Both that post and my reply were in fairly simple English. Where are you having problems? I can help by using smaller words, if you'd like.
If Trump didn't mean what he said, why did Breitbart run the headline: "Trump the gun grabber"?
So people like you would click on it. See how that works?
Why did the NRA feel they needed to have a meeting with him after these comments?
For appearances. So that people like, when they saw that both parties left the meeting without their hair on fire, would be denied the chance to spread around a phony narrative.
You can say people are being dumb and the President didn't mean what he said... But a lot of conservatives seemed to take it the same way.
He was speaking casually, not lawerly. Which you're trying to pretend you don't know, because it helps your narrative to assert otherwise. And no, there aren't any significant number of conservatives are the least bit worried about that. Because he's more than clarified the matter, for those who think a single sound bite out of context is some sort of executed policy.
He literally said we should ignore due process and take away people's guns. If Obama had done that gun stocks would have gone nuts.
That's because people who aren't pretending to be dumb, like you, understood exactly what he was saying: when the police understand they have a dangerously violent crazy person with guns on their radar, they need to act on the spot in the same way you take away a drunk driver's car... and then head to the courthouse. But sure, pretend you don't understand this.
And why would people who make and purchase and use guns react differently? Because actual thinking informed people understand that Obama had aligned himself non-stop with lefty politicians who routinely talk in terms of denying people their rights, and about how much they'd like to be just like Australia and take people's guns away, etc. Obama did nothing to push those people away, politically. Quite the opposite. It's why Obama was the single greatest gun salesman in the last 50 years. Trump, on the other hand, isn't that way. See the difference?
somehow opposing the entire US intelligence community in the process
Please cite a single source (not including Hillary Clinton) that quotes "the entire US intelligence community" as concluding that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Please, fire away. Feel free to explain how the special counsel's recent indictments of 13 Russians, in which Mueller went out of his way to mention that that there wasn't any collusion, supports your narrative about how the entire intel community says there was. Be specific.
What's the connection? The handful of urban areas that account for so much of the bad-guys-used-guns violence statistics are, not surprisingly, also places that have a particular problem with not handling career criminals - on the books - in a way that would see them out of action. Both in terms of their gun-buying rights specifically, and their liberty generally. In Baltimore, for example, some 85% of the guns seized from those arrested in connection with violent crimes are already people with long criminal histories. They'd already fail the background check and would be undeterred by ANY law that would limit their access to guns (because they've already made the decision to criminally acquire and carry and use them). So in their case, the problem is the local political climate as it relates to catch-and-release prosecutors who are more interested in cultural pandering than actually reducing violence. So instead they tell law-abiding people that the solution is to make it ever harder to legally own a gun, or that reducing the capacity of a law abiding owner's pistol magazine will somehow prevent a criminal from shooting somebody.
Nothing. Which is why we have a national instant background check system. Groups like the NRA have been pleading with state governments and other agencies to participate more fully in providing information to that system. Murderers like the man in Florida a couple weeks back would have been prevented from making that purchase if authorities weren't so paralyzed by political correctness and afraid of SJWs that they won't allow the system to actually work.
Yes, fear of guns in the US is greatly exaggerated. I've tried to persuade people that the US is quite safe to visit. But twisting the truth like that to say there is no gun problem... its just incomprehensible to us outsiders.
Well, it's incomprehensible to "outsiders" only if those outsiders are deliberately trying to confuse criminal acts with the existence of guns. The problems ARE concentrated in specific places. Not in "poor black urban areas" but in specific urban areas. There are plenty of places that are relatively poor, mostly black, have high gun ownership rates, and low murder rates. That's the norm, and specific murder-heavy neighborhoods in parts of Chicago, Baltimore, etc., are the exception. But the gang-bangers there are so busy killing each other over turf and enjoying their freedom because of local liberal government policies, that they throw the entire nation's stats way off. Mentioning that isn't "twisting the truth." It's simply telling the truth.
Never been more difficult? I can go onto craigslist and find one tonight if I wanted.
Oh, you mean ILLEGALLY obtain. Right. That's the whole point. For years, we've been making it ever more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase, transfer, possess, carry, or use firearms. This has absolutely no impact on people willing to break the law by transferring guns outside of the legal framework in place. Or did you mean... using an online ad to begin a legal transaction, which is subject to current state and federal laws?
What good is a "backbone structure" when you start out with an incorrect premise? How is that any different from a religion based on a flat earth concept?
No. Science is a methodical process that follow rigid precepts. Whether or not given notion proves, on scrutiny and through experimentation, to shed light on how the world actually works has NOTHING to do with whether or not some portion of society wishes to understand or acknowledge that fact. Whether or not a scientist's narrow area of research leaves them unaware of other areas of research has NOTHING to do with whether or not his research demonstrates reality.
2+2=4 whether or not a researcher's social peers or others can muster the effort to recognize that fact. 2+2 continues to =4 even when somebody who wishes it equaled 5 because asserting that gives him something to use for social attention on slashdot submits a self-referential article insisting 2+2=5.
Which has exactly ZERO to do with how the universe actually works. You could show a hundred people some simple math used to solve for variables in a simple but elegant way, and get "unexpected social patterns" in the reactions. Hell, you could show a hundred people "2+2=4" and you'd get a fair number of people with some bone to pick, onto which they'd project everything else about their world and personal lives that bothers them. So what? Studying their reactions is its own field for its own sake, but has nothing, zip, nada, bupkiss, zero to do with the nature of the universe. The universe doesn't give a shit about how people who are told things about it react. The universe doesn't alter its nature because some percentage of people told the truth, or absurd fantasies, about it react in some patterned way. You're confusing your fascination with and embrace of irrationality with some sense that such defective thinking reflects anything meaningful about physics.
Maryland, likewise, as some of the toughest gun laws in the country. The city of Baltimore further tightens those, making gun ownership there extremely difficult. And yet, Baltimore is now the murder capital of the country. And... shockingly, the overwhelming majority of those crimes are committed with: guns possessed by people not legally allowed to own them, guns which were procured usually through theft or fraud. Meanwhile, just miles away in almost every direction, guns are substantially easier to get and carry legally, are owned by FAR more people, and the rates (and hard numbers) of crimes involving guns are a small fraction of what they are in Baltimore. Why? Because criminals in Baltimore face very little in the way of consequence for being career criminals.
Shouldn't the rest of the nation be the same?
No. Because all of the places that most tighten down such laws see increases in murder and other crime. But nationally, such crime has been in a steady decline for thirty years, even as gun ownership has jumped by millions. Your narrative is exactly, precisely backwards.
Ahh, yes, of course, it's the MEDIA'S fault for mass shootings in America, not the proliferation of guns!
Well, let's see. Guns have never been more difficult to buy. Despite that, millions and millions more people have gone through the hoops to buy them over the last couple of decades, even as the rate of murder by people who USE guns is down to almost half what it was before the big spike in gun buying over the last ten years. In other words, what you're implying is actually the bunch of bullshit. Millions more guns are legally owned, and gun violence is dramatically down. If you remove four or five specific urban areas in the US (all run for decades by liberal legislatures/councils and executives, and with the tightest gun restrictions and yet very high, very localized crime problems in those spots), the US is one of the lowest murder rate countries in the developed world. But sure, it's the guns.
Yup, you've got it bad. Now that your pedophilia is starting to show through, your obsessive ongoing campaign of unhinged, juvenile snark is starting to make more sense. Somebody could probably get a decent thesis out of you, panting as you follow around the/. users you lie awake at night thinking of, and your lust for underage girls. I'm guessing you're really hoping that more states don't pass "red flag" laws, since you may lose some of your liberties as you get more and more public with what troubles you so much. Good luck with that.
Slashdot Mirror
The NRA is failing everyone right now
Why, because they call for exactly what you're talking about? They are the first ones to scream for actual enforcement of actual laws. The vast majority of murders involving guns are at the hands of criminals already blocked from owning and possessing firearms, most of whom have already been busted doing so in the past. And yet they walk around free to keep doing the same.
They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be.
Which is exactly what they do. But they have ALSO had to mobilize to fight back against the Democrats' increasingly overt message that nobody should be allowed to own guns. These are not mutually exclusive tasks.
Gun were invented for a sole reason : killing.
No, the millions and millions of people who own guns not for sporting purposes own them for self defense. They choose the one best suited to prevent a killing from happening . That's what self defense is all about - avoiding injury and death on your own part, or those people around you.
There may be a *limited* sport & hunting usage we have now
If by "limited" you mean "as practiced by millions and millions of people with millions and millions of guns purchased for that exact purpose," then yes.
Gun by comparison are not so pervasive, take little part of our life and yet kill nearly as many people as car, and murder take a significant slice of it.
Yeah, not so pervasive. Only a few hundred million in private legal ownership. And they play a part in your every day life whether you know it or not. Everywhere you go, you are passing people who have them as part of their uniformed duty to protect you, or out of sight where you don't see them, and are blissfully unaware of the enormous responsibility those people have taken on carrying, right along with their willingness to defend you. But since you have no taste for any of that, you can indeed just pretend it's not part of what's going on around you. Carry on! Pick up that latte, and don't sweat the details of that very important deterrent that's all around you.
Those 5.56 "assault" weapons you're so worried about are used so infrequently by criminals to murder people that they're a healthy order of magnitude less involved in deaths than are bare fists and baseball bats, to say nothing of knives.
Hey, look! Another liberal who immediately - when confronted with the notion of rape - can't resist thinking of a black guy doing it. I've never met a more consistent, evil bunch of racists than every single Progressive I've ever encountered. And bonus points for being a misogynist who assumes all women are simple-minded fools who can't defend themselves with a firearm. Maybe you should go for the trifecta and find a way to get some homophobia in there, too?
Corporations have no free speech "rights"
There are no corporations that aren't run by people. You do not surrender your constitutionally protected rights just because you gather together as a group to run a landscaping business, a charity, a consultancy, or an internet messaging operation.
For perspective, the suns nearest stellar neighbor ...
It came so close that it dislodged nearly all of our apostrophes, leaving /. editors unable to use them for 70,000 years to come.
Including this quote by the turtle Mitch McConnell “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Leaving aside your inability to quote someone without sounding like you're a six year old ... why shouldn't he have said that? Obama promised things (and DID things) that are completely antithetical to the constitution and very nature of the republic. When someone tells you that they're going to be like that, why wouldn't you set your focus on limiting that person's ability to behave that way? Anything less than opposing a second term of someone shown to be deliberately violating the constitution's separation of powers (as Obama did routinely, and was spanked by the courts for having done) as an overt, ongoing approach to governing, why shouldn't a coalition of people who disagree with that posture make limiting that person's tenure a top priority?
Notice how you never complain about the people who start the conversation, only the people who remind you how and why the camp you're shilling for lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters who walked away from the vitriol coming out of your employers' mouths.
The email scandal
Call it what it was. The deliberate mis-handling of classified information under conditions that would have seen any other federal employee convicted of a felony. The deliberate destruction of federal records under subpoena. The serial lying about all of it, over and over again. The getting off the hook on all of this through the politicized assistance of people way up the food chain in Obama's DoJ.
her involvement with the US governments sabotage of haitian minimum wage
No, call it (and related activity) for what it was: the Clintons becoming personally wealthy through the abuse of their foundation's posturing, and the use of highly paid foundation positions as rewards for political supporters. The Clinton's personally raking in millions while she was a public servant, through the selling of political access to highly placed people in places like Russia. Any particular side effect on things like wages in Haiti is absolutely chump change, compared to the big picture.
her untenable platform of lecturing blue collar workers
No, call it what it was: she expressed her loathing contempt for millions of American women, calling them racists and worse. She's just wrapped up another leg of her book tour, confirming that she has an abiding hatred of all women who didn't want to see the Clinton regain the money-making political power they so craved to have back, and felt sure they'd be handed. Her hatred of the blue collar Americans who make the food she eats, the vehicles her and her family's multiple Secret Service details drive around in, and all the rest of those horrible backwards people in flyover country was on display when she wouldn't even set foot in states like Wisconsin ... and then blamed the Russians and Comey and a women doing what their husbands tell them to when she lost in states like Wisconsin.
And despite all of that, she had a better chance at winning than the never-had-a-job old white guy socialist with multiple expensive homes in New England.
Sorry, you'll have to explain this. Are you trying to say that it is impossible to implement gun-control in Baltimore?
No, I'm saying that they've already implemented very stringent gun control in Baltimore. As a result, it has long since been very difficult for people to legally possess (let alone use, for self defense) guns there. Needless to say, the rampant problem they have with crime there involves life-long criminals that really don't care, at all, about legally owning or using guns. Such laws only impact the law-abiding. As a result, virtually all of the guns confiscated from criminals and collected from crime scenes are - of course - not legally owned, possessed, or transported. Because criminals are criminals.
The best he could obtain was an ordinary shotgun.
Or, he could have spent $50 on stuff from the kitchen and hardware stores, and easily killed dozens of people if he could read. Not sure what your point is. Terrorists using cars and trucks have killed dozens and dozens of people multiple times, by simply running them down. I'm guessing you're thinking it was all about the cars and trucks, though.
So we're going to post this story, but completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded with Trump" turned out to be entirely false?
No, House Republicans came up with that conclusion, somehow opposing the entire US intelligence community in the process.
So, the post expresses frustration that we're going to ignore the news that the committee finds the "Russia colluded with Trump" notion is false. A response to that comment says that the entire US intelligence community is in opposition to that finding. I replied to that patently absurd assertion. Which was the stupid part, exactly? Be specific.
So what you're saying is that you can't actually read the words in the post to which I responded. Both that post and my reply were in fairly simple English. Where are you having problems? I can help by using smaller words, if you'd like.
If Trump didn't mean what he said, why did Breitbart run the headline: "Trump the gun grabber"?
So people like you would click on it. See how that works?
Why did the NRA feel they needed to have a meeting with him after these comments?
For appearances. So that people like, when they saw that both parties left the meeting without their hair on fire, would be denied the chance to spread around a phony narrative.
You can say people are being dumb and the President didn't mean what he said... But a lot of conservatives seemed to take it the same way.
He was speaking casually, not lawerly. Which you're trying to pretend you don't know, because it helps your narrative to assert otherwise. And no, there aren't any significant number of conservatives are the least bit worried about that. Because he's more than clarified the matter, for those who think a single sound bite out of context is some sort of executed policy.
He literally said we should ignore due process and take away people's guns. If Obama had done that gun stocks would have gone nuts.
That's because people who aren't pretending to be dumb, like you, understood exactly what he was saying: when the police understand they have a dangerously violent crazy person with guns on their radar, they need to act on the spot in the same way you take away a drunk driver's car ... and then head to the courthouse. But sure, pretend you don't understand this.
And why would people who make and purchase and use guns react differently? Because actual thinking informed people understand that Obama had aligned himself non-stop with lefty politicians who routinely talk in terms of denying people their rights, and about how much they'd like to be just like Australia and take people's guns away, etc. Obama did nothing to push those people away, politically. Quite the opposite. It's why Obama was the single greatest gun salesman in the last 50 years. Trump, on the other hand, isn't that way. See the difference?
somehow opposing the entire US intelligence community in the process
Please cite a single source (not including Hillary Clinton) that quotes "the entire US intelligence community" as concluding that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Please, fire away. Feel free to explain how the special counsel's recent indictments of 13 Russians, in which Mueller went out of his way to mention that that there wasn't any collusion, supports your narrative about how the entire intel community says there was. Be specific.
What's the connection? The handful of urban areas that account for so much of the bad-guys-used-guns violence statistics are, not surprisingly, also places that have a particular problem with not handling career criminals - on the books - in a way that would see them out of action. Both in terms of their gun-buying rights specifically, and their liberty generally. In Baltimore, for example, some 85% of the guns seized from those arrested in connection with violent crimes are already people with long criminal histories. They'd already fail the background check and would be undeterred by ANY law that would limit their access to guns (because they've already made the decision to criminally acquire and carry and use them). So in their case, the problem is the local political climate as it relates to catch-and-release prosecutors who are more interested in cultural pandering than actually reducing violence. So instead they tell law-abiding people that the solution is to make it ever harder to legally own a gun, or that reducing the capacity of a law abiding owner's pistol magazine will somehow prevent a criminal from shooting somebody.
What is so wrong with background checks
Nothing. Which is why we have a national instant background check system. Groups like the NRA have been pleading with state governments and other agencies to participate more fully in providing information to that system. Murderers like the man in Florida a couple weeks back would have been prevented from making that purchase if authorities weren't so paralyzed by political correctness and afraid of SJWs that they won't allow the system to actually work.
Bionic Beaver. That's what you're going with.
Yes, fear of guns in the US is greatly exaggerated. I've tried to persuade people that the US is quite safe to visit. But twisting the truth like that to say there is no gun problem ... its just incomprehensible to us outsiders.
Well, it's incomprehensible to "outsiders" only if those outsiders are deliberately trying to confuse criminal acts with the existence of guns. The problems ARE concentrated in specific places. Not in "poor black urban areas" but in specific urban areas. There are plenty of places that are relatively poor, mostly black, have high gun ownership rates, and low murder rates. That's the norm, and specific murder-heavy neighborhoods in parts of Chicago, Baltimore, etc., are the exception. But the gang-bangers there are so busy killing each other over turf and enjoying their freedom because of local liberal government policies, that they throw the entire nation's stats way off. Mentioning that isn't "twisting the truth." It's simply telling the truth.
Never been more difficult? I can go onto craigslist and find one tonight if I wanted.
Oh, you mean ILLEGALLY obtain. Right. That's the whole point. For years, we've been making it ever more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase, transfer, possess, carry, or use firearms. This has absolutely no impact on people willing to break the law by transferring guns outside of the legal framework in place. Or did you mean ... using an online ad to begin a legal transaction, which is subject to current state and federal laws?
What good is a "backbone structure" when you start out with an incorrect premise? How is that any different from a religion based on a flat earth concept?
No. Science is a methodical process that follow rigid precepts. Whether or not given notion proves, on scrutiny and through experimentation, to shed light on how the world actually works has NOTHING to do with whether or not some portion of society wishes to understand or acknowledge that fact. Whether or not a scientist's narrow area of research leaves them unaware of other areas of research has NOTHING to do with whether or not his research demonstrates reality.
2+2=4 whether or not a researcher's social peers or others can muster the effort to recognize that fact. 2+2 continues to =4 even when somebody who wishes it equaled 5 because asserting that gives him something to use for social attention on slashdot submits a self-referential article insisting 2+2=5.
Which has exactly ZERO to do with how the universe actually works. You could show a hundred people some simple math used to solve for variables in a simple but elegant way, and get "unexpected social patterns" in the reactions. Hell, you could show a hundred people "2+2=4" and you'd get a fair number of people with some bone to pick, onto which they'd project everything else about their world and personal lives that bothers them. So what? Studying their reactions is its own field for its own sake, but has nothing, zip, nada, bupkiss, zero to do with the nature of the universe. The universe doesn't give a shit about how people who are told things about it react. The universe doesn't alter its nature because some percentage of people told the truth, or absurd fantasies, about it react in some patterned way. You're confusing your fascination with and embrace of irrationality with some sense that such defective thinking reflects anything meaningful about physics.
Shouldn't the rest of the nation be the same?
No. Because all of the places that most tighten down such laws see increases in murder and other crime. But nationally, such crime has been in a steady decline for thirty years, even as gun ownership has jumped by millions. Your narrative is exactly, precisely backwards.
Ahh, yes, of course, it's the MEDIA'S fault for mass shootings in America, not the proliferation of guns!
Well, let's see. Guns have never been more difficult to buy. Despite that, millions and millions more people have gone through the hoops to buy them over the last couple of decades, even as the rate of murder by people who USE guns is down to almost half what it was before the big spike in gun buying over the last ten years. In other words, what you're implying is actually the bunch of bullshit. Millions more guns are legally owned, and gun violence is dramatically down. If you remove four or five specific urban areas in the US (all run for decades by liberal legislatures/councils and executives, and with the tightest gun restrictions and yet very high, very localized crime problems in those spots), the US is one of the lowest murder rate countries in the developed world. But sure, it's the guns.
Yup, you've got it bad. Now that your pedophilia is starting to show through, your obsessive ongoing campaign of unhinged, juvenile snark is starting to make more sense. Somebody could probably get a decent thesis out of you, panting as you follow around the /. users you lie awake at night thinking of, and your lust for underage girls. I'm guessing you're really hoping that more states don't pass "red flag" laws, since you may lose some of your liberties as you get more and more public with what troubles you so much. Good luck with that.