Reply With Quote
just like legal weed coming to tx, it's all smoke and mirrors in order to usher in the blue fascists.
i'm ok with our gun laws and see no reason to change them.
How do you feel about guns laws in Texas?
If there is one state which springs to mind when you think “guns” (whether for positive or negative reasons), it is probably Texas.
Texas is known for its loose stance toward firearms, but it is also known for its mass shootings. In recent weeks, these include the Walmart massacre in El Paso where 22 people were killed, along with the most recent shooting in Odessa, which claimed the lives of eight (including the gunman).
In 2019, Texas passed laws to further reduce restrictions on firearms. Those laws have just gone into effect.
How do you feel about Texas’s gun laws? Should they be reconsidered in light of recent events or not?
just like legal weed coming to tx, it's all smoke and mirrors in order to usher in the blue fascists.
i'm ok with our gun laws and see no reason to change them.
Two opposing schools of thought on the matter
1. More guns in the hands of more law abiding citizens means more protection for those people (some better than none)
2. Fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means those citizens cannot arbitrarily decide to go on a GTA V rampage (people are law abiding until they aren't)
1 assumes people can be trusted to carry firearms
2 assumes it's riskier to have a gun than to be unarmed
1 accounts for being involved in a mass shooting
2 considers all those who aren't but are still carrying a firearm
The temp solution is to have more certified watch people, someone with the proven wherewithal to carry and protect large groups of people, someone other than police who won't stand guard. Since we cannot strip guns from would be shooters, since we don't know who they are or will be, we can only hope we don't encounter them or we can hope to have some means of self defense if we do. Some is better than none.
An outright gun ban is the only way to actually effect it, since most of these shooters legally acquire their guns and seem to be enamored by assault weapons, likely a video game or "wannabe GI Joe" fetish. Some kill with handguns, maybe for the same reasons.
So 2nd amendment needs revisited as does the 1st (reporting non stop on the shooter, deification of the shooter which spurns copycats who are right on the edge anyhow.) Don't advertise manifestos, but social media platforms makes it so that MSM isn't required. The feds have to get ahold of social media and police it tighter, things need to be approved before being posted. MSM has to have the same restrictions they have on kids, no names or images of mass shooters, no getting famous by killing people.
For the 2nd A, whittle it down to hunting shotguns with 5 rnd mags only, no 8 round on guns not modified for sporting clays, hunting rifles with cap of 4 rounds and revolvers. Sure you can still shoot people with those but you have to start somewhere.
Think we should try those nation wide!
Especially in Detroit Chicago
Bad people don't really care about laws.
Illegal doesnt mean inaccessible. It's the elephant in the room everyone shakes the...hoof(?) of and then decides to ignore it. Kinda like inner city violence.
Tell it, Chris. Testify!!!
That's not 100% true
So why do we tempt people to drink and drive with bars ?
There are more guns in texas than in any other state -
so this makes Texas the safest state in the world.
Oh - wait!
Stupid post
it's not a 1:1 ratio but its absurd to claim there's no effect, imo
prohibition didn't end alcohol consumption but noticeably decreased it
Anddddd the crime spree it created hasnt been close to being matched since then. Prohibition profits put the Mafia in insane power for 50 years. So yeah....fewer people drank, but those who wanted a drink got it...very ing easily too and it begat the most powerful crime Syndicate in our history, one that went unrecognized/denied by the Feds for a few decades. Not a really good example to use, honestly.
Where are you getting that from? I didn't say that, like at all.
this is moving the goalpost. look at your previous post to see what we were discussing
no, its actually a good example to show that bans decrease the targeted behaviorNot a really good example to use, honestly.
You're basing that on putting words in my mouth. So, yeah, that moving goalposts thing...go re-read my comment.
you were agreeing with chris' post that "bad people dont care about laws" and then said that illegality =/= inaccessibility. did the illegality of alcohol decrease the accessibility? the noticeable decrease in consumption would seem to indicate so
taken together, there is an implication that a law implementing a ban is futile
You said I said it doesnt make any effect whatsoever. That wasnt said or inferred in anyway. No need to lie
Did the law prevent people from getting drinks? A small percentage. The collateral damage from that law was an unmatched rise in crime. Most people who wanted drinks got drinks. Do you really think prohibition was successful?
If anything, your example proves me right- illegal doesnt mean inaccessible . Same today with drugs and pros utes.
Because making and selling guns is just as easy as making and selling moonshine?
Tell it, ducks. Testify!!!
i dont think anybody is arguing that any law will eliminate the targeted conduct by 100%. a gun ban won't. prohibition didn't.
but prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption pretty heavily. i dont see why gun ownership/use would be much different.
the negative side effects of prohibition are well do ented. i dont believe they are likely to replicate in the modern day. do you?
Who said that?
The only point made is that illegal doesnt mean inaccessible, pretty simple concept, even with words being put in people's mouths. There will be a black market for weapons if a "prohibition" happens. Just like during prohibition, just like with drugs, just like with hookers.
People who want something enough will get it, period. Dunno why you and 21 are so intent to pump a well that isnt even dug, but whatevs.
You ain't gettin' the guns, 21. That's it, Fort Pitt. Savvy? You gonna volunteer to go door-to-door pryin' 'em loose from cold, dead fingers? Nope
Tell it, Cooch. Testify!!!
No one was arguing that a ban is futile to begin with. The only point made was clear and concise. Maybe dont make such massive leaps in logic.
People are going to get what they want if they want it. Junkies, sex addicts, gun addicts.
To answer your question, it wont be as bad as prohibition, but the black market for weapons already exists. to deny that there will be a black market for weapons is ridiculous. There already is a fairly large one, we see it with inner city violence (stolen and smuggled) and cartel shipments that get busted are commonly found with huge caches of weapons.
The cartels, like their Mafia predecessors, will follow the money. The illegal market that already exists will just boom.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
