(August 7, 2019 at 7:32 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(August 7, 2019 at 5:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Kind of what I said, mate.

Boru

I was pointing out that men can wear suspenders without going all lumberjack.

Unless the lumberjack in the video is wearing thigh-high socks, he's wearing the girlie type of suspenders.

Boru

(August 7, 2019 at 7:38 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(August 7, 2019 at 7:32 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I was pointing out that men can wear suspenders without going all lumberjack.

Unless the lumberjack in the video is wearing thigh-high socks, he's wearing the girlie type of suspenders.

Boru

We're in different rooms.

How very cryptic of you.

Boru

(August 6, 2019 at 7:43 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Rename the forum "Thunderdome"?

"two men enter" what a porn film that was....

(August 8, 2019 at 8:11 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: How very cryptic of you.

Boru

Not all that cryptic.

As if on cue, Bill Clinton is back peddling the lie that the assault weapons ban worked.

This is a particularly dangerous lie, because the kernel of truth it’s built upon is that it could have. In final analysis we know exactly why we couldn’t credit it for effect. Why it didn’t.

The grandfathering of the law and the massive amount of pre-existing firearms. Additionally, any potential gains were offset by increases in the use of other firearms.

There was no mechanism in place to significantly reduce the firearms in circulation and so, even though the ban lasted for quite some time, it was more-than-half expected that it would expire before any gains could be realized.

This surplus, more than anything else, accounts for why strategies to reduce gun violence, working elsewhere, fail here.

-any gun control policy that doesn’t involve a massive federal buyback is effectively doomed to failure in the us.

-any gun control policy that fails to simultaneously target firearms through trace data will bleed whatever effect the ban, and the above, could conceivably have.

(August 8, 2019 at 4:25 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: As if on cue, Bill Clinton is back peddling the lie that the assault weapons ban worked.

This is a particularly dangerous lie, because the kernel of truth it’s built upon is that it could have.   In final analysis we know exactly why we couldn’t credit it for effect.  Why it didn’t.

The grandfathering of the law and the massive amount of pre-existing firearms.  Additionally, any potential gains were offset by increases in the use of other firearms.  

There was no mechanism in place to significantly reduce the firearms in circulation and so, even though the ban lasted for quite some time, it was more-than-half expected that it would expire before any gains could be realized.

This surplus, more than anything else, accounts for why strategies to reduce gun violence, working elsewhere, fail here.

-any gun control policy that doesn’t involve a massive federal buyback is effectively doomed to failure in the us.

-any gun control policy that fails to simultaneously target firearms through trace data will bleed whatever effect the ban, and the above, could conceivably have.

The Clinton ban was about aesthetics - not function.

It did diddley squat.

Exactly, and we know why.....so- if we’re headed for a ban ( you know we are, lol)......we should take care to learn from those mistakes.

Quote:The Clinton ban was about aesthetics - not function.

It did diddley squat.

Like all your gun nut solutions

Clearly, getting rid of assault-styled weapons isn't the answer.  Banning large capacity magazines isn't the answer, either.  And I really doubt that getting rid of gizmos like bump stocks and silencers is going to solve anything.

BUT - sensible gun regulation coupled with better access to mental health care, better background checks, 'red-flags', and getting police to take reported warning signs more seriously can only help.

Boru