http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-guns-campuses-and-madness.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28896812)

I'M HEAVY IN THE STREETS LIKE THE 7-SERIES BEEMER, MAN

HIT EM WITH THE NEENER, MAN

OR THAT FOUR-FIFTH, GUARANTEED TO LEAN YA, MAN. WHOA!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897162)

Seems more likely it should be banned in bars and shit where people are likely to do something impulsive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28896933)

--

Also, there is no minimum level of intoxication in the statute. Cops are free to interpret this as they see fit, so it could be one drink or one sip.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897044)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897050)

Frankly all of the laws in this area are stupid because functionally no one with a carry permit shoots anyone not in self-defense whether they are in a bar and whether they are drinking or not. I have not heard of even one instance where someone with a carry permit got drunk and shot someone in a bar. Maybe it has happened, but it is one of those things that people think might happen so they pass a law to prevent it when it never happens anyway.

I carry drunk and in bars where legal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897080)

but yeah, concealed carry isn't really the solution, neither is it the problem

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28896963)

Heres one off the top of my head

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28896971)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28896994)

it's like letting people who can't add tell us about how we should reform a math curriculum

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897085)

shitlibs don't know the difference between auto and semi auto, don't understand why anybody might need a pistol with more than whatever number of rounds they've made up today, don't understand how magazines work and think that background checks aren't damn near already universal and that concealed carry laws have had some negative effect on violent crime

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897111)

Personally I think an all-or-nothing approach is pretty much the only way to go: either the government goes on a crusade to confiscate everything but hunting rifles, or shouldn't bother at all. I've shot plenty of guns, I've hunted, and I'd definitely rather that they disappear entirely, but anything short of that is retarded.

The problem is shitlibs don't want to come out and say this because they'll be seen as Nazis, so they settle on half-baked annoyances which do nothing to solve the problem while just creating more red tape for everyone else.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897134)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Clock_Tower_Massacre

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897185)

and spur of the moment murders don't happen in public like that outside of gangbangers, doods who pop their wife go get the pistol, they could as easily grab the rifle

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897232)

US cities don't have a comparatively high murder rate because we have an abnormally high number of guys popping off their wives or MAF nerds shooting up white women, it's because of gangbangers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897277)

for now at least, the US isn't overran by cartel violence (and doesn't seem like it will be anytime soon given how anomalously peaceful our border towns are)--it's still mostly poor black doods. these aren't criminal masterminds or people connected to some syndicate, they're pretty much dipshit gangbanging niggas. if we aggressively confiscated guns then yes, some would still float around, but they extremely and expensive to obtain. tyrell has enough trouble affording a black market pistol as it is with hundreds of thousands of them floating around.

but the gun pipeline! oh the gun pipeline! you mean the one where mexico and south america are always bitching about the US providing THEIR guns? and god, are they whiny about that. the US is the source of the pipeline, not the sink. and unlike shit south american countries if we set our mind to it, we could confiscate nearly all the weapons in this country (because fortunately we don't have cartels going apeshit, and it's easier to forcefully confiscate guns from tyrones on the corner than Los Zetas)

Of course this is all just my fantasy. In reality I'm aware this will never happen because of how attached people here are to guns drowns out any possibility of the only realistic reform which is a complete ban, so in the mean time I think anyone who's not a felon should be allowed to by pretty much any gun. "Gun control" does absolutely nothing, they are either allowed to exist or not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897347)

also do you know how easy it is to make a gun? one dood with a drill and a hammer could churn out plenty if the money was there, and if good guns weren't around the money would definitely be there

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897410)

and making guns is pretty easy these days, but making ammunition still isn't

even if you throw out blacks and hispanics entirely, our murder rate is still over twice most comparable (ie rich, white) countries.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897461)

and actually making ammo is super fucking easy, much easier than guns, unless you plan on making brass illegal

and not quite twice, at least not twice all of them, but yes I'll admit America is a more violent place in general, for a variety of reasons

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897483)

of course, anybody who is actually good at burglary isn't invading your house or some shit at 3am, they just go in during the middle of the day when nobody's home (or on vacation). that would certainly continue, but I don't think you're going to be able to stop it with a gun anyway.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897257)

you know why they do that? guns

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897291)

so you're seriously arguing that if a guy doesn't have a gun, and you don't have a gun, you'd be MORE inclined to rob a house than if you had a gun and estimating there is a 70% chance any random household does not? and of that 30%, maybe 20% of those aren't total idiots about how to actually use it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897379)

it's obv always better to rob a house with nobody in it but the main reason not to isn't that you'll get caught, two buff niggers aren't getting put in headlocks by some white dood while the police come, it's that you might get fucking shot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897421)

and there was a wal-mart shooting in vegas i think it ws where CONTURDHERO tried to shoot the gunman but turned out there were two gunman so the second one blew him away before he got a shot off

its all hollywood ljl with conturds thinkin they will save the day, in a CIVILIZED nation u just ban all guns

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28896988)

yep, sounds about right

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28897178)

dumb fuck

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28896960)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/texas-campus-carry-law/index.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28938568)

by Tyler Cowen on April 4, 2013 at 7:31 am in Current Affairs, Food and Drink, Philosophy, Religion, Uncategorized | Permalink

I receive many emails asking me what is my attitude toward guns and gun control. I would say I wish it worked better than it does (a key point), I don’t think it works very well, I am happy to make those changes which seem to work somewhat, but overall I see an America with lots of guns and a falling crime and murder rate, so let’s focus on what is working, whatever that may be.

I would be happier if advocates of stronger gun control would state up front what percentage of the variation in the murder rate they thought they would be controlling. I see them as likely to make some dent in the suicide rate, most of all.

I would gladly see a cultural shift toward the view that gun ownership is dangerous and undesirable, much as the cultural attitudes toward smoking have shifted since the 1960s.

I am, however, consistent. I also think we should have a cultural shift toward the view that alcohol — and yes I mean all alcohol — is at least as dangerous and undesirable. I favor a kind of voluntary prohibition on alcohol. It is obvious to me that alcohol is one of the great social evils and when I read the writings of the prohibitionists, while I don’t agree with their legal remedies, their arguments make sense to me. It remains one of the great undervalued social movements. For mostly cultural reasons, it is now a largely forgotten remnant of progressivism and it probably will stay that way, given that “the educated left” mostly joined with America’s shift to being “a wine nation” in the 1970s.

Guns, like alcohol, have many legitimate uses, and they are enjoyed by many people in a responsible manner. In both cases, there is an elite which has absolutely no problems handling the institution in question, but still there is the question of whether the nation really can have such bifurcated social norms, namely one set of standards for the elite and another set for everybody else.

In part our guns problem is an alcohol problem. According to Mark Kleiman, half the people in prison were drinking when they did whatever they did. (Admittedly the direction of causality is murky but theory points in some rather obvious directions.) Our car crash problem – which kills many thousands of Americans each year — is also in significant part an alcohol problem. There are connections between alcohol and wife-beating and numerous other social ills, including health issues of course.

It worries me when people focus on “guns” and do not accord an equivalent or indeed greater status to “alcohol” as a social problem. Many of those people drink lots of alcohol, and would not hesitate to do so in front of their children, although they might regard owning an AK-47, or showing a pistol to the kids, as repugnant. I believe they are a mix of hypocritical and unaware, even though many of these same individuals have very high IQs and are well schooled in the social sciences. Perhaps they do not want to see the parallels.

The people who get this right — it seems to me — are the Mormons. Compassion, most of all for the poor, means that we should raise the social status of Mormons on this issue.

I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3008404&forum_id=2#28938588)