Posted on 12/20/2025 5:12:41 AM PST by MtnClimber
It is almost as if they were waiting for a reason to roll out the next phase.
“It is almost as if they were waiting for a reason to roll out the next phase.”
...especially when the police HOLD BACK during the mass killings.
The proud red state of Tennessee is in the process of adding extra regulations on guns. For some reason firearms instructors will soon have to have an Enhanced Carry Permit but that’s not the only new reg they are trying to pass. The state may be red but the cities are very blue.
Fewer 2E people with arms: Easier for criminals to prey on normals.
.
In Paris in 2016 I saw anti-terrorist squads in vehicles driving around ready to respond.
In Tijuana army and national guard units in trucks drive around.
Cops have no obligation to risk their lives. The Australian female cops hiding behind the car drove that point home.
Much like global warming I think the gun control movement has run out of steam despite periodic mass casualty shootings. Almost in every case the shooter is mentally ill.
They want crime it is their reason for more control
“Cops have no obligation to risk their lives. The Australian female cops hiding behind the car drove that point home.”
I know that’s true, but it does help to destroy the myth that cops will protect people real-time.
“Much like global warming I think the gun control movement has run out of steam despite periodic mass casualty shootings. Almost in every case the shooter is mentally ill.”
When the DEMOCRATS disavow gun control, I’ll agree with you on that...but, if anything, Democrats are SALIVATING for their chance to collect the guns.
But going after the perps would be racist or something.
The logic of gun-control is simple: no one, other than the government, really needs a gun. Therefore, all restrictions on guns are acceptable/necessary. It simply doesn’t matter if the restrictions don’t work.
Back in 1994 Democrats took a huge drubbing (54 seats) in the midterms. Chuck Schumer’s gun control campaign was blamed for the defeat. Gun control efforts are now confined to blue states.
Huh?
F so-called “gun control”. The only gun control that works is controlling aim.
First, a primer on risks. In the world of investing, there is a concept of risk-minimization whereby you lower your risk of loss or volatility by spreading your eggs across several baskets. However, one risk you cannot diversity away is the "systematic risk" or the risk inherent in the system...call it market risk or whatever, the basic reality is some baseline level of risk will ALWAYS exist, and you can't avoid it.
Now, with that foundation, let’s consider how a nation manages the risks that come with rights.
Laws that support, life, liberty, and property are right and proper. Some laws act as a deterrent and will stop people on the margin from doing bad things...this is akin to diversifying away the non-systematic risk.
However, at some baseline level, in a relatively free society of 340MM people, you'll always have a few pathological maniacs who will kill. Thus, random acts of violence are the systematic risk of a free society.
Sure, maybe some laws can help, but in large measure unless you weld a GoPro to the heads of 340MM people with central monitoring in DC (and even that wouldn't be perfect...after all people in jail still get drugs and weapons), psychos gonna psycho.
It is therefore quite telling, when pathological politicians propose legislation in the midst of a crisis/crystalized systematic risk, that is in truth aimed at the systematic risk. By definition, a nation can't evade/will always have systematic risk.
What does that’s tell us? That the legislators and supporters of these systematic risk “elimination” proposals want to erode the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
“Start with so-called “assault weapon” bans.”
Gee, let me think. What is an assault weapon? ... Oh I believe Democrats will tell you that any semiautomatic weapon is an assault weapon.
What does that’s tell us? That the legislators and supporters of these systematic risk “elimination” proposals want to erode the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
1n 1910 just about anyone could buy guns, even machine-guns in England, if you had the money. Inexpensive revolvers were within the range of people of modest means. However, crime was exceptionally low. Violent crimes with firearms was nearly non-existent. The systemic risk of crime was very, very low.
Perhaps it was because the young risk-takers went to seek their fortune in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or America.
As I recall, Professor Joyce Lee Malcomb found the level of firearm murders in all of London, at this period, to be about 1 or 2 per year!
Exactly
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.