General politics discussion. Keep it civil.

[BryanSayWhat]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

that's the word of a single idiot at a convention run by a group that literally supported Reagan as a beacon of freedom after he sent a letter supporting the assault weapon ban in 1994.

This is the irony of the left condemning the NRA. The NRA has two (2) sides. The "organization" and it's "members".

NRA as an "organization" is actually very much for "AWB, limited capacity, compromises and etc.". It's the "members" that actually get the NRA to not compromise on "certain" issues.

One of the best examples was the ban on Military Surplus 7N6 5.45x39mm. The ATF reclassified 7N6 as "armor piercing" due to one (1) company supposedly importing one (1) AK "pistol" that could shoot 5.45. The NRA and it's members just let this happen, because 5.45 was/ is somewhat of a niche caliber (but it was extremely cheap to buy and shoot).

The ATF then tried to do the same thing with SS109/ M855 NATO 5.56x45mm (what the vast majority of AR-15's are chambered to shoot). It was the actual "NRA members" in this case that were able to make the NRA step up and stall the Obama Administration from doing so.

[Future240]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gun-s...b0415d4d8a8d06

[BryanSayWhat]

If I absolutely had to compromise (meaning further talk of bans/ restrictions are over). I would be ok with the minimum age being increased to 21 for magazine feed rifles/ shotguns. This would mean that at 18 you could still purchase, or possess a rifle/ shotgun with an integrated magazine, or tube up to 10rds. This would still give adults 18-20 the means to protect themselves and enjoy recreational shooting, or hunting.

For "all" firearm purchases to be 21, or older... I'd only support it if they also increased the minimum age of joining the Military and bank loans to 21 as well (increasing the driving age to 18 could also be thrown in).

Non of the above matters though, because the "current" Democratic Party will never give up on stopping further Gun Reform.

"The National Firearms Act" wasn't enough... "The Federal Firearms Act" wasn't enough... "The Gun Control Act" wasn't enough... "The Firearm Owners Protection Act" wasn't enough... "The Brady Act" wasn't enough...

Damn, that sure is a lot of compromising that gun owners have done in the past 84yrs.

[Future240]

Or you can limit purchases to those under 21 to shot guns and bolt action rifles only. Teens can shoot at shooting ranges only or not at all.

[RalliartRsX]

Originally Posted by CrimsonRockett

Considering how selective and costly private schools can be, it does make sense why they have fewer school shootings. Fewer students per teacher, higher quality education, and a lot of parent involvement.

We continue to bring up people's mental health as of late. What affects mental health? Some of the obvious ones:

• Abusive parents/relatives
  Little to no parental supervision
  Shitty parents
  Stress (work or school related)
  Bullying
  Racism
  Overworked/underpaid
  Healthcare
  Alcohol/drug abuse
  Depression

It's pretty difficult for people (especially the younger crowd) to stay motivated when corporations reported record profits during a pandemic...all while using inflation as an excuse to jack up prices. We used to glorify "the American dream" where a single income was sufficient to afford a home, cars, and the usual monthly expenses along with annual vacations. Now, people are barely able to afford any time off while struggling to make ends meet. Having learned this first hand, most parents don't choose to be bad parents. They didn't choose to leave their kids unsupervised. Daycare is expensive and people are just trying to survive.

Minimum wage is a joke. Companies that pay minimum wage basically are saying "hey, we'd pay you less, but we are legally required to pay you this bare minimum". There are absolutely no labor shortages. It's funny how much people shit on fast food workers, yet those same folks are the ones complaining about having to wait an extra 5 minutes for their order because these places are understaffed. All because these places refuse to give up a small percentage of their profits to pay their staff a living wage. How many corporations knowingly abuse government programs all to avoid having to provide their staff with benefits?

Wanna solve this gun problem? Pay people more. Give them affordable healthcare. Stop working them to the fucking bone. Allow them more personal time off. Stop banning books you racist fucks. The more our younger generation learns from our history, the better chance they have at learning from it and pushing for a better future.

Also, set term limits. Older people are mostly seen as senile, yet they are the ones running this country. These people do not relate to our problems and the overwhelming majority do not give a single shit about the cities and states they represent.

The single most profound this ever on Zilvia. Not even talking guns. Just basic life.

Get pregnant? You get 1 week and when you return, a pissed off boss and 50/50 chance you have your job a regular blue collar (and in some cases lower level white collar worker)
In any other developed country; you get 2 years and you keep your job when you get back (this example is from Finland if I remember correctly)

Get a heart attack as a blue collar worker in 'ma rights erica; you decide if you either die or go to the ER and get a 150K bill........for which you get a 2nd heart attack and die anyways
Most any other developed nation; You go to the ER. The bill is basically a $20 co pay. Or better yet; better health education as preventive care is Billions of dollars cheaper than lining the pockets of insurance companies and all the other scams associated with the health industry

Endless. I am saving this

I can list off soo many things

However, there are exceptions; POS parents of the kid who shot up the school in Michigan a few months ago. They literally ignored all the warnings for several years, basically ignored the kid, left the gun safe unlocked and when the kid shot up the school and got arrested, they drained the bank account, fled and left the kid for dead....

[nick_d_240sx]

Yea, Americans have it so rough, such a shithole country. GTFO.

Teens can shoot at shooting ranges only or not at all.

I went hunting as a teen along with nearly all of my friends. We all attended hunter safety to be allowed to carry a rifle for hunting.

https://myodfw.com/articles/hunter-e...y-registration

...useless gun law proposals and meaningless discussion about mental illness should do the trick.

[Future240]

Originally Posted by nick_d_240sx

Yea, Americans have it so rough, such a shithole country. GTFO.



I went hunting as a teen along with nearly all of my friends. We all attended hunter safety to be allowed to carry a rifle for hunting.

https://myodfw.com/articles/hunter-e...y-registration

As did I. That is why i said

Or you can limit purchases to those under 21 to shot guns and bolt action rifles only.

Let me expound upon that second part. When I say shoot at shooting ranges, I mean semi auto rifles. We can raise the age limit to buy a semi auto rifle to 21 but bolt action and pump shot guns to those that are under.

[BOROSUN]

Originally Posted by deolio

That?s not true, they tried adding more guns!

first abolish the ATF.

then pass a law that every person most own one guns as a requirement.

open DMV firing ranges/schools.

[Phlip]

More thinking, more praying. People will keep getting shot up otherwise!

[BryanSayWhat]

Originally Posted by Phlip

More thinking, more praying. People will keep being victims of violence otherwise!

Fixed that for you. People always seem to leave out the fact that the US in general has always had a violence problem.

See for yourself: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls

In 2019 you were 4x more likely to die from "Knives or cutting instruments" than "Rifles" (that includes all types of rifles not just semi-auto ones). Yes, I'm aware that it's more difficult to commit mass stabbings, but it still shows why people in this country want to have the upper hand when protecting themselves and others with "semi-automatic rifles".

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by BryanSayWhat

Fixed that for you. People always seem to leave out the fact that the US in general has always had a violence problem.

See for yourself: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls

In 2019 you were 4x more likely to die from "Knives or cutting instruments" than "Rifles" (that includes all types of rifles not just semi-auto ones). Yes, I'm aware that it's more difficult to commit mass stabbings, but it still shows why people in this country want to have the upper hand when protecting themselves and others with "semi-automatic rifles".

while I agree with the need for self protection, here's also something sobering:

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/10943...th-in-children

so should we just arm children also? Or make sure those parents are armed properly? Or have sentient child protecting drones/robots?

this argument can keep going but in the mean time the segment of the population unable to defend themselves are dying because adults can't figure out a solution

like the article said, cars have been safer because of a heavy push from agencies like NTHSA so deaths from accidents have been dropping. meanwhile deaths in children from firearms are 65% homicides (mostly small hand guns) and we keep talking in circles.

yay us.

[Future240]

Originally Posted by mav1178

while I agree with the need for self protection, here's also something sobering:

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/10943...th-in-children

so should we just arm children also? Or make sure those parents are armed properly? Or have sentient child protecting drones/robots?

this argument can keep going but in the mean time the segment of the population unable to defend themselves are dying because adults can't figure out a solution

like the article said, cars have been safer because of a heavy push from agencies like NTHSA so deaths from accidents have been dropping. meanwhile deaths in children from firearms are 65% homicides (mostly small hand guns) and we keep talking in circles.

yay us.

You hit upon a good point here. Handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun deaths. Yet all people want to talk about are "assault rifles".

Like Crimson said, we need to address the base issue here. Mental health, low wages, poor education, poverty etc.

As the owner of more than a few fire arms I think raising age limit for semi auto rifles to 21. 18 you can buy bolt action and shot guns only.

[deolio]

Originally Posted by Future240

Like Crimson said, we need to address the base issue here. Mental health, low wages, poor education, poverty etc.

So what the "mass shooting crisis" solution boils down to is: not solvable in this fuckin' country, buckaroo!


As long as this country is convinced that profit maximization and quality of life are mutually exclusive, things will continue to deteriorate.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Future240

You hit upon a good point here. Handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun deaths. Yet all people want to talk about are "assault rifles".

Like Crimson said, we need to address the base issue here. Mental health, low wages, poor education, poverty etc.

As the owner of more than a few fire arms I think raising age limit for semi auto rifles to 21. 18 you can buy bolt action and shot guns only.

yeah so I'm just wanting *some* steps taken in the right direction.
No one is talking about banning handguns. Raising the age limit for any gun with more than 10 rounds or a rifle that is not bolt action to 21 is a reasonable step, in line with the thought process behind an age-21 limit for buying alcohol

beyond that, if people don't want to put restrictions on guns then do the next best thing: increase funding for mental health, poverty, etc

oh wait, those are handouts. we can't do those things... we'll just repeat this in a few weeks/months/years

like Tupac said, we have money for wars but we can't feed the poor.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Originally Posted by mav1178

while I agree with the need for self protection, here's also something sobering:

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/10943...th-in-children

That link is to a report that's completely and totally disingenuous and the link truly pisses me off every time it's posted.

A child is not 18. A child is not 19. A child is a pre-pubescent human. The goalposts were moved and almost literally everyone grabbed it and ran. It specifically says "among children and adolescents," but child means "pre-pubescent" and adolescent means "in the process of transitioning from a child into an adult."

NPR specifically and pointedly drops the "and adolescents," as have multiple other news organizations. To me, that changes the tone of the conversation from one of journalism to one of opinion.

Homicide is in the top three leading causes of death for 1-4 year olds. It is not in the 5-9 and 10-14 range. For 1-4, it's accidents, congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities, and assault. For 5-9, it's accidents, cancer, and congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities. For 10-14, it's accidents, suicide, and cancer. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm

More than 1,000 0-14 year olds will die in car crashes this year.

Plenty of teenagers can defend themselves because they have stolen guns. Surprise, those are also the teens who are getting killed. If you want to get these kids (used colloquially) to stop killing each other, you have to fix the root causes of the violence. We're at least one generation away from correcting the violence once we correct the root causes of the violence.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

That link is to a report that's completely and totally disingenuous and the link truly pisses me off every time it's posted.

A child is not 18. A child is not 19. A child is a pre-pubescent human. The goalposts were moved and almost literally everyone grabbed it and ran. It specifically says "among children and adolescents," but child means "pre-pubescent" and adolescent means "in the process of transitioning from a child into an adult."

NPR specifically and pointedly drops the "and adolescents," as have multiple other news organizations. To me, that changes the tone of the conversation from one of journalism to one of opinion.

Homicide is in the top three leading causes of death for 1-4 year olds. It is not in the 5-9 and 10-14 range. For 1-4, it's accidents, congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities, and assault. For 5-9, it's accidents, cancer, and congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities. For 10-14, it's accidents, suicide, and cancer. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm

More than 1,000 0-14 year olds will die in car crashes this year.

Plenty of teenagers can defend themselves because they have stolen guns. Surprise, those are also the teens who are getting killed. If you want to get these kids (used colloquially) to stop killing each other, you have to fix the root causes of the violence. We're at least one generation away from correcting the violence once we correct the root causes of the violence.

so let us add the word "adolescent" back into the topic, and the conversation still is stupid and outrageous:



actually, looking at your link, homicide is 4th for the 5-9 group: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/da...26D162700D2444

and 4th for the 10-14 group:
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/da...1CA2616F0D9444

part of the problem with data is that it is limited. part of the problem is that for years, the data had no info with the word "gun" in it.

part of the problem was that for years, Republicans threatened to stop funding the CDC unless it stopped funding research into firearm injuries and death. this started in 1996 and only restarted after 2019.

so for years, politicians talked past each other with NO ACTUAL DATA on what gun violence looks like in the context of public health, and so everyone was talking out of their asses and data was only as good as the sources providing it.

"follow the science" is what people like to say. I guess if you don't fund the science and blame non-government research as biased, then everyone can twist the data to their own benefit.

can't have an honest debate about preventing gun violence when you can't even study the issue via the federal government...

[KA24DESOneThree]

Merely addressing the semantics/pedantry of something that is being phrased incorrectly. In no way was that aimed at you, btw, just aimed at the study and those reporting the study in media.

I agree that limiting data is idiotic. We need to be able to pinpoint problems in areas and address those problems and if we don't get the granular data we need, we can't get granular with addressing issues. I don't care how bad the data makes guns look, we can't make meaningful changes without data.

This goes all the way to a state/county level. States/counties with lax reporting requirements, or lax punishments for lack of reporting, or the inability to separate crimes into categories, hurt the public.

Why the dip in 2017 and 2018?

Why the uptick in 2014- was it related to Vine? Why the 2006 spike- was it related to YouTube?

[Future240]

There is a path
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/27/u...earch-cdc.html

“It’s not either, ‘Keep your guns or prevent gun violence,’ ” said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who helped establish the C.D.C.’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control but said he was fired in the late 1990s under pressure from Republicans who opposed the center’s gun research. “There’s a strategy that science can help us define where you can do both — you can protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and at the very same time reduce the toll of gun violence.”

But unfortunately our politicians are bribed, wait, sorry no. LOBBIED :eyeroll: to make it not happen. A lot of those happen to have an R beside their name.

Federal money for gun research all but disappeared after Congress in 1996 enacted the so-called Dickey Amendment, which barred the C.D.C. from spending money to “advocate or promote gun control.” It was named for Jay Dickey, a former Republican House member from Arkansas, who proudly proclaimed himself the National Rifle Association’s “point man” in Washington.

At least they have some funding now.

[collegekid]

A lot of good points made in here recently.
There is no real blanket solution, because "someone else will".

Plenty of illegal substances out there that I can get my hands on without issue.
No matter what you guys do to make specific laws regarding gun specification allowed per age, people are still going to get their hands on ghost guns.

We just had a mass shooting here in Philly. I saw some videos, it literally just looks like a typical night in North Philly.

Those that want it will get it and it will still be easy for them to get.

Growing up, I worked at a beer distributor.
You have to be 21 to buy alcohol.
Every weekend, there were many parties that were well supplied with alcohol.
People find a way.
The crap that happened during prohibition is what I anticipate would happen if every single gun was made illegal today.

I do think an approach of improving the US in general will lead to solving gun problems.
No, there won't be a Maury equivalent therapist sitting on each corner to handle problems in the 'hood.

I don't have some end all be all solution, but I do think that 18 year old kids should not be able to get their hands on high capacity semi-autos. I'm down for a waiting period & background check on the buyers dime. I do like Mav1178's tiered leveling program for unlocking weapons as you grow older, but it all falls back into how people will get around it to get what they want anyway.

[Future240]

Originally Posted by collegekid

A lot of good points made in here recently.
There is no real blanket solution, because "someone else will".

Plenty of illegal substances out there that I can get my hands on without issue.
No matter what you guys do to make specific laws regarding gun specification allowed per age, people are still going to get their hands on ghost guns. .

This is why banning certain fire arms does not work. First too many in circulation to make it feasible. Two, criminals gone criminal. Prohibition has NEVER worked. All you do is make a black market.

Like right now there is a bill from a democrat to tax AR15's at 1000%
https://www.businessinsider.com/demo...tration-2022-6

How many of us would rush out to buy as many AR15's and lowers we could to sell them once the bill took effect?

A 700 rifle would be worth $7000. Plus all it would do is keep guns out of the hands of the poor.....

Meanwhile tactical AK47's would sky rocket in popularity.

Handguns would still be the primary means of killing people and we would have gotten no where.

Yay America

[BryanSayWhat]

Originally Posted by mav1178

part of the problem was that for years, Republicans threatened to stop funding the CDC unless it stopped funding research into firearm injuries and death. this started in 1996 and only restarted after 2019.

so for years, politicians talked past each other with NO ACTUAL DATA on what gun violence looks like in the context of public health, and so everyone was talking out of their asses and data was only as good as the sources providing it.

"follow the science" is what people like to say. I guess if you don't fund the science and blame non-government research as biased, then everyone can twist the data to their own benefit.

can't have an honest debate about preventing gun violence when you can't even study the issue via the federal government...

mav, looks like you left out the fact that the "CDC" and it's parent agency the "U.S. Public Health Service" was known for having an "anti-gun political bias". It's not even that difficult to look up.

The NRA, Republicans, or pro-gun community couldn't give two shits about actual non-bias scientific firearm research. The problem is making sure there's absolutely no bias either way to being pro, or anti gun.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

Merely addressing the semantics/pedantry of something that is being phrased incorrectly. In no way was that aimed at you, btw, just aimed at the study and those reporting the study in media.

See below on the data, and my response was just to point out how anyone can manipulate data to suit their goals, even posts on a car forum.

Originally Posted by collegekid

I do like Mav1178's tiered leveling program for unlocking weapons as you grow older, but it all falls back into how people will get around it to get what they want anyway.

It's not about stopping people entirely. it's about trying to make sure those that have proven to own these weapons can actually own them.

its like a car, right? or hell, it's like buying a house... you gotta prove you can be a homeowner. same with higher caliber weapons, prove you can own it and not just because the 2nd amendment says you can.

just get the necessary training, a 1 time license fee (like a passport), and you can own WHATEVER YOU WANT.

Originally Posted by BryanSayWhat

mav, looks like you left out the fact that the "CDC" and it's parent agency the "U.S. Public Health Service" was known for having an "anti-gun political bias". It's not even that difficult to look up.

The NRA, Republicans, or pro-gun community couldn't give two shits about actual non-bias scientific firearm research. The problem is making sure there's absolutely no bias either way to being pro, or anti gun.

your response is pretty much why I brought up the funding issue, and how the CDC is becoming a politicized agency instead of something for everyone.

same with the SCOTUS.

so instead of funding the CDC, which unbiased institution should we fund to study gun violence?

I'll wait.

[BryanSayWhat]

Originally Posted by mav1178

your response is pretty much why I brought up the funding issue, and how the CDC is becoming a politicized agency instead of something for everyone.

same with the SCOTUS.

so instead of funding the CDC, which unbiased institution should we fund to study gun violence?

I'll wait.

At this point it would have to be a completely new federal agency/ institution that is based from the ground up with no bias. It also should've been done decades ago, but obviously are politicians can't get meaningful progress done in that aspect.

I'm completely fine with people hating guns, but the bias shouldn't be used to skew, or change facts to get laws passed.

It's like dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster changing the term "Assault Rifle", so that anti-gunners/ liberals would stop getting corrected in conversations. The Military definition for an "Assault Rifle" will always be "semi-auto & select-fire" not just "semi-auto". Common usage of an incorrect term doesn't magically change anything.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by BryanSayWhat

At this point it would have to be a completely new federal agency/ institution that is based from the ground up with no bias. It also should've been done decades ago, but obviously are politicians can't get meaningful progress done in that aspect.

I'm completely fine with people hating guns, but the bias shouldn't be used to skew, or change facts to get laws passed.

It's like dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster changing the term "Assault Rifle", so that anti-gunners/ liberals would stop getting corrected in conversations. The Military definition for an "Assault Rifle" will always be "semi-auto & select-fire" not just "semi-auto". Common usage of an incorrect term doesn't magically change anything.

Agree on all points except the first part.

Since the GOP is against big government in any form, this is pretty much a proposal dead in the water and we'd be back having this conversation the next time a mass casualty event involving kids and a person with a gunpowder-powered weapon happens.

tip toeing around words doesn't really change anything either... we just all collectively kick the can down the road and point at each other, hopefully no one we know personally is caught in the crossfire.

[collegekid]

I'll raise a question:

How is it even possible to be unbiased in today's world?

Now, I attended a seminar 5 years ago, and one speaker said "We should try to WOW an idea to life instead of HOWing it to death". Speaker then went on to imitate a nagging wife saying "How are ya gonna do this, n HAO are ya gonna do that?!"

I'm explicitly saying I'm not doing that. Just a legitimate question.

I myself have struggled to stay unbiased. I tried to be open to anything but as time goes on and my hairs gray, I find myself being polarized one way or another, trusting absolutely no one.

We have a "Disinformation Governance Board" and I already don't trust them. My questions always go back to: (Isn't limited to government bodies)
-Who created you?
-Who do you report to?
-Who is invested in you?
-Who benefits from your actions?
- Can you provide accurate accounting of why your costs are as such?

I'm in Philadelphia, so naturally that will be a talking point. I'm still on topic, but stay with me through this example.

PA sales tax is 6%. Philly added 1% on top of it starting in 1991. Then it added another 1% in 2009, which was supposed to be temporary for only 3 years. It was supposed to help our budget, provide funding for schools, etc.
NOPE. Didn't do crap. Schools are still insanely underfunded, infrastructure is significantly worse. Politicians got a 5.67% raise though.

With that, HOW in the hell am I supposed to believe that this new proposed agency/form of government intervention is going to do a damn thing besides suck up more money while leaving us with the same problem?

[Future240]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/06/new-...tic-rifle.html

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by Future240

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/06/new-...tic-rifle.html

What are the prospects of this getting challenged and eventually making it to the Supreme Court?

[Future240]

Originally Posted by Phlip

What are the prospects of this getting challenged and eventually making it to the Supreme Court?

400%

The supreme court will also write an opinion something along the line of

"The court holds to owning a firearm is a constitutional right. Upon birth each child should be assigned a rifle or shotgun and upon turning 21 then they can buy a handgun. Therefore this law is unconstitutional and should be remove from the books. Kathy can get fukt"

[Future240]

So I saw the article and thought to myself, its huffpost so they are probably making it sound worse than what he sa---nope he went there.

“We do have a gun violence problem in this country, and it’s gang violence.” Masters told “The Jeff Oravits Show” podcast in April in comments that were spotted this week by The Daily Beast. “It’s people in Chicago, St. Louis shooting each other. Very often, you know, Black people, frankly,” Masters said. “And the Democrats don’t want to do anything about that.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/blake...b016c4eefaddcb


I will point to a reddit comment I read

Okay so let's say for the sake of this bad faith argument that gun violence is statistically more pervasive among a particular ethnic/religious community. How on earth is that an argument to ignore the problem?

Statistically, the opioid/heroin epidemic has killed white Americans at a far higher rate than any other group. What if during his presidency Obama had made a statement that the opioid/heroin epidemic was a "white people issue" and that "it's the responsibility of white community leaders to fix this problem"?

Of course he would have faced backlash, because functioning democracies don't choose to solve or ignore crises based on the ethnic or racial make-up of the victims.

[KA24DESOneThree]

It's not just the AR-15 age limit, it's microstamping and expanded red flag laws.

Microstamping is why you can't get anything later than a Gen 3 Glock in California unless you buy an ex-LEO gun. It traces back to the lawful purchaser, which may be helpful if a thief left fingerprints at a theft scene, commits a crime where they discharge the weapon and leave the brass, and are found with the weapon on them at time of arrest.

However, given the ability of kids to turn a run-of-the-mill G17 into a G18 replica, it's entirely likely that anyone would just hop on a site and order a factory replacement firing pin with no microstamping.

My guess is that the gun owner advocate groups are treading carefully right now. The media is keeping up an onslaught of mass shooting coverage despite it being typical for the areas that experience high crime.

We keep moving away from facts as a nation and the best way to ensure our feelings don't get in the way is to keep our politicians based in fact.