Should we provide the homeless with shotguns?

[sun rise]

Btw, Ellison says this proposal is for shock value, thereby getting attention.
We do have a serious problem with assaults on homeless folk. They're
unable to find any place to camp, & organize. They had one here, but of
course, the cops kicked'm out, & fenced off the area (just a few miles from
where I live). They were peacefully living on unused government land by
a highway.
Cops & government have proscriptions, but no real solutions.

We've been exposed to too much "shock value" claims from wingnuts when people react badly to their fanatical statements to not assume the same from Ellison.

I agree about the homeless (and very poor who are close to being homeless). I'm trying in a small way to be part of a solution by sorting clothes two hours a week. The guidelines for what we offer to those in need are clothes that we would give to our nearest and dearest if they needed something to wear - in other words treat those on the bottom as worthwhile human beings.

Extremism is our way.

Channeling a former candidate for President.

steer the country towards single
payer health care, & a better social safety net.

Single-payer health care to this left winger is a left-wing dream that does not solve the problem which is outrageous costs far far far above the rest of the world. If the cost of health care was the same as the second most expensive, a gigantic part of the problem would be solved. But it's hard to get people off a simplistic but wrong solution to the cost of health care. Whether he's 100% right or not is not the point but what I really like is his approach to the problem https://www.imaginewhatif.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ExcerptsFromHealthcareBeyondReform.pdf

Yes to better social safety net.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The NRA seems to want open warfare in our streets and schools if it helps them sell guns.

You believe that ... the NRA wants open warfare in the streets?

I don't think they'd mind at all. I'll say that. Nothing else they do indicates they'd mind.

Of course they don't mind. Those children are considered expendable - necessary collateral damage if people are to have essentially unfettered access to arms, which is what they want. That's the highest priority, not curtailing mass shootings.

Regarding Revoltingest's comment, one wonders what things would be like in a country where they actually wanted these mass murders to occur. I'm not saying that that is the case in the States - just underscoring how close America is to that place now.

If I wanted people shooting one another in the streets, I would make guns as prevalent as possible and as easy to get as possible, including assault weapons.

Then, I would get the people wound up as tightly as possible, and as angry with one another as possible.

I would pump hundreds of millions of dollars into buying the support of elected officials.

I would have people walking the streets armed

If anybody wanted to challenge the wisdom of such an arrangement, I would say that they are trying to take our guns away in an alarmed and alarming voice, tell them after every shooting that this is not the time to discuss the matter, call it a mental health issue, and blame lax law enforcement.

If there was any attempt to impose greater restrictions on guns, I would wave my flag and quote the Second Amendment to paint my detractors as unpatriotic.

What else could I add to this to ensure the maximal kill rate in the culture? Make the guns free, including to the homeless? Make murder no longer a crime?

That's how extreme America's situation is now

Is everybody aware that Congress has been working on legislation to legalize silencers? They had to shelve it after one of the mass shootings last year - I believe it was the Vegas mass murders. Why on earth would you want citizens armed with silenced weapons?

Maybe I should add that to my list of things I would do to get more people killed by guns more often.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Of course they don't mind. Those children are considered expendable - necessary collateral damage if people are to have essentially unfettered access to arms, which is what they want. That's the highest priority, not curtailing mass shootings.

Regarding Revoltingest's comment, one wonders what things would be like in a country where they actually wanted these mass murders to occur. I'm not saying that that is the case in the States - just underscoring how close America is to that place now.

If I wanted people shooting one another in the streets, I would make guns as prevalent as possible and as easy to get as possible, including assault weapons.

Then, I would get the people wound up as tightly as possible, and as angry with one another as possible.

I would pump hundreds of millions of dollars into buying the support of elected officials.

I would have people walking the streets armed

If anybody wanted to challenge the wisdom of such an arrangement, I would say that they are trying to take our guns away in an alarmed and alarming voice, tell them after every shooting that this is not the time to discuss the matter, call it a mental health issue, and blame lax law enforcement.

If there was any attempt to impose greater restrictions on guns, I would wave my flag and quote the Second Amendment to paint my detractors as unpatriotic.

What else could I add to this to ensure the maximal kill rate in the culture? Make the guns free, including to the homeless? Make murder no longer a crime?

That's how extreme America's situation is now

Is everybody aware that Congress has been working on legislation to legalize silencers? They had to shelve it after one of the mass shootings last year - I believe it was the Vegas mass murders. Why on earth would you want citizens armed with silenced weapons?

Maybe I should add that to my list of things I would do to get more people killed by guns more often.

Don't forget Cars. .. and fertilizer.

 

[YmirGF]

This is an idea that has been proposed by Brian Ellison, a candidate for the U.S. senate.

<link>Arm homeless people with shotguns and ban the TSA, this Senate candidate says <link>

And in case you are worried that the homeless will waste ammunition, Ellison proposes that they be give a limited number of bullets, and if those bullets are wasted doing something like shooting innnocent tin cans the homeless person won’t be given any more. But if the homeless use the guns and bullets for the intended purpose (shooting people), they will be able to get more.

Is this a good idea? Would you support this? Would the NRA support this? Is this something President Trump should get behind?


Bonus question: Ya got any spare change?

This is the quality of candidates drawn to seek public office? Lord, help us.

 

[Stanyon]

Of course they don't mind. Those children are considered expendable - necessary collateral damage if people are to have essentially unfettered access to arms, which is what they want. That's the highest priority, not curtailing mass shootings.

Regarding Revoltingest's comment, one wonders what things would be like in a country where they actually wanted these mass murders to occur. I'm not saying that that is the case in the States - just underscoring how close America is to that place now.

If I wanted people shooting one another in the streets, I would make guns as prevalent as possible and as easy to get as possible, including assault weapons.

Then, I would get the people wound up as tightly as possible, and as angry with one another as possible.

I would pump hundreds of millions of dollars into buying the support of elected officials.

I would have people walking the streets armed

If anybody wanted to challenge the wisdom of such an arrangement, I would say that they are trying to take our guns away in an alarmed and alarming voice, tell them after every shooting that this is not the time to discuss the matter, call it a mental health issue, and blame lax law enforcement.

If there was any attempt to impose greater restrictions on guns, I would wave my flag and quote the Second Amendment to paint my detractors as unpatriotic.

What else could I add to this to ensure the maximal kill rate in the culture? Make the guns free, including to the homeless? Make murder no longer a crime?

That's how extreme America's situation is now

Is everybody aware that Congress has been working on legislation to legalize silencers? They had to shelve it after one of the mass shootings last year - I believe it was the Vegas mass murders. Why on earth would you want citizens armed with silenced weapons?

Maybe I should add that to my list of things I would do to get more people killed by guns more often.

That almost sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Silencers:
Where Are They Legal

Ask Foghorn: How to Buy a Silencer - The Truth About Guns

Of course one should consult the BATF rules and regulations and their states laws before making the decision.

 

[Revoltingest]

We've been exposed to too much "shock value" claims from wingnuts when people react badly to their fanatical statements to not assume the same from Ellison.

Aye, assume the worst without investigation (as Newsweek did).
Because getting all excited over every outrageous uttering is so productive.
Should I assume the same about what the left says, eg, even disarming cops?
Nah.

I agree about the homeless (and very poor who are close to being homeless). I'm trying in a small way to be part of a solution by sorting clothes two hours a week. The guidelines for what we offer to those in need are clothes that we would give to our nearest and dearest if they needed something to wear - in other words treat those on the bottom as worthwhile human beings.

How well do paws work when sorting clothing?

Channeling a former candidate for President.

Gary Johnson was more extreme than Hillary or Trump,
but I still wish his ilk had a chance of winning.

Single-payer health care to this left winger is a left-wing dream that does not solve the problem which is outrageous costs far far far above the rest of the world. If the cost of health care was the same as the second most expensive, a gigantic part of the problem would be solved. But it's hard to get people off a simplistic but wrong solution to the cost of health care. Whether he's 100% right or not is not the point but what I really like is his approach to the problem https://www.imaginewhatif.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ExcerptsFromHealthcareBeyondReform.pdf
Yes to better social safety net.

How about that.....some common ground.
Whoodathunkit?

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course they don't mind. Those children are considered expendable - necessary collateral damage if people are to have essentially unfettered access to arms, which is what they want. That's the highest priority, not curtailing mass shootings.

Regarding Revoltingest's comment, one wonders what things would be like in a country where they actually wanted these mass murders to occur. I'm not saying that that is the case in the States - just underscoring how close America is to that place now.

If I wanted people shooting one another in the streets, I would make guns as prevalent as possible and as easy to get as possible, including assault weapons.

Then, I would get the people wound up as tightly as possible, and as angry with one another as possible.

I would pump hundreds of millions of dollars into buying the support of elected officials.

I would have people walking the streets armed

If anybody wanted to challenge the wisdom of such an arrangement, I would say that they are trying to take our guns away in an alarmed and alarming voice, tell them after every shooting that this is not the time to discuss the matter, call it a mental health issue, and blame lax law enforcement.

If there was any attempt to impose greater restrictions on guns, I would wave my flag and quote the Second Amendment to paint my detractors as unpatriotic.

What else could I add to this to ensure the maximal kill rate in the culture? Make the guns free, including to the homeless? Make murder no longer a crime?

That's how extreme America's situation is now

Is everybody aware that Congress has been working on legislation to legalize silencers? They had to shelve it after one of the mass shootings last year - I believe it was the Vegas mass murders. Why on earth would you want citizens armed with silenced weapons?

Maybe I should add that to my list of things I would do to get more people killed by guns more often.

People should understand that "silencer" is misleading to the unfamiliar.
They're more properly called "suppressors" because the noise is only
attenuated slightly. It's not quiet, like on TV.
The usefulness is to protect the shooter's hearing, which is a real problem
with center fire calibers. To what extent are suppressors a crime problem?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Don't forget Cars. .. and fertilizer.

Yes. Don't forget that anemic false comparisons that are easily challenged only for the counterargument to be ignored goes in there too.

 

[Woberts]

blame lax law enforcement.

I believe you mean, "God is banned from our schools!" and/or "Gay people!"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This is an idea that has been proposed by Brian Ellison, a candidate for the U.S. senate.

<link>Arm homeless people with shotguns and ban the TSA, this Senate candidate says <link>

And in case you are worried that the homeless will waste ammunition, Ellison proposes that they be give a limited number of bullets, and if those bullets are wasted doing something like shooting innnocent tin cans the homeless person won’t be given any more. But if the homeless use the guns and bullets for the intended purpose (shooting people), they will be able to get more.

Is this a good idea? Would you support this? Would the NRA support this? Is this something President Trump should get behind?


Bonus question: Ya got any spare change?

Dayum strate. The gubmint needs to given us r rights.

 

[idav]

This is an idea that has been proposed by Brian Ellison, a candidate for the U.S. senate.

<link>Arm homeless people with shotguns and ban the TSA, this Senate candidate says <link>

And in case you are worried that the homeless will waste ammunition, Ellison proposes that they be give a limited number of bullets, and if those bullets are wasted doing something like shooting innnocent tin cans the homeless person won’t be given any more. But if the homeless use the guns and bullets for the intended purpose (shooting people), they will be able to get more.

Is this a good idea? Would you support this? Would the NRA support this? Is this something President Trump should get behind?


Bonus question: Ya got any spare change?

That’s not even fair! Having a residents means not getting a gun? They ought to start handing out guns when people get their Real ID’s, a shotgun, AR15, something! Those IDs require residence so that’s much more fair like.

 

[Mindmaster]

.

I allow people to live at my self storage facility (provided they keep a low
profile so as to not scare off other tenants). For some this works.

This is exactly the way to take action personally on the homeless problem, and can even be beneficial to the security of that lot. (It's nice to have eyes on things 24/7.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes. Don't forget that anemic false comparisons that are easily challenged only for the counterargument to be ignored goes in there too.

Hardly lol.

"Anemic false comparisons" whenever people use death as the primary medium for villifying something doesn't bode too well for the anti-gun crowd. That's because I'm dead right when it comes to arguments made over tools and equipment that causes death.

By the way accidents are number 4 on the top 10 causes for death in the US. Guns don't even make into the top 10 list.

The top 10 leading causes of death in the U.S.

Last year's data from June but close enough.

People seem to be vilifying the wrong thing as I see it. But of course a lot of people seem to have a warped sense of priority over what causes death.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Hardly lol.

"Anemic false comparisons" whenever people use death as the primary medium for villifying something doesn't bode too well for the anti-gun crowd. That's because I'm dead right when it comes to arguments made over tools and equipment that causes death.

By the way accidents are number 4 on the top 10 causes for death in the US. Guns don't even make into the top 10 list.

The top 10 leading causes of death in the U.S.

Last year's data from June but close enough.

People seem to be vilifying the wrong thing as I see it. But of course a lot of people seem to have a warped sense of priority over what causes death.

Going to post this again because you didn't reply to it last three times:
"↑
"The same arguement can be said of cars."

No it can't. Neverminding that it's already much harder to get a car and have all your legal paperwork in a row with it, and car usage is strictly regulated with both safety and competency training, their utility cannot be compared either.

Out infrstructure requires cars for the vast majority of Americans to have jobs, goods and service access. If we removed cars from civilian life it would cause tangible, immediate and widespread suffering. Guns simply wouldn't.

For the vast majority of gun owners, guns are toys."
Further this last argument you made now has all the hallmarks of a reductive herring. Like saying we shouldn't push forward with preventative security with sexual assault in workplaces or at churches because the vast majority occurs in the home. Or that vegans shouldn't bother because even the most dedicated can't avoid animal products in modern living. That's not the point. Some positive change is better than no change or, in the case of guns, getting worse.

 

[Willamena]

This is an idea that has been proposed by Brian Ellison, a candidate for the U.S. senate.

<link>Arm homeless people with shotguns and ban the TSA, this Senate candidate says <link>

And in case you are worried that the homeless will waste ammunition, Ellison proposes that they be give a limited number of bullets, and if those bullets are wasted doing something like shooting innnocent tin cans the homeless person won’t be given any more. But if the homeless use the guns and bullets for the intended purpose (shooting people), they will be able to get more.

Is this a good idea? Would you support this? Would the NRA support this? Is this something President Trump should get behind?


Bonus question: Ya got any spare change?

Actually, I would expect that they would be more frugal, economic and practical with bullets than someone with more to throw away.

 

[Shaul]

Why do people assume the homeless don’t already have guns?

Homeless man threatened with tire iron fatally shoots attacker (VIDEO)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Going to post this again because you didn't reply to it last three times:
"↑
"The same arguement can be said of cars."

No it can't. Neverminding that it's already much harder to get a car and have all your legal paperwork in a row with it, and car usage is strictly regulated with both safety and competency training, their utility cannot be compared either.

Out infrstructure requires cars for the vast majority of Americans to have jobs, goods and service access. If we removed cars from civilian life it would cause tangible, immediate and widespread suffering. Guns simply wouldn't.

For the vast majority of gun owners, guns are toys."
Further this last argument you made now has all the hallmarks of a reductive herring. Like saying we shouldn't push forward with preventative security with sexual assault in workplaces or at churches because the vast majority occurs in the home. Or that vegans shouldn't bother because even the most dedicated can't avoid animal products in modern living. That's not the point. Some positive change is better than no change or, in the case of guns, getting worse.

Sorry but I disagree, I don't think that's correct nor very accurate. Guns are perhaps more essential then cars because we wouldn't even exist as a country without them or have the type of Freedom we enjoy today.

Also cars aren't that essential either as much as you think they are. ;0)

We can certainly live without vehicles and when you think about it, the population would probably be more healthy and long-lived for it. Life would considerably be slowed down. I think people need a break anyways. Life would be nicer that's for sure.

Incidentally look at the Mennonite and Amish. Many a day I've seen them walking down the road carrying rifles in hand and not a car in sight except for my own. Usually a friendly wave and a smile, and drive up the road. Don't tell me guns are any type of problem here and certainly not toys to which you seem to allude that the vast majority of gun owners regard them as such.

You provided a good indicator of the generation that we have today, and the astounding sense of mentality that guns are somehow considered as toys by the vast majority of gun owners. I can't think of anything more disingenuous then making that particular statement.

 

[Quagmire]

Sure, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Guns are perhaps more essential then cars because we wouldn't even exist as a country without them or have the type of Freedom we enjoy today.

Which is no more relevant than saying horse drawn carriages are more essential because we wouldn't even exist as a country without them or have the type of freedom we enjoy today. In no way are thousands of civilians with guns in any way integral to our freedom. Meanwhile, cars continue to be essential to our freedom for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for two seconds.

Also cars aren't that essential either as much as you think they are. ;0)

Yes, they really are. Please take a look at any statistics talking about the majority of job and service locations vs. population centers, not to mention that without cars, whole regions of arid lands without ability for self-sustaining large populations couldn't get access to imported goods and services. Which means even without cars we'd still need roads, which is what created urban sprawls in the first place. Getting rid of cars immediately makes a **** ton of the population unable to get a job, or even be unable to get to a grocery store (out of walking at my old place.) That's fine for small hamlets which can be developed enough for small populations, but a pipe dream as an answer for the modern US at large.

Mennonite and Amish

If you think everyone can live like that with the population we have then you have some denial issues way beyond what I can help you with.

Don't tell me guns are any type of problem here

I'm here telling you that.

and certainly not toys to which you seem to allude that the vast majority of gun owners regard them as such.

Of course gun owners don't regard them as such, because they're trying to protect the super serious patriot image. I am regarding them as such, because that's how a **** ton of gun owners I've personally witnessed behave. They collect to show off, to pretend they're big super serious dangerous people in cowboy fulfillment fantasies (or zombie fantasies in some segments)

I can't think of anything more disingenuous then making that particular statement.

I can. I've just seen it.

'People who are concerned about gun violence should take a hard look at cars' continues to be a really dumb tunnel visioned red herring.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Which is no more relevant than saying horse drawn carriages are more essential because we wouldn't even exist as a country without them or have the type of freedom we enjoy today. In no way are thousands of civilians with guns in any way integral to our freedom. Meanwhile, cars continue to be essential to our freedom for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for two seconds.

Yes, they really are. Please take a look at any statistics talking about the majority of job and service locations vs. population centers, not to mention that without cars, whole regions of arid lands without ability for self-sustaining large populations couldn't get access to imported goods and services. Which means even without cars we'd still need roads, which is what created urban sprawls in the first place. Getting rid of cars immediately makes a **** ton of the population unable to get a job, or even be unable to get to a grocery store (out of walking at my old place.) That's fine for small hamlets which can be developed enough for small populations, but a pipe dream as an answer for the modern US at large.

If you think everyone can live like that with the population we have then you have some denial issues way beyond what I can help you with.

I'm here telling you that.

Of course gun owners don't regard them as such, because they're trying to protect the super serious patriot image. I am regarding them as such, because that's how a **** ton of gun owners I've personally witnessed behave. They collect to show off, to pretend they're big super serious dangerous people in cowboy fulfillment fantasies (or zombie fantasies in some segments)

I can. I've just seen it.

'People who are concerned about gun violence should take a hard look at cars' continues to be a really dumb tunnel visioned red herring.

Nice try. Cars are no more or less necessary than guns are.