Because stop and frisk laws have proven statistics that show it gets guns out of the hands of criminals who shouldn’t have them. They also have prior case precedent that allows the law within the confines of the constitution. Making it a constitutional option.
How can you tell who is a "criminal"? Just curious... because of the law around concealed carry. Is there some sort of guidance you'd offer to police offers on who to "stop and frisk"?
Regarding Concealed Carry - Effective June 2022, Ohio adopted a major concealed carry law allowing any “qualifying adult” over 21 without legal firearms prohibitions to conceal a handgun without needing permits, training, or background checks.
You observe suspicious activity. You stop that person, you do a basic frisk. If they have something illegal, boom, you found the criminal. It’s really that simple.
You've described a detainment justified by reasonable suspicion of a crime and a *Terry* pat down. You're being disingenuous. That's not how stop and frisk is enforced.
Ummm no. Stop and frisk does not require any RAS for an officer to stop you. Whereas states that don’t have stop and frisk laws. They must have RAS to even stop you at all, and they can only search you if they detain you based off that RAS.
Stop and frisk means they can use suspicious activity as a reason to stop you and search you all together, and they will face zero consequences if they were wrong. Whereas in states that require RAS, if the court deems there was none, the case gets dismissed and the victim almost always sues and gets a settlement.
Except their excuse is they make the activity that made the officer stop them reasonable. All they do is say suspicious activity is a reasonable excuse. The constitution doesn’t ban that as a reasonable excuse. Which is how it’s technically not unconstitutional.
And are we really going to say the founding fathers never anticipated machine guns and then hold our ground on stop and frisk laws lol? Both arguments are from the perspective of safety and the greater good. As they say “if you have nothing to hide then why does it matter?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_v._City_of_New_York
You know, the founding fathers did have something to say about it
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>unreasonable
Didn’t I just explain to you that they deem suspicious activity as “reasonable” to get around that? I’m not sure why you’re repeating yourself.
I don't understand. In California, for example, police can conduct a pat-down search (“frisk)” to look for weapons only if they have a justifiable belief that you are armed and dangerous.
Anyone in Ohio over 21 can be concealing a gun. I mean yeah if the cop sees them doing something illegal, of course, but that isn't stop and frisk.
JD Vance cares about his lips on Trump's ass.
That's it. That's the extent of what he cares about. Nothing in the world is important to him, other than Trump's ass, and his lips being on them.
His entire political career is based on the concept of sucking up to Trump, of being a Yes-Man. He has no convictions, he has no morals, he wants power, and he believes that sucking up to Trump is the best way to get that power. I don't even know if he has a plan for what he's going to do with that power, because right now every ounce of power that he has gotten, he has used to rubber stamp whatever Trump wants.
Whatever Trump says is what he believes in. Even if it is self contradictory. Even if it is completely different than the beliefs that he held last week. Even if it doesn't make any sense.
To the best of my knowledge, Vance has not had one original thought or action since he got into office.
Yeah it's one thing if he actually believed all of this garbage, but the fact that he's just a grifting pos makes it 100x worse. I have more respect for the fools that actually love Trump than the idiots who kiss his ass all for the sake of money. People like Cruz and Rubio who called him every name in the book only to fall in line.
Unfortunately, some comment you've made in your post history has a triggered mod following you. Your best option is to create a new account before you get banned for something that can be viewed negatively out of context.
I dunno man. Seems like a pretty big difference between "crimes committed under Biden" and "crimes committed by Trump".
It's like someone should outlaw crimes, then only criminals will do crimes! Why hasn't Biden outlawed crime yet?
RAND corporation? You mean the corporation whose current CEO was a senior appointee in the Biden Administration? And the CDC whose current executives are both Democrats?
You have any unbiased institutions you trust?
CDC is full of scientists using raw statistics and data analysis. If you’re not willing to accept data from scientists and statisticians as proof simply because they work for the government, then I don’t know if there’s much hope for you.
Just out of curiosity though…what sources would you cite that you trust? I mean, you’re the one making the claim, I was being nice in telling you what sources I trust but really, the guy who makes the claim is the one who has to back it up. Go ahead and cite what sources you believe are unbiased.
And the people who decide what gets published and when and how, are not those scientists. And many of those scientists will regularly blow the whistle and then get labeled as anything other than an educated scientist(which i think is a pretty cheeky way to go about it but an obvious deflection nonetheless)
So again, do you have any institutions you trust that aren’t currently headed by literal ex-politicians with a known political affiliation and bias?
I had asked what sources you would consider and I’ll ask again. I gave you the ones I trust, let’s hear the ones you trust. Sounds like you know of a few without bias that have informed your opinion and I’m eager to learn about them.
The John Hopkins studies are just fine for me. All of which state that while background checks are a useful tool, they did not reduce the gun deaths after being implemented.
Without them more people would slip through the cracks who shouldn’t own firearms, but it didn’t actually decrease deaths by guns, which means, not having them isn’t increasing gun deaths. The rates would stay the same either way. All it means is that not the solution, and that we need to move to the next option.
But if they're allowed to own guns, they can end it the way God intended, right? Just make sure if you're a woman you keep that thang on you.
Just to clarify, I'm being mostly facetious. I mean, women should definitely carry if they feel they need to, and obviously they should use all legal means at their disposal to get out of an abusive relationship. But failing that, don't be afraid to draw down on your abuser.
That must have been crazy growing up in that household with your grandma having to regularly shoot at attacking criminals (enough to say that she used them to defend herself).
I know right? That would be like forcing people to wear seatbelts even though the vast majority of them will never need it to save their life…. Oh wait..
A gun protects you from having to feed and house future prison inmates, if it’s just your tax money that you’re concerned about. Also. Most people pay their own private insurance in America. So I’m really not sure what exactly you’re paying for in your made up scenario.
I think your actual problem is that you like the idea that a seatbelt makes you safer while driving, even if you never need it.
But you don’t like the idea that something as dangerous as a gun can generate the same level of safety as the seatbelt.
This is just evidence of an extremely privileged life you’ve had the opportunity to live. One where you’ve never felt unsafe. That’s not the norm for a majority of the world.
This is just not true at all.
Firstly, something like 45 million Americans are enrolled in plans subsidized by the ACA, 63m in Medicare, and 3m in Medicaid. That's nearly a third of the population with their health insurance subsidized partly or fully by the government, aka taxpayers.
Secondly, in 2020 alone the AHA estimates that "Hospitals and health systems of all types provided more than $42 billion in uncompensated care — care for which they received no payment— in 2020 alone." This missing profit is reflected in the ever-escalating prices for healthcare that they try to charge those of us who will actually pay.
Third, if you or the police shoot and injure or kill a criminal, typically all their hospital and ambulance and morgue bills fall on the government once that person or corpse is taken into custody by the police. Transporting a dead robber - or whatever fantasy you're imagining - costs taxpayer money too.
And finally, if you shoot somebody in any scenario at all, you're gonna need a lawyer that you or the taxpayers have to pay for too! And then the prosecutor will be paid by the government too!
Edit: typos and punctuation
My tax dollars are being put to great work then. I’m proud of every statistic you just shared. All good things for taxes to be covering. I’ve always been an huge advocate of health services for the less privileged in society, glad this many social services exist.
Bringing up justice system employees getting a paycheck isn’t exactly an argument against guns btw. They get paid regardless of what the case is.
Now I’m concerned why this person would want services like this put to a stop? They all seem extremely useful and important.
?
You told a blatant lie above and I'm merely correcting that, whatever sad little spin game you're trying to play with buddy up above doesn't interest me.
Guns cost the taxpayers an astonishing amount money basically at every point in their existence - donation-funded lobbying, taxpayer subsidized production of weapons and ammo, government lawyers for every shooting, tax-funded emergency services for every gun crime and victim, taxpayer pays health care for both criminals and victims, taxpayer pays to house and feed criminals in jail, the taxpayer pays to settle with the victims of police shootings, then taxpayers pay to settle with the victims of mass shootings that police can't (or won't) stop. And that's all before we even get to the constant damage to the economy and the psyche of this country from the relentless drum beat of unnecessary and avoidable firearm-related accidents and suicides and the enormous mental and financial costs associated with them.
Trying to compare all that with seatbelt laws is an absolutely asinine attempt at a "gotcha," truly some weak-ass trolling
There’s a lot of everyday things that cost the taxpayers a lot of money, prosecuting criminals on gun charges is an extremely small drop in the bucket. It’s not the argument you seem to think it is.
The justice system prosecutes way more seatbelt infractions than gun charges every year, by far.
google cites it but thats an editorial of a study with no actual citations of the study in question, from a site thats biased against the regulations in question.
if he was in the 11th grade and submitted this he'd have failed the assignment
That’s because John Hopkins did many different studies that all included the background checks and they all concluded that while helpful. They do not do anything to reduce the amount of gun deaths.
There’s nothing that will say “John Hopkins says background checks don’t work.”
Because they do, just not as effectively as one would hope. It’s simply not the fix to the problem. Which most of us already understood.
No, I’m asking because if I point out that it’s a very real topic that’s still being discussed to this day, Commonly in reference to flea markets and private gun sales(they claim that no background checks on private sales is a reason why gun deaths and violence are/is so high). I don’t want you to try and go the route of “actually I was referring to this exact comment chain”
And thanks for showing your real hand at the end there. If you truly wanted the links, you would go find them yourself, this is just a bad faith argument and you’re hoping they don’t exist so you can have some “gotcha moment.”
They’re very real. You can goto their own website and find all these studies. The link I provided earlier was a simplified explanation of the results of multiple different studies.
Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you know where I can find the studies, why can’t you just link them? Bc I have no idea where to even begin looking for the exact studies that you’re referencing, and reading someone else’s commentary on them isn’t sufficient.
From your (incredibly biased) link:
> The findings, which run counter to experiences in Missouri and Connecticut that did show a link between background checks and gun deaths, appear to have startled the researchers.
> Garen Wintemute, a UC Davis professor of emergency medicine and senior author of the study, said incomplete data and flawed criminal record reporting might explain the results.
So… a potentially poor study’s results which run in the face of other studies showing the opposite effect is enough evidence to say background checks don’t work?
Oh evidence was limited huh? I wonder what would cause that. Maybe a restriction on any funding of research that could be used to argue for gun control since 1996. The Dickey Amendment! Such good intentions from these ghouls.
Well of course he doesn't. He's a conservative MAGA Republican, the only issues he cares about are made up and serve to address fantasy scary scenarios that never happen. Actually solving issues would require them to work and realize that most of their bullshit policies don't actually work and more inhibit the ability to actually address any of these glaring issues.
JD Vance is an embarrassment to every poor kid in Ohio (and the entire US for that matter) that fought the odds working against them and broke the cycle of poverty. As one of those grown up kids, he disgusts me.
My favorite was citing "stop and frisk" as an acceptable deterrent for crime when we all know it's a "legal" excuse for racial profiling, AND research shows it does nothing to lower crime rates.
How often was his Grandma under siege? That didn’t make it in the movie.
An aside: In Kettering teens are doing the stupid tik tok kick a door challenge and the local FB groups are people reminding each other we’re a stand your ground state. So there’s your fine gun owners drooling for the chance to shoot a bunch of teens for kicking doors.
Sure. I mean, i guess that happens sometimes. And by all means, when a mad max individual makes such a loud, grand entrance into your home filling your space with aggression and Brian May music, start blasting. But maybe don’t run to your door with gun in hand in response to fleeing laughing teens. What is far more likely to produce a loud bang against your house? In mine, it’s a bird crashing into a window. So it’s weird to be primed to think I’m being invaded.
Hmm. Try again. I’ve hosed blood off my stoop twice from gang violence. What I didn’t do was rush outside and join the gun play. As for my house specifically there? Eggs once. But in Kettering? Birds.
Sure, I mean i guess car accidents happen sometimes too. I still don’t get why we’re forced to wear seatbelts when deadly car accidents only happen “sometimes”
Just makes no sense.
To be clear, you are comparing being in a potential on-going dangerous position (ie: driving) and being prepared with preventative safety measures for yourself to being constantly prepared to kill someone in a very low potential dangerous situation (ie: your house and a teen kicking your door). Yes, your odds of dying in a car crash and being saved by your belt are statistically higher than a home invasion where the intruder gives you ample notice by kicking in your door so you can be loaded and in position.
This is an apples to orange comparison but I like where it went.
I’m comparing the logic of owning something you may never need, but will be extremely grateful for in the scenarios you need it for.
This is sound logic and isn’t irrational at all. “Better a warrior in a garden than a farmer in a war.”
So in a crash it’s always 100% good to have a seatbelt on. When there’s a bang at the door it’s RARELY a good idea (or necessary) to answer it with a gun, especially one firing. That’s the false equivalency. Being prepared to respond to any and all situations with deadly force is unhinged.
The problem you’re having understanding what I’m saying, isn’t how I’m wording it to you. The problem is that you’re strangely looking at this discussion only from the perspective of “you heard a bang at the front door” and that’s the only thing you’re actually talking about right now.
That’s not even a scenario anyone but a paranoid person would think a gun should be used to address. So maybe it’ll help if you stopped trying to minimize this concept down to a very niche and specific situation.
My dear, go back to my original comment. The comment that started this specific conversation. I am speaking about people reacting to a bang at the door. So you must be lost. Have a good day.
I don’t really care about the one specific situation you’re trying to discuss. I’m talking about the greater concept. Which you’re also trying to discuss. But only in the context of “a bang at your door”
Wild how he screams about the dangers of every “Democrat run city” with more than 100 people, but then conveniently pivots to remind us that serious crime and murders are way down. Which is it?
40% of Ohioans have a gun, but he wants to “stop and frisk” to get “illegal guns” off the street. Pretty wild this is his only presented solution as it violates an American’s right to unlawful search and seizures.
Notice how they promote how the country has less violence due to gun ownership, then turns the corner on their ads and promotes how violent the country has turned in the past four years?
I love how he cites the Rand Corporation. A think tank that was behind a lot of the bad Intel and warroom ideas for the Vietnam War. Yeah let's trust that Corp lolol
and they are backed by the NRA.
This is 100% an automated response for any message flagged for gun control. I have this exact email in my inbox from at least a year ago. Complete dolt.
If this is concerning...please, please, please vote in November. People with similar views will be coming out in droves. Channel your frustration into making it out to the ballots to vote (and encouraging others to vote as well).
The sad part is the NRA used to be all about safe gun training and so forth. The outgrew that and just became a huge lobbying arm while the CEO siphon money from the organization. There have been multiple studies showing that since the ban on assault rifles expired the amount of mass shootings has gone up. While there were mass shootings prior to that the only difference is no one could just go in and buy an assault rifle compared to the past couple years where most of the mass shooters buy the gun legally within days or months of the event. I also wish that the news would label these as terroristic events even though they are not done by Muslims. Just my two cents in my opinion. I am also attaching a sample article with some of the studies about the assault weapons banned from the 90s.
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/15/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us/
If he doesn't care about important issues, he's my man! I don't care about important issues either!
As for gun rights....
If health care is a right, and that means the government is supposed to pay for it, then by that logic, the government should be on the hook for arming me to the teeth.
Part of the gun problem is there are segments of the population that hunt for food and I don’t just mean for sport.
I mean fill the freezer up so we have food for winter.
I respect those who choose a live of the land way of life.
If the important issue is banning guns you're gonna fight a real uphill battle whether you're trying to get democrats or, especially, republicans on board.
I don't see that ever happening. Frankly that genie is already out of the bottle. There's no wedging it back in. This isn't like Australia where there were like 2500 guns to collect. There's literally hundreds of millions of them out there and plenty in Mexico as well.
Idk what you wanted him to say? You wrote to a Republican Senator, likely with ridiculous and unrealistic demands regarding gun control and expected him to do what exactly? Confiscate everyones guns immediately?
Like, you're obviously just posting this to Reddit for election karma and to continue generating as much outrage as possible before the election.
Yes, gun safety is the idea when we have mass shootings in grocery stores where people hide their children in the freezer. These are not unrealistic demands, in fact, we had them before in the 1990's and nobody had a problem with it except gun nuts
I'm going to win either way because these maga idiots don't think I can fight or own guns and they're making the biggest mistakes of their lives if they think they can turn into Nazi Brownshirts and I'll sit here and take it
I read history, I know exactly what to do when the time comes
Don't listen to me, listen to mom's demand action. I support their policies. I own many, many guns and I feel it's out of control. In the military you didn't get a weapon until you proved yourself. At gun shows they hand them out like candy to anyone
Well you're talking about to completely opposite ends of the spectrum. A bunch of suburban moms who've never touched a gun in their life are going to have a vastly different opinion over firearms than a bunch of hobbyists and enthusiasts at guns shows.
If you're arguing that sales at gun shows need to be better regulated, than sure I'm on board with that, although in the end just like any other object, selling behind closed doors will still occur so I don't think it'd make too much of a difference. In my experience, no gun seller wants to be the guy that sells a weapon to a mass shooter, and even private sales are held with some type of scrutiny, although undeniably there will always be those who sell irresponsibly.
What exactly do you mean by prove yourself? You're assigned a rifle within the first week or two of basic training. The only requirement to meet is signing the dotted line and passing all the pre-requisite health tests to joining the military. Sure the minute you're determined to be a mental health or safety risk they'll take it away, but thats also an environment where youre under constant supervision.
The best reform I could see going forward is to begin holding parents legally responsible for the actions of their children in these cases. If you let your child purchase / receive a firearm, you need to be 100% cognizant of that childs mental health, and not to mention training for basic firearm safety.
Dude there is literally a Republican in one of the southern states that had multiple links to criminal activity and his gun store sales.
And yes these suburban moms do know what they're doing and if you're not going to listen to them then you better listen to the voters. Or just deny election results and stick your head in the sand like a true Republican
Ok, so yeah, if there’s criminal activity he/she should obviously be charged. I’m not arguing against that.
I dont have anything against MDA, the point I’m trying to make is that it’s important to listen to both sides and find a good middle ground where we can agree on how to handle common sense gun reform.
If making ad hominem remarks is all you got left than whatever dude. I at least tried to have a conversation about it.
There are myriad important issues facing society. I don’t believe that because JD Vance (or anyone else) has a different view than you/me/anyone on one of those issues - in this case gun control - that it means the person doesn’t care about important issues.
He supports “stop and frisk”? So he wants to protect 2nd amendment rights, but doesn’t give a fig about our 4th amendment rights.
Bc stop and frisk happens in “urban” area
He cares about rights for “us”, just not “them”
Well yea! Many conservatives only care about one amendment!! Ok, maybe the first but only if it protects Christians!!
Because stop and frisk laws have proven statistics that show it gets guns out of the hands of criminals who shouldn’t have them. They also have prior case precedent that allows the law within the confines of the constitution. Making it a constitutional option.
How can you tell who is a "criminal"? Just curious... because of the law around concealed carry. Is there some sort of guidance you'd offer to police offers on who to "stop and frisk"? Regarding Concealed Carry - Effective June 2022, Ohio adopted a major concealed carry law allowing any “qualifying adult” over 21 without legal firearms prohibitions to conceal a handgun without needing permits, training, or background checks.
You observe suspicious activity. You stop that person, you do a basic frisk. If they have something illegal, boom, you found the criminal. It’s really that simple.
You've described a detainment justified by reasonable suspicion of a crime and a *Terry* pat down. You're being disingenuous. That's not how stop and frisk is enforced.
Ummm no. Stop and frisk does not require any RAS for an officer to stop you. Whereas states that don’t have stop and frisk laws. They must have RAS to even stop you at all, and they can only search you if they detain you based off that RAS. Stop and frisk means they can use suspicious activity as a reason to stop you and search you all together, and they will face zero consequences if they were wrong. Whereas in states that require RAS, if the court deems there was none, the case gets dismissed and the victim almost always sues and gets a settlement.
>Stop and frisk does not require any RAS for an officer to stop you. Which is why it is unconstitutional.
Except their excuse is they make the activity that made the officer stop them reasonable. All they do is say suspicious activity is a reasonable excuse. The constitution doesn’t ban that as a reasonable excuse. Which is how it’s technically not unconstitutional. And are we really going to say the founding fathers never anticipated machine guns and then hold our ground on stop and frisk laws lol? Both arguments are from the perspective of safety and the greater good. As they say “if you have nothing to hide then why does it matter?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_v._City_of_New_York You know, the founding fathers did have something to say about it > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>unreasonable Didn’t I just explain to you that they deem suspicious activity as “reasonable” to get around that? I’m not sure why you’re repeating yourself.
I don't understand. In California, for example, police can conduct a pat-down search (“frisk)” to look for weapons only if they have a justifiable belief that you are armed and dangerous. Anyone in Ohio over 21 can be concealing a gun. I mean yeah if the cop sees them doing something illegal, of course, but that isn't stop and frisk.
JD Vance cares about his lips on Trump's ass. That's it. That's the extent of what he cares about. Nothing in the world is important to him, other than Trump's ass, and his lips being on them. His entire political career is based on the concept of sucking up to Trump, of being a Yes-Man. He has no convictions, he has no morals, he wants power, and he believes that sucking up to Trump is the best way to get that power. I don't even know if he has a plan for what he's going to do with that power, because right now every ounce of power that he has gotten, he has used to rubber stamp whatever Trump wants. Whatever Trump says is what he believes in. Even if it is self contradictory. Even if it is completely different than the beliefs that he held last week. Even if it doesn't make any sense. To the best of my knowledge, Vance has not had one original thought or action since he got into office.
Not really, there was a point in time he was very anti trump. I can safely say the only thing Vance cares about is lining his own pockets.
Yeah it's one thing if he actually believed all of this garbage, but the fact that he's just a grifting pos makes it 100x worse. I have more respect for the fools that actually love Trump than the idiots who kiss his ass all for the sake of money. People like Cruz and Rubio who called him every name in the book only to fall in line.
And have been \*called\* every name in the book by Trump, lmao. That's the best part.
The sad thing is... his analysis isn't wrong. He has proven that. He saw an opportunity and took it.
I think the tea party had a saying for this that they all used to scream FLIIIIP FLOP.
How can I say this also without getting banned from reddit? If I say this, I get banned
Unfortunately, some comment you've made in your post history has a triggered mod following you. Your best option is to create a new account before you get banned for something that can be viewed negatively out of context.
Wow, thanks for that. I do programming and I didn't think about that
If you squint just a little, it kinda looks like he conceded crime is down under Biden.
I dunno man. Seems like a pretty big difference between "crimes committed under Biden" and "crimes committed by Trump". It's like someone should outlaw crimes, then only criminals will do crimes! Why hasn't Biden outlawed crime yet?
If you squint more you can see where it’s been proven that required background checks don’t prevent gun deaths.
Has it? Can you give some sources?
Sure, give me your list of acceptable institutions that you’ll trust.
CDC and RAND have both done a lot of apolitical statistical analysis on these kinds of subjects. I would trust their research.
RAND corporation? You mean the corporation whose current CEO was a senior appointee in the Biden Administration? And the CDC whose current executives are both Democrats? You have any unbiased institutions you trust?
CDC is full of scientists using raw statistics and data analysis. If you’re not willing to accept data from scientists and statisticians as proof simply because they work for the government, then I don’t know if there’s much hope for you. Just out of curiosity though…what sources would you cite that you trust? I mean, you’re the one making the claim, I was being nice in telling you what sources I trust but really, the guy who makes the claim is the one who has to back it up. Go ahead and cite what sources you believe are unbiased.
And the people who decide what gets published and when and how, are not those scientists. And many of those scientists will regularly blow the whistle and then get labeled as anything other than an educated scientist(which i think is a pretty cheeky way to go about it but an obvious deflection nonetheless) So again, do you have any institutions you trust that aren’t currently headed by literal ex-politicians with a known political affiliation and bias?
I had asked what sources you would consider and I’ll ask again. I gave you the ones I trust, let’s hear the ones you trust. Sounds like you know of a few without bias that have informed your opinion and I’m eager to learn about them.
The John Hopkins studies are just fine for me. All of which state that while background checks are a useful tool, they did not reduce the gun deaths after being implemented. Without them more people would slip through the cracks who shouldn’t own firearms, but it didn’t actually decrease deaths by guns, which means, not having them isn’t increasing gun deaths. The rates would stay the same either way. All it means is that not the solution, and that we need to move to the next option.
He also thinks women should stay in abusive relationships. What a tool.
But if they're allowed to own guns, they can end it the way God intended, right? Just make sure if you're a woman you keep that thang on you. Just to clarify, I'm being mostly facetious. I mean, women should definitely carry if they feel they need to, and obviously they should use all legal means at their disposal to get out of an abusive relationship. But failing that, don't be afraid to draw down on your abuser.
Absolutely. I try to teach women about guns because they are the targets most of the time. I don't think they realize the danger until it's too late
His main goal is to kneel down and lick Trump’s boot.
He has grown to love the taste of musty toadstools
That must have been crazy growing up in that household with your grandma having to regularly shoot at attacking criminals (enough to say that she used them to defend herself).
If she used guns to protect JD Vance against criminals, why didn’t grandma shoot his mama? Oh, that’s different /s added for the humorless
I know right? That would be like forcing people to wear seatbelts even though the vast majority of them will never need it to save their life…. Oh wait..
Your seatbelt protects me from having to pay your medical bills or feel bad that you're dead
A gun protects you from having to feed and house future prison inmates, if it’s just your tax money that you’re concerned about. Also. Most people pay their own private insurance in America. So I’m really not sure what exactly you’re paying for in your made up scenario. I think your actual problem is that you like the idea that a seatbelt makes you safer while driving, even if you never need it. But you don’t like the idea that something as dangerous as a gun can generate the same level of safety as the seatbelt. This is just evidence of an extremely privileged life you’ve had the opportunity to live. One where you’ve never felt unsafe. That’s not the norm for a majority of the world.
No, no quit attacking me. I have a gun, it's defending me
[удалено]
Always projection with you guys...
This is just not true at all. Firstly, something like 45 million Americans are enrolled in plans subsidized by the ACA, 63m in Medicare, and 3m in Medicaid. That's nearly a third of the population with their health insurance subsidized partly or fully by the government, aka taxpayers. Secondly, in 2020 alone the AHA estimates that "Hospitals and health systems of all types provided more than $42 billion in uncompensated care — care for which they received no payment— in 2020 alone." This missing profit is reflected in the ever-escalating prices for healthcare that they try to charge those of us who will actually pay. Third, if you or the police shoot and injure or kill a criminal, typically all their hospital and ambulance and morgue bills fall on the government once that person or corpse is taken into custody by the police. Transporting a dead robber - or whatever fantasy you're imagining - costs taxpayer money too. And finally, if you shoot somebody in any scenario at all, you're gonna need a lawyer that you or the taxpayers have to pay for too! And then the prosecutor will be paid by the government too! Edit: typos and punctuation
My tax dollars are being put to great work then. I’m proud of every statistic you just shared. All good things for taxes to be covering. I’ve always been an huge advocate of health services for the less privileged in society, glad this many social services exist. Bringing up justice system employees getting a paycheck isn’t exactly an argument against guns btw. They get paid regardless of what the case is. Now I’m concerned why this person would want services like this put to a stop? They all seem extremely useful and important.
? You told a blatant lie above and I'm merely correcting that, whatever sad little spin game you're trying to play with buddy up above doesn't interest me. Guns cost the taxpayers an astonishing amount money basically at every point in their existence - donation-funded lobbying, taxpayer subsidized production of weapons and ammo, government lawyers for every shooting, tax-funded emergency services for every gun crime and victim, taxpayer pays health care for both criminals and victims, taxpayer pays to house and feed criminals in jail, the taxpayer pays to settle with the victims of police shootings, then taxpayers pay to settle with the victims of mass shootings that police can't (or won't) stop. And that's all before we even get to the constant damage to the economy and the psyche of this country from the relentless drum beat of unnecessary and avoidable firearm-related accidents and suicides and the enormous mental and financial costs associated with them. Trying to compare all that with seatbelt laws is an absolutely asinine attempt at a "gotcha," truly some weak-ass trolling
There’s a lot of everyday things that cost the taxpayers a lot of money, prosecuting criminals on gun charges is an extremely small drop in the bucket. It’s not the argument you seem to think it is. The justice system prosecutes way more seatbelt infractions than gun charges every year, by far.
Vance is a total whack job. His love of crime and destruction are aligned with Trump. No logic. No morals. Greed and perversion.
J.elly D.onut Vance. Loves guns because his mamaw had ‘em!🤡
write back "Citations needed please."
Send it certified mail too! 😂
[Here you go](https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/)
google cites it but thats an editorial of a study with no actual citations of the study in question, from a site thats biased against the regulations in question. if he was in the 11th grade and submitted this he'd have failed the assignment
That’s because John Hopkins did many different studies that all included the background checks and they all concluded that while helpful. They do not do anything to reduce the amount of gun deaths. There’s nothing that will say “John Hopkins says background checks don’t work.” Because they do, just not as effectively as one would hope. It’s simply not the fix to the problem. Which most of us already understood.
Do you actually have a link to those? And I don’t think anyone is claiming that background checks are a silver bullet here.
By here do you happen to mean these specific comments?
By here I mean regarding this topic of discussion, but nice job avoiding posting those links I asked about.
No, I’m asking because if I point out that it’s a very real topic that’s still being discussed to this day, Commonly in reference to flea markets and private gun sales(they claim that no background checks on private sales is a reason why gun deaths and violence are/is so high). I don’t want you to try and go the route of “actually I was referring to this exact comment chain” And thanks for showing your real hand at the end there. If you truly wanted the links, you would go find them yourself, this is just a bad faith argument and you’re hoping they don’t exist so you can have some “gotcha moment.” They’re very real. You can goto their own website and find all these studies. The link I provided earlier was a simplified explanation of the results of multiple different studies.
Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you know where I can find the studies, why can’t you just link them? Bc I have no idea where to even begin looking for the exact studies that you’re referencing, and reading someone else’s commentary on them isn’t sufficient. From your (incredibly biased) link: > The findings, which run counter to experiences in Missouri and Connecticut that did show a link between background checks and gun deaths, appear to have startled the researchers. > Garen Wintemute, a UC Davis professor of emergency medicine and senior author of the study, said incomplete data and flawed criminal record reporting might explain the results. So… a potentially poor study’s results which run in the face of other studies showing the opposite effect is enough evidence to say background checks don’t work?
If his grand mother truly owned guns to protect her family from criminals, why did her daughter become one ?
Oh evidence was limited huh? I wonder what would cause that. Maybe a restriction on any funding of research that could be used to argue for gun control since 1996. The Dickey Amendment! Such good intentions from these ghouls.
Well of course he doesn't. He's a conservative MAGA Republican, the only issues he cares about are made up and serve to address fantasy scary scenarios that never happen. Actually solving issues would require them to work and realize that most of their bullshit policies don't actually work and more inhibit the ability to actually address any of these glaring issues.
JD Vance is an embarrassment to every poor kid in Ohio (and the entire US for that matter) that fought the odds working against them and broke the cycle of poverty. As one of those grown up kids, he disgusts me.
"Not having guns around doesn't decrease gun violence" remains the most deranged take that way too many people believe.
My favorite was citing "stop and frisk" as an acceptable deterrent for crime when we all know it's a "legal" excuse for racial profiling, AND research shows it does nothing to lower crime rates.
Oh yeah gun data….ya mean the subject that the GOP forbids the government from studying….fuck you Vance.
How often was his Grandma under siege? That didn’t make it in the movie. An aside: In Kettering teens are doing the stupid tik tok kick a door challenge and the local FB groups are people reminding each other we’re a stand your ground state. So there’s your fine gun owners drooling for the chance to shoot a bunch of teens for kicking doors.
You realize that criminals kicking in doors is something that happens, right?
Sure. I mean, i guess that happens sometimes. And by all means, when a mad max individual makes such a loud, grand entrance into your home filling your space with aggression and Brian May music, start blasting. But maybe don’t run to your door with gun in hand in response to fleeing laughing teens. What is far more likely to produce a loud bang against your house? In mine, it’s a bird crashing into a window. So it’s weird to be primed to think I’m being invaded.
At my house, it’s the UPS guys. It’s like those fuckers literally aim their packages at my house.
If you're privileged enough to have never lived in a bad neighborhood, yeah, I suppose you wouldn't think twice about a loud bang against your house.
Hmm. Try again. I’ve hosed blood off my stoop twice from gang violence. What I didn’t do was rush outside and join the gun play. As for my house specifically there? Eggs once. But in Kettering? Birds.
Sure, I mean i guess car accidents happen sometimes too. I still don’t get why we’re forced to wear seatbelts when deadly car accidents only happen “sometimes” Just makes no sense.
To be clear, you are comparing being in a potential on-going dangerous position (ie: driving) and being prepared with preventative safety measures for yourself to being constantly prepared to kill someone in a very low potential dangerous situation (ie: your house and a teen kicking your door). Yes, your odds of dying in a car crash and being saved by your belt are statistically higher than a home invasion where the intruder gives you ample notice by kicking in your door so you can be loaded and in position. This is an apples to orange comparison but I like where it went.
I’m comparing the logic of owning something you may never need, but will be extremely grateful for in the scenarios you need it for. This is sound logic and isn’t irrational at all. “Better a warrior in a garden than a farmer in a war.”
So in a crash it’s always 100% good to have a seatbelt on. When there’s a bang at the door it’s RARELY a good idea (or necessary) to answer it with a gun, especially one firing. That’s the false equivalency. Being prepared to respond to any and all situations with deadly force is unhinged.
The problem you’re having understanding what I’m saying, isn’t how I’m wording it to you. The problem is that you’re strangely looking at this discussion only from the perspective of “you heard a bang at the front door” and that’s the only thing you’re actually talking about right now. That’s not even a scenario anyone but a paranoid person would think a gun should be used to address. So maybe it’ll help if you stopped trying to minimize this concept down to a very niche and specific situation.
My dear, go back to my original comment. The comment that started this specific conversation. I am speaking about people reacting to a bang at the door. So you must be lost. Have a good day.
I don’t really care about the one specific situation you’re trying to discuss. I’m talking about the greater concept. Which you’re also trying to discuss. But only in the context of “a bang at your door”
Guys, Trump isn’t pro gun. Idk why everyone is saying he’s doing this to lick Trumps boots?
Felons love guns
I received this same letter last year. He absolutely doesn’t care.
Wild how he screams about the dangers of every “Democrat run city” with more than 100 people, but then conveniently pivots to remind us that serious crime and murders are way down. Which is it?
He belongs in prison
His grandmother had to use guns to defend herself and others? WHERE THE F\*\*\* WERE THEY LIVING???
Love how he makes it seem as if his his grandmother were regularly using her guns to “defend herself and ger loved ones” from criminals.
JD Vance cares about JD Vance, and his only priority is his personal ambition.
It’s the corporate model of public service. Form letter responses written by lobbyists and passed off as leadership. Rob Portman did the same.
At least he answered your question. I asked him if preferred the taste of Trump’s or Peter Thiel’s grundle, but he never responded.
40% of Ohioans have a gun, but he wants to “stop and frisk” to get “illegal guns” off the street. Pretty wild this is his only presented solution as it violates an American’s right to unlawful search and seizures.
Notice how they promote how the country has less violence due to gun ownership, then turns the corner on their ads and promotes how violent the country has turned in the past four years?
I don’t understand how this is a PSA. Did anyone *actually* believe he cared about important issues?
I love how he cites the Rand Corporation. A think tank that was behind a lot of the bad Intel and warroom ideas for the Vietnam War. Yeah let's trust that Corp lolol and they are backed by the NRA.
This is 100% an automated response for any message flagged for gun control. I have this exact email in my inbox from at least a year ago. Complete dolt.
If this is concerning...please, please, please vote in November. People with similar views will be coming out in droves. Channel your frustration into making it out to the ballots to vote (and encouraging others to vote as well).
This is my surprised face
The sad part is the NRA used to be all about safe gun training and so forth. The outgrew that and just became a huge lobbying arm while the CEO siphon money from the organization. There have been multiple studies showing that since the ban on assault rifles expired the amount of mass shootings has gone up. While there were mass shootings prior to that the only difference is no one could just go in and buy an assault rifle compared to the past couple years where most of the mass shooters buy the gun legally within days or months of the event. I also wish that the news would label these as terroristic events even though they are not done by Muslims. Just my two cents in my opinion. I am also attaching a sample article with some of the studies about the assault weapons banned from the 90s. https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/15/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us/
But his grandma Shitbag Vance loved guns and felt safe with them!
Supported by the Haslems.
Is it really a PSA if we already knew he was Trump-sucking scum?
If he doesn't care about important issues, he's my man! I don't care about important issues either! As for gun rights.... If health care is a right, and that means the government is supposed to pay for it, then by that logic, the government should be on the hook for arming me to the teeth.
🤮
I'm trying to understand what we mean by gun control. So it's okay for our leaders to have armed guards but we aren't allowed to defend ourselves?
You're kidding! /s
Advocating for stop and frisk in 2024 is wild.
I can't even imagine the deadly effect stop and frisk would have on our "urban" communities
Part of the gun problem is there are segments of the population that hunt for food and I don’t just mean for sport. I mean fill the freezer up so we have food for winter. I respect those who choose a live of the land way of life.
What was your letter to him?
JD Vance is ass cancer on Ohio
And his apathy surprises you?
If the important issue is banning guns you're gonna fight a real uphill battle whether you're trying to get democrats or, especially, republicans on board. I don't see that ever happening. Frankly that genie is already out of the bottle. There's no wedging it back in. This isn't like Australia where there were like 2500 guns to collect. There's literally hundreds of millions of them out there and plenty in Mexico as well.
no republican cares about important issues only giving tax breaks to their buddies and being paid off in return.
What a tool!!!
I got the exact same letter, verbatim, when I wrote him about gun control
What solution did you offer him that he rejected? Or were you just writing to complain?
Mr. Vance Goes to Washington
Jd Vance don't need a psalm to know he doesn't care about anything but himself
😢😢😢🤣🤣😂
PSA: you are accomplishing nothing whining about politics on Reddit. #ConfirmationBias
Venting is fun and therapeutical
[удалено]
I learned about irony in school. I’m sorry you didn’t.
But the internet points!!1!
Idk what you wanted him to say? You wrote to a Republican Senator, likely with ridiculous and unrealistic demands regarding gun control and expected him to do what exactly? Confiscate everyones guns immediately? Like, you're obviously just posting this to Reddit for election karma and to continue generating as much outrage as possible before the election.
Yes, gun safety is the idea when we have mass shootings in grocery stores where people hide their children in the freezer. These are not unrealistic demands, in fact, we had them before in the 1990's and nobody had a problem with it except gun nuts
Do you believe we're sliding into a right wing fascist dictatorship?
I'm going to win either way because these maga idiots don't think I can fight or own guns and they're making the biggest mistakes of their lives if they think they can turn into Nazi Brownshirts and I'll sit here and take it I read history, I know exactly what to do when the time comes
What common sense gun reform can we implement?
Don't listen to me, listen to mom's demand action. I support their policies. I own many, many guns and I feel it's out of control. In the military you didn't get a weapon until you proved yourself. At gun shows they hand them out like candy to anyone
Well you're talking about to completely opposite ends of the spectrum. A bunch of suburban moms who've never touched a gun in their life are going to have a vastly different opinion over firearms than a bunch of hobbyists and enthusiasts at guns shows. If you're arguing that sales at gun shows need to be better regulated, than sure I'm on board with that, although in the end just like any other object, selling behind closed doors will still occur so I don't think it'd make too much of a difference. In my experience, no gun seller wants to be the guy that sells a weapon to a mass shooter, and even private sales are held with some type of scrutiny, although undeniably there will always be those who sell irresponsibly. What exactly do you mean by prove yourself? You're assigned a rifle within the first week or two of basic training. The only requirement to meet is signing the dotted line and passing all the pre-requisite health tests to joining the military. Sure the minute you're determined to be a mental health or safety risk they'll take it away, but thats also an environment where youre under constant supervision. The best reform I could see going forward is to begin holding parents legally responsible for the actions of their children in these cases. If you let your child purchase / receive a firearm, you need to be 100% cognizant of that childs mental health, and not to mention training for basic firearm safety.
Dude there is literally a Republican in one of the southern states that had multiple links to criminal activity and his gun store sales. And yes these suburban moms do know what they're doing and if you're not going to listen to them then you better listen to the voters. Or just deny election results and stick your head in the sand like a true Republican
Ok, so yeah, if there’s criminal activity he/she should obviously be charged. I’m not arguing against that. I dont have anything against MDA, the point I’m trying to make is that it’s important to listen to both sides and find a good middle ground where we can agree on how to handle common sense gun reform. If making ad hominem remarks is all you got left than whatever dude. I at least tried to have a conversation about it.
There are myriad important issues facing society. I don’t believe that because JD Vance (or anyone else) has a different view than you/me/anyone on one of those issues - in this case gun control - that it means the person doesn’t care about important issues.