I wonder what "ending the gun violence epidemic" means to libs when almost all gun violence involves handguns, which no one wants to ban. I guess it means "having a simmering gun violence epidemic that never explodes in ways that are publicly undeniable".https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1254465766444789760 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @anti_minotaur
Open carry would solve a lot of problems but even the gun guys get nervous if you tell them they have to play with their hands above the table
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jackfruitstaken
Do you mean like banning concealed carry? I think there are already states without it that have gun problems and anyway yeah, gun guys are not going to accept that nerf.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @anti_minotaur
The principle is essentially the same between banning handguns and banning CC, if you ask me. The advantage of handguns for the kind of pedestrian violence they're typically involved in is that they're easy to conceal in the first place.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jackfruitstaken
That's true all other things being equal but most of the people actually committing gun crime are already not supposed to be carrying a weapon for one reason or another, but have a weapon that was legally purchased by someone. The problem is the supply of guns.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @anti_minotaur @jackfruitstaken
Yes, but how else would you constrain the supply besides making it harder or impossible to legally buy all these guns
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @runclepennybags @jackfruitstaken
Exactly. The way you would stop gun violence would be to ban handguns, but all liberals want to ban is assault weapons.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
To be fair Scalia made it very difficult to ban handguns.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.