Upvoted!

Thanks!

You should submit that lol

It is actually a very old joke anyways, but still a good one

agreed

I actually did a few weeks ago but it didn't get much traction. I might try it again some time

Oh ok.

They even named the Brady Bill after him and the result was drastic changes to gun rights.....

Nor was it a deterrent. Why? Because usually these guys aren't expecting to live through it. So knowing that people are armed doesn't matter to them at all.

A sane person could buy a gun then lose his mind a week later. Or he could be really good at acting normal enough to fool a mental health professional, which a lot of them are. 30% of the population are mentally ill. How are you planning on identifying them all?

To live in a free society, there are inherent risks. Allowing free people to protect themselves from the evil and from a possible tyrannical government is the end result.

You seriously think that people are going to be able to protect themselves from an evil, tyrannical government though, using semi-automatic weapons?

I mean, there's a reason why the Vietcong wasn't wiped out by the US in 1 week. It's because the US wasn't a tyrannical regime during WW2. Corrupt sure, but far from tyrannical.

In other words, if you fail to prevent your country from becoming tyrannical in the first place, you've already lost and no amount of provincial supply of firearms is going to protect you.

If you think Gestapo was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet (given the sheer bleeding-edge power of US military and intelligence).

I think it's an outdated idea... unless you have access to tanks, fighter jets and missiles. We have even tried to help people in other countries stand up to their tyrannical governments: Syria and Iraq come to mind. It didn't turn out well for either of them. And their countries' military is nothing compared to ours.

A tank, a drone, an F35, our little AR's are nothing against these. True. But when 'they' come to take your family or force you to accept Christianity or transgenderism, or whatever, they will not send tanks, drones and F35s. They will send a squad of men with guns -likely wearing body armor- but men nonetheless. And against men, even men with guns and body armor an AR could be the difference maker.

I always thought this was a lame argument until I discovered how often gun charges are nolle prossed.

Yeah, even if "criminals will find a way", most criminals are stupid (or else they wouldn't be criminals). And illegal goods are ALWAYS harder to acquire for most people than legal goods out in the open, especially when kids and young adults are concerned, who may be crazy enough to shoot up a school but not experienced enough to know whom to buy from (or even if that guy will even sell you guns at all, if he suspects you're some crazy guy who's gonna kill kids or just compromise his illegal business by attracting the authorities to it).

Yeah, except Reagan actually signed gun control legislation into law in 1986. Idiots.

Obama’s restrictions did not correlate to violence. Not all mental illnesses require gun restrictions. Obama’s rules did not address School shooters. mostly military.

But what does that have to do with Reagan not blaming the gun?

It could’ve just been a big conspiracy to have the president support gun rights, while what the actual result was the Brady Bill and massive restrictions on gun rights. Regan/Bush were famous for claiming support while actually opposing. Break out the tinfoil hats—it could all be a conspiracy.

Tinfoil can't protect you when you've been down the rabbit holes I've seen.

Part of their invasion plan!

Well Regan is the one that kicked off gun control in Commifornia when he was Governor, so you're probably not too far off...

Come on, we have a myth to keep!

And here I was all these decades thinking Brady was rendered brain damage and they just named the bill in honor of him out of sympathy instead of Reagan who woulda gotten it 'cept he pulled through much better.

Because reading between the lines falls outside the lines of the perpsectives of even those who were alive then as determined by a political agenda devoid of factual accuracy, historical or otherwise.

Humans.

And they say they're stupid.

Which goes to show you, the only people who support gun bans are Democrats and brain-damaged Republicans. :-)

Why is Hinkley still alive?

Anecdote

Actually in this case it could be considered a "case study."

FYI I support guns 100%- I just get irked by how the internet loves to label everything that isn't statistics as "anecdotal."

Case studies are a real thing and a HUGE part of research across most science disciplines. Dismissing it all as "anecdotal" shows real ignorance.

Really? This seems like an isolated example to me.

Do you have an advanced degree in research methodology? If so, let's debate. Otherwise, STFU and get back to flipping burgers, or whatever it is you do.

Just so wondering, what exactly makes this a case study and not an anecdote?

Nothing- it's not inherently either. But I'm irked at how you *automatically* dismissed it as "anecdotal."

An anecdote, as we use the term, is at its core an unreliable and unverifiable story. The shooting of Ronald Reagan isn't- it's a well documented event that can be carefully studied and analyzed to learn valuable and potentially generalizable findings.

True, you can't look at it surface level and draw major conclusions- but to dismiss it outright as "just an anecdote" shows a real lack of understanding as to what constitutes credible evidence.

But f**k me, I'm arguing on imgflip so who's the real retard, right?

Ok. Didn't know what a case study read until you told me. Thank you.

Life is a story, not data.

What do you mean?