There are 20-million modern sporting rifles in private hands, yet 2x as many Americans are murdered each year by someone using their fists or feet than a rifle of any kind.
Trying to ban and arrest our way to safety a) doesn’t work and b) violates our civil rights.
I realize some people don’t give a shit about 2), but we should all care about the first part, particularly when we know strategies that are far more effective at reducing violent crime without any new gun control laws.
As for the “this is how we did it in the Marines” argument, we don’t live on a nationwide military base. Civilians simply have more freedom than active duty soldiers, including freedom of speech and the right to keep & bear arms. We can talk about expanding rights of soldiers...
... but “soldiers aren’t allowed to do it” is a piss-poor argument for restricting the rights of the People. Not interested in going down that road.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I don't think these red flag bills are coming from a place of "let's take all your guns". I understand the point they're trying to address: to stop the most dangerous people from hurting themselves or others.
But this bill doesn't do that, @marcorubio. Here's why. 1/
@marcorubio A lot of the requirements that you have in place for due process protections are great. But there's no requirement that the person deemed to be a danger to themselves or others receives any mental health treatment whatsoever. 2/
@marcorubio In fact, wouldn't it be better if there was a requirement that the initial determination that you were a danger came from a doctor who actually examined you, instead of a judge in a courtroom in a hearing you most likely aren't even allowed to attend? 3/
Three years ago today Miss E went to the ER in Farmville worried she was having a heart attack. She wasn’t, but the chest X-Ray showed something weird in one of her lungs. “Probably pneumonia,” they said, and sent her home with antibiotics. 1/
A couple of weeks went by and she went back for another look at her lungs. Nothing had changed. That’s when we started to get a little concerned. They scheduled her for a biopsy. Meanwhile, life went on. We got a puppy. My car caught fire. And we waited for the procedure. 2/
When the biopsy results came back inconclusive, we were both a little relieved. We still didn’t know what was wrong yet, but whatever it was, it wasn’t something easy to detect, like cancer. We joked about bringing in Dr. House for a consultation. 3/
Thank you to everyone who's been praying for Miss E. I am really sorry to tell you we did not get the news we were hoping for this morning. 1/
E has ten tumors in both lungs, all pretty small. Eight of them are larger than they were a few months ago.
We've pretty much run out of standard treatment options, so now we're going to have look at clinical trials. 2/
There is some good news mixed in with the bad: there are no signs of the cancer spreading beyond her lungs. There are no new tumors. And she is relatively young and healthy (besides the whole cancer thing), and should be a good candidate for a trial. 3/
I try not to tweet when I'm angry, but this POS in New Zealand has me in a white-hot rage. My annoyance at AOC for trying to go after the NRA, or gun control groups for already politicizing this horror, is nothing compared to the volcanic fury I feel towards this sick fuck. 1/
To quote @esaagar, "What makes me the most sick about the New Zealand shooter is the clinical nature of his violence and manifesto. It is rare and sickening to see the face of pure evil."
All of us are sinners. I believe few of us are truly evil. 2/
@esaagar But this evil individual didn't only treat hundreds of innocent and unarmed civilians as simple props in his livestream, he sought to inspire others to take his same nihilistic leap. 3/
Remember, their idea of "gun safety" is "don't own a gun". Virtually all of their policies are predicated on the idea that you can't reduce crime unless you reduce gun ownership... which is contradicted by the dramatic decline in violent crime since the early 1990's.
In 1980, California and Florida both had their highest homicide rates in history; 14.5 per 100,000 people. Violent crime in CA was 893.6 per 100k, while in FL it was even higher at 983.5.
By 2017, CA's homicide rate had dropped to 4.6 while FL's was slightly higher at 5.4. 2/
When it came to violent crime overall, however, Florida's had fallen from 983.5 to 430.3 per 100k, slightly LOWER than California's violent crime rate, which had dropped from 893.6 to 449.3 per 100k. 3/