America's Gun Violence

OnWis97

Go Beavers said:

OnWis97 said:

Gern Blansten said:

holy shit the shooter's facebook profile is all Bernie Sanders

Yep.  The "liberal media" is going to have a field day with this.  

The "resistance" just took a few steps back.  

The resistance didn't do anything. It's not defined by how some right wing folks want to continually grasp at singular events to confirm their belief system. 

I agree.  But get used to hearing about the morally-bankrupt left for a while.

Jason P

.

Jason P

Go Beavers said:

Jason P said:

dignin said:

Why are we not calling the shooter a terrorist?

Is a terrorist organization taking credit for the attack?  Less then 12 hours in.  Should wait and see

Perhaps it was the Sons of the Harpies?

The accepted definition of terrorist now is that you only need to be "influenced" by a terrorist group. Of course that depends on what religion the perpetrator is.  

that's your accepted belief 

Go Beavers

Jason P said:

Go Beavers said:

Jason P said:

dignin said:

Why are we not calling the shooter a terrorist?

Is a terrorist organization taking credit for the attack?  Less then 12 hours in.  Should wait and see

Perhaps it was the Sons of the Harpies?

The accepted definition of terrorist now is that you only need to be "influenced" by a terrorist group. Of course that depends on what religion the perpetrator is.  

that's your accepted belief 

It's whats happens. The San Bernadino shooting played out this way. 

CM189191

Jason P said:

Go Beavers said:

Jason P said:

dignin said:

Why are we not calling the shooter a terrorist?

Is a terrorist organization taking credit for the attack?  Less then 12 hours in.  Should wait and see

Perhaps it was the Sons of the Harpies?

The accepted definition of terrorist now is that you only need to be "influenced" by a terrorist group. Of course that depends on what religion the perpetrator is.  

that's your accepted belief 

accepted belief?

is that like an alternative fact?

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which:
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended –
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

this is a picture of a duck

dignin

Oh my.

https://twitter.com/randpaul/status/746022114042478592

tbergs

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

reset the clock
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/14/virginia-gop-baseball-practice-shooting-multiple-people-shot.html?ICID=ref_fark
Why weren't any of these people armed to defend themselves while they were trying to enjoy a nice softball game?

No shit...all of those snowflake republicans should have been packing heat

Aren't sporting events considered "Gun Free Zones" in most states?

This wasn't a sporting event. It was like going to a community park. The shooter wouldn't have gotten in to a sporting event along with the rest of the gun toting protectors you're advocating for. Either way, people with guns were right there and several were still shot. Fortunately no one has been fatally shot. 2nd amendment doesn't protect anyone in this instance.

Well, if he had not been "engaged immediately" by someone else with a gun, do you not think the results might have been different?  He probably would have walked around finishing people off as seen in other incidents where gunmen faced no opposition.  "Good guys" with guns most likely saved several lives in this situation.

That's a convenient spin to support more gun ownership when in fact it is because of more gun availability and ownership that it's a problem. Do you also subscribe to the notion that larger amounts of military spending equals more safety and freedom? Have we become so ignorant as a nation that our response is simply, if not for a "good guy" with a gun....That what? 8 people instead of 4 get shot? That's not a solution.

dignin

CM189191 said:

Jason P said:

Go Beavers said:

Jason P said:

dignin said:

Why are we not calling the shooter a terrorist?

Is a terrorist organization taking credit for the attack?  Less then 12 hours in.  Should wait and see

Perhaps it was the Sons of the Harpies?

The accepted definition of terrorist now is that you only need to be "influenced" by a terrorist group. Of course that depends on what religion the perpetrator is.  

that's your accepted belief 

accepted belief?

is that like an alternative fact?

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which:
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended –
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

this is a picture of a duck

Quack, quack!

unsung

dignin said:

Oh my.

https://twitter.com/randpaul/status/746022114042478592

Well, he is correct.

MayDay10

this idiot did a major disservice to everything he thought he stood for

CM189191

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

reset the clock
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/14/virginia-gop-baseball-practice-shooting-multiple-people-shot.html?ICID=ref_fark
Why weren't any of these people armed to defend themselves while they were trying to enjoy a nice softball game?

No shit...all of those snowflake republicans should have been packing heat

Aren't sporting events considered "Gun Free Zones" in most states?

This wasn't a sporting event. It was like going to a community park. The shooter wouldn't have gotten in to a sporting event along with the rest of the gun toting protectors you're advocating for. Either way, people with guns were right there and several were still shot. Fortunately no one has been fatally shot. 2nd amendment doesn't protect anyone in this instance.

Well, if he had not been "engaged immediately" by someone else with a gun, do you not think the results might have been different?  He probably would have walked around finishing people off as seen in other incidents where gunmen faced no opposition.  "Good guys" with guns most likely saved several lives in this situation.

The "Good Guys" with guns were Police Officers.  I have been informed numerous times by gun advocates the reason we need to arm ourselves is because the police are only there to clean up after a crime has occurred.  Not to prevent one from happening. 

Bentleyspop

Gern Blansten said:

Another shooting at UPS in Cali

 Guns don't  kill people

Gun owners kill people.......

Gunman kills 3, then self at San Francisco UPS facility, police say

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/us/san-francisco-shooting/index.html

Halifax2TheMax

What no one ever talks about in the gun debate is the societal impact on the living of the dead and wounded. For every person killed or wounded, many with life altering injuries, there's got to be at least 10 family and friends who are immediately impacted in a severe, negative way. From PTSD, to bankruptcy, to having your life forever altered. The pro gun crowd in congress won't even allow legislation that would support or allow hospitals, police departments and the CDC, among others to collect, analyze and report out such data. How can you solve a "problem" if you're not willing to understand the "problem?"

Now, let us pray..............

cincybearcat

Bentleyspop said:

Gern Blansten said:

Another shooting at UPS in Cali

 Guns don't  kill people

Gun owners kill people.......

Gunman kills 3, then self at San Francisco UPS facility, police say

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/us/san-francisco-shooting/index.html

Guns don't kill people....

Bullets do....from guns....fired by gun owners.

Halifax2TheMax

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/07/08/news/americans-are-killing-51-times-more-people-guns-canadians

There have been 7,089 gun-related deaths in the U.S. since the start of 2016, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Over 300 of the victims were children, 947 involved a police officer shooting/killing a perpetrator, and 179 were mass shooting incidents.

These numbers include the five deaths in the July 7 Dallas shooting, along with 12 other gun-related deaths across the country that day.

That’s substantially more than in Canada, where 172 firearms-related deaths were recorded by Statistics Canada in 2012. The federal statistics agency hasn’t provided more recent numbers, but its data revealed the 51-fold difference between the U.S. and Canada in that year.

The Canadian Criminal Code splits firearms into three categories — prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted. Prohibited firearms include military-grade assault weapons like AK-47s and sawed-off rifles or shotguns. Handguns are generally classified as restricted weapons, while rifles and shotguns are usually non-restricted.

The AR-15 rifle used in other high-profile mass shootings in the U.S., including last month’s massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando that saw 50 people killed, are classified as restricted in Canada.

my2hands

Halifax2TheMax said:

What no one ever talks about in the gun debate is the societal impact on the living of the dead and wounded. For every person killed or wounded, many with life altering injuries, there's got to be at least 10 family and friends who are immediately impacted in a severe, negative way. From PTSD, to bankruptcy, to having your life forever altered. The pro gun crowd in congress won't even allow legislation that would support or allow hospitals, police departments and the CDC, among others to collect, analyze and report out such data. How can you solve a "problem" if you're not willing to understand the "problem?"

Now, let us pray..............

my2hands

I LOVE how a lot of gun advocates answer to gun violence is more guns

America, the chickens have come home to roost. Good luck

CM189191

my2hands said:

I LOVE how a lot of gun advocates answer to gun violence is more guns

America, the chickens have come home to roost. Good luck

Too bad everyone has to suffer for their stupidity

tbergs

ponytd said:

tbergs said:

ponytd said:

HesCalledDyer said:

dudeman said:

HesCalledDyer said:

riley540 said:

tbergs said:

riley540 said:

New to this conversation  

i grew up in Anchorage Alaska. Now I, myself have shot guns and everything, but have no desire to ever own one, but I will say that I grew up around a lot of responsible gun owners. Growing up, I was taught how to safely handle a gun instead of being taught to fear a gun. I understand the outrage because bad people have easy access to guns, and it needs to stop. But I also full heatedly want to keep guns in the hands of my fellow Alaskans who's use them responsibly. I know all kinds of people who like to collect fire arms, people that like to go hunting, people that go to the range for fun, and even people who just like to have one in their car when they go out at night. All very good people. My girlfriend recently said she wants to get education on how to properly handle a gun and I fully support her. We can all co-exist. Not all gun owners are bad 

True, people can co exist, but guns and people have been incompatible for a few hundred years already. Stricter gun laws will possibly lower incidents of shootings, but we're never going to end the problem until one of us ceases to exist. All of our efforts are merely bandaids on an already severed head and there's lots of blood to soak up these days.

I just fear that if guns are harder to get, then only the out laws are going to have guns. Might as well just keep the good people armed at this point. 

Depends on what you mean by "harder to get."

I find it absolutely outrageous that any person in this country who wants to operate a motor vehicle has to go through a basic training class, a written test, be placed on a provisional period, pass another written test, and a physical driving test to do so and no one bats an eye.  But mention you want to do the same type of process with guns and oh my lord it's the end of the free fucking world.

Tons of people are killed each year in cars. You have to be 18 to buy a gun. Driving and owning a car is not a constitutionally protected right.

We've been over this a lot in this thread. Driving cars and the regulations that apply are not comparable to gun ownership in this country. 

And apparently you're still missing the point.  When did I say anything that infringed upon the 2nd Amendment rights of the people?  I didn't.  Nothing I said would keep anyone who legally wanted to own a gun from owning a gun.  You wouldn't want someone driving a car who isn't trained properly on how to drive and who doesn't understand the rules of the road.  Just asking for better regulations and licensing.
The right is so hell-bent on notions of a "strong vetting process" except for when it comes to muh gunz.

I agree with that. I'd be behind a mandatory firearms training and/or safety course before you can legally purchase a gun. It's not infringing on anyone's right to own one, unless you prove that you're unsafe.

What about age restrictions on usage?

For buying a gun? they can be kept the same as they are now.  Here in TN, you have to be 18 to purchase a shotgun or hunting rifle, but 21 for handguns. If you're under whatever age is set, but like to go hunting, currently you can't legally purchase a gun, but you have to pass a hunter safety course before you can go and have to have a hunting license. Wouldn't be much of a change for that, except you'd throw in a gun safety course with that hunting safety course (although many incorporate that in there already) for children.

No, I'm referring to when they can actually use a firearm, with or without a parent's consent. We don't let 7 year olds drive a car, but they can shoot guns. Fucked up much? Hey, don't try to drive this large dangerous machine because it's illegal, instead hold this nice compact handgun or rifle and aim at that target. All because the constitution says you have the right to bear arms. This isn't colonial times, no reason kids should be shooting guns outside of hunting after proper training. It's actually amazing the things we outlaw for kids under 18, but they can shoot guns.

unsung

my2hands said:

I LOVE how a lot of gun advocates answer to gun violence is more guns

America, the chickens have come home to roost. Good luck

A much larger percentage are of the left variety.