America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Another crazy asshole shot up a church and pistol whipped an usher.

http://www.weau.com/content/news/Police-say-gunman-kills-1-injures-7-at-church-in-Nashville-447422713.html

Interesting what stopped the situation in its tracks...Glad more damage was not done and I commend the person that put his own life in jeopardy to stop the asshat instead of being a sheep.

Yet another mentally unstable person who shouldn't have had such easy access to a gun....

Is that the latest?  Have a link?

The article clearly states they were both members of the same church congregation.

I’m not completely sure of the point you are trying to make?  Pretty par for the course with most of your comments though...

oftenreading

A very Canadian headline. Maybe it would be seen in, say, the UK; possibly the Netherlands. Not in the US.

"Handgun possibly seen in Oak Bay business; police investigating"

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/handgun-possibly-seen-in-oak-bay-business-police-investigating-1.23016660

I'm glad I live where I do.

jnimhaoileoin

Seriously, how can anyone live in America and not want stricter gun control and more severe punishment for the kind of reckless endangerment that results in incidents like this?!

http://www.thejournal.ie/toddlers-shot-michigan-3621108-Sep2017/

Bentleyspop

jnimhaoileoin said:

Seriously, how can anyone live in America and not want stricter gun control and more severe punishment for the kind of reckless endangerment that results in incidents like this?!

http://www.thejournal.ie/toddlers-shot-michigan-3621108-Sep2017/

Guns don't  shoot people.......

The 3 yr old children of gun owners shoot other children

rgambs

jnimhaoileoin said:

Seriously, how can anyone live in America and not want stricter gun control and more severe punishment for the kind of reckless endangerment that results in incidents like this?!

http://www.thejournal.ie/toddlers-shot-michigan-3621108-Sep2017/

People aren't willing to see the tragedies attached to their hobbies as being equally important to the enjoyment they get from shooting.

mace1229

jnimhaoileoin said:

Seriously, how can anyone live in America and not want stricter gun control and more severe punishment for the kind of reckless endangerment that results in incidents like this?!

http://www.thejournal.ie/toddlers-shot-michigan-3621108-Sep2017/

I don't think anyone pro-gun would be opposed to whatever punishment the gun owner and daycare provider face.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

Seriously, how can anyone live in America and not want stricter gun control and more severe punishment for the kind of reckless endangerment that results in incidents like this?!

http://www.thejournal.ie/toddlers-shot-michigan-3621108-Sep2017/

I don't think anyone pro-gun would be opposed to whatever punishment the gun owner and daycare provider face.

5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you? 10 years mandatory to serve if death resulted, is that "punishment" enough?

jnimhaoileoin

mace1229 said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

Seriously, how can anyone live in America and not want stricter gun control and more severe punishment for the kind of reckless endangerment that results in incidents like this?!

http://www.thejournal.ie/toddlers-shot-michigan-3621108-Sep2017/

I don't think anyone pro-gun would be opposed to whatever punishment the gun owner and daycare provider face.

How reassuring

rgambs

mace1229 said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

Seriously, how can anyone live in America and not want stricter gun control and more severe punishment for the kind of reckless endangerment that results in incidents like this?!

http://www.thejournal.ie/toddlers-shot-michigan-3621108-Sep2017/

I don't think anyone pro-gun would be opposed to whatever punishment the gun owner and daycare provider face.

If the possibility of a dead child isn't a deterrent to improper gun safety, the possibility of being punished after the tragedy isn't going to do a damn thing.

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

Seriously, how can anyone live in America and not want stricter gun control and more severe punishment for the kind of reckless endangerment that results in incidents like this?!

http://www.thejournal.ie/toddlers-shot-michigan-3621108-Sep2017/

I don't think anyone pro-gun would be opposed to whatever punishment the gun owner and daycare provider face.

"Punishment". Yeah, that's what's going to turn this around. 
 

rgambs

If the other toddlers were armed they could have prevented this tragedy.

mace1229

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.
Is it just me, or is there some irony when someone agrees with a statement made by an anti-gun supporter is just used as sarcastic bait?

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

If the other toddlers were armed they could have prevented this tragedy.

If high capacity magazines were outlawed, they could have prevented this tragedy.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

I didn't ask the question. It "triggered" me because I answered the question which was an anti-gun stance question, then everyone who criticized the question to begin with directed it at me with, who didn't even ask it. 
And I doubt the NRA would be opposed to laws against leaving guns in access to children while in a daycare. I seriously doubt that. For a small child to get a gun and shoot it, it was likely left in the open and loaded. Now if it was a high school kid who broke into a poor quality safe and did it, yes I could see the NRA being against putting those people in prison. But a small child in daycare? I don't see them being against that.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

I didn't ask the question. It "triggered" me because I answered the question which was an anti-gun stance question, then everyone who criticized the question to begin with directed it at me with, who didn't even ask it. 
And I doubt the NRA would be opposed to laws against leaving guns in access to children while in a daycare. I seriously doubt that. For a small child to get a gun and shoot it, it was likely left in the open and loaded. Now if it was a high school kid who broke into a poor quality safe and did it, yes I could see the NRA being against putting those people in prison. But a small child in daycare? I don't see them being against that.

Why does it have to be a child care center? Why not the "responsible" gun owner in their home, car or grocery store? You answered the question and followed it up with one of your own which was to question who might oppose punishment. The NRA and "responsible " gun owners, that's who. If it were different, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

I didn't ask the question. It "triggered" me because I answered the question which was an anti-gun stance question, then everyone who criticized the question to begin with directed it at me with, who didn't even ask it. 
And I doubt the NRA would be opposed to laws against leaving guns in access to children while in a daycare. I seriously doubt that. For a small child to get a gun and shoot it, it was likely left in the open and loaded. Now if it was a high school kid who broke into a poor quality safe and did it, yes I could see the NRA being against putting those people in prison. But a small child in daycare? I don't see them being against that.

If we look into the nitty gritty of that, preventing children from getting their hands on guns means preventing guns from being kept in handbags and briefcases and in holsters on belts. It means going back to what we've talked about on here many times - safe storage. It rules out open carry, and in fact any carry, where children are in the vicinity. And given that, I don't believe that the NRA would be in support. 
 

PJPOWER

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

We should probably start locking people up that irresponsibly let children poison themselves with laundry detergent pods, electrocute themselves by unsafe wall outlets, accidentally burn themselves with boiling water, or get mauled by the family pet as well.  Neglectful supervision in all situations, right?  
As a poster above stated, if the possibility of your child dying is not enough of a deterrent to leaving access to something that could be potentially deadly, then threatening to lock them up probably will not do much good either.  
I, for one, always keep the consequences of irresponsible firearm storage/usage in the back of my mind, but was taught at an early age the damage a firearm can do.  I, for one, would also be fine with requiring everyone to take a safety class and display a card showing that you have completed that class before buying a firearm.  Hunters have to take a “Hunters education” class before legally getting a hunting license... In these hunter education classes, you learn not to shoot over hills, how to handle your gun while crossing a fence, etc.  What I do not understand is why so many anti-gunners appose more education...???

Halifax2TheMax

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

We should probably start locking people up that irresponsibly let children poison themselves with laundry detergent pods, electrocute themselves by unsafe wall outlets, accidentally burn themselves with boiling water, or get mauled by the family pet as well.  Neglectful supervision in all situations, right?  
As a poster above stated, if the possibility of your child dying is not enough of a deterrent to leaving access to something that could be potentially deadly, then threatening to lock them up probably will not do much good either.  
I, for one, always keep the consequences of irresponsible firearm storage/usage in the back of my mind, but was taught at an early age the damage a firearm can do.  I, for one, would also be fine with requiring everyone to take a safety class and display a card showing that you have completed that class before buying a firearm.  Hunters have to take a “Hunters education” class before legally getting a hunting license... In these hunter education classes, you learn not to shoot over hills, how to handle your gun while crossing a fence, etc.  What I do not understand is why so many anti-gunners appose more education...???

Which anti-gunners have opposed further gun safety education? There you go again.........

PJPOWER

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

We should probably start locking people up that irresponsibly let children poison themselves with laundry detergent pods, electrocute themselves by unsafe wall outlets, accidentally burn themselves with boiling water, or get mauled by the family pet as well.  Neglectful supervision in all situations, right?  
As a poster above stated, if the possibility of your child dying is not enough of a deterrent to leaving access to something that could be potentially deadly, then threatening to lock them up probably will not do much good either.  
I, for one, always keep the consequences of irresponsible firearm storage/usage in the back of my mind, but was taught at an early age the damage a firearm can do.  I, for one, would also be fine with requiring everyone to take a safety class and display a card showing that you have completed that class before buying a firearm.  Hunters have to take a “Hunters education” class before legally getting a hunting license... In these hunter education classes, you learn not to shoot over hills, how to handle your gun while crossing a fence, etc.  What I do not understand is why so many anti-gunners appose more education...???

Which anti-gunners have opposed further gun safety education? There you go again.........

Plenty, any time I mention education I am met with the “education is not enough” response.  There you go again..........