America's Gun Violence

1496497498499501

Comments

  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 14,651
    mickeyrat said:
    How does that “help,” and what’s “old” about it?

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/us/massive-seizure-of-guns-la-trnd/index.html

    Seems to be two different people and two separate cases, separated by a couple of years? Maybe what’s old and archaic is that someone in the US can still amass such an arsenal and it’s so easily dismissed as routine or no biggie?
    the first post showed a picture and link to the picture with no details. it brought to mind the incident I linked, and I still seem to recall a bigger one in the last few years with an ungodly amount of ammo involved as well. 2015 or so maybe?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,899
    And of course, all of the above is separate from the ridiculous notion that you can equate possession of an inanimate, unnecessary object with a core feature of a person’s identity and culture. 
    again, not what i was saying. but i've explained it enough. 

    Saying "I see parallels" is not an explanation. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 11,439
    edited May 11
    I mean, I'll probably get thrashed from the "false equivalency" crowd, but why, as liberals, do we:

    -say it's not all muslims when a muslim carries out a terrorist attack, and when people lash out at the muslim community for not speaking up against muslim extremists, we say it's not their job to do so, because it's not really islam the terrorist is preaching, etc, yet...
    -when someone shoots up a school or a movie theatre, we liberals expect gun owners to step up and fix the gun problem?
    Because the issues are completely different. 

    With gun control, we expect and hope that gun owners, the so-called good guys, will advocate for effective gun legislation that will help to reduce gun violence.

    With terrorist attacks, what sort of legislative change are we expecting or hoping that Muslims would lobby for? What do you see making a difference? I don’t recall actually seeing the Muslim community argue against laws regarding terrorism or taking a pro-terrorism stance the way that gun owners take a pro-gun stance. 

    Both are societal issues, but I see the two groups reacting quite differently in their responses. 
    I see many parallels.  
    What, specifically? 
    I already stated. our expectations of one group simply don't allign with those of another because they are of different political/theological persuasion. 

    Yeah, we can legalize nuclear bombs and 99% of the population can be trusted not to set off their nuclear bomb.  That doesn't mean we should legalize nukes.    YEah, we can trust 99% of gun owners to not murder somebody but do they need the guns in the first place?  Is the benefit that gun owners get from their weapons enough to compensate for all the negatives that gun victims and their families deal with?  I don't have gun and maybe I just don't understand what I've been missing.

    Yeah, we can trust 99% of Muslims not to be terrorists, but what is the simple action to take like taking a gun from a box in someone's closet?   How do you change an ideology as easily as taking an object that is total unnecessary to someone's daily life?

    i'm not sure where all this came from. this has nothing to do with my original statement. i abhor guns. in a perfect world, they'd be illegal. 

    all i said was, we have different expectations of groups where a very small portion of said group commits heinous acts. for gun owners, when a mass shooting happens, we expect them to bend over backwards to fix the problem. when an extremist kills a bunch of people, the right calls for muslims to condemn them and stand up and do something about it. the left says it isn't their responsibility. 

    often says i'm comparing apples to oranges (paraphrasing), but i'm just talking about our expectations of the moral obligations of groups of people seem to be different depending on our views of each group. 
    I thought I understood what you are saying.  Expectations of groups to police themselves.  What I am seeing is that one job is a lot tougher.  It is a lot tougher to change a terrorist’s ideology than to enact gun control and safety measures.   That is what I was getting at.   It should be simple to give an object you will likely never use or need to make someone else’s world safer.  An act of a Congress can go a long way.   There is no act of Congress that can change a terrorist’s mind.

    i guess If I am understanding your question correctly is that my expectations of gun owners is higher because there are clear actions  that can be taken to help the situation and they choose not to act.  I don’t see as many clear actions that Muslims can take tomorrow to limit terrorism.  So, I am hard on gun owners because they refuse to act.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,899
    I mean, I'll probably get thrashed from the "false equivalency" crowd, but why, as liberals, do we:

    -say it's not all muslims when a muslim carries out a terrorist attack, and when people lash out at the muslim community for not speaking up against muslim extremists, we say it's not their job to do so, because it's not really islam the terrorist is preaching, etc, yet...
    -when someone shoots up a school or a movie theatre, we liberals expect gun owners to step up and fix the gun problem?
    Because the issues are completely different. 

    With gun control, we expect and hope that gun owners, the so-called good guys, will advocate for effective gun legislation that will help to reduce gun violence.

    With terrorist attacks, what sort of legislative change are we expecting or hoping that Muslims would lobby for? What do you see making a difference? I don’t recall actually seeing the Muslim community argue against laws regarding terrorism or taking a pro-terrorism stance the way that gun owners take a pro-gun stance. 

    Both are societal issues, but I see the two groups reacting quite differently in their responses. 
    I see many parallels.  
    What, specifically? 
    I already stated. our expectations of one group simply don't allign with those of another because they are of different political/theological persuasion. 

    Yeah, we can legalize nuclear bombs and 99% of the population can be trusted not to set off their nuclear bomb.  That doesn't mean we should legalize nukes.    YEah, we can trust 99% of gun owners to not murder somebody but do they need the guns in the first place?  Is the benefit that gun owners get from their weapons enough to compensate for all the negatives that gun victims and their families deal with?  I don't have gun and maybe I just don't understand what I've been missing.

    Yeah, we can trust 99% of Muslims not to be terrorists, but what is the simple action to take like taking a gun from a box in someone's closet?   How do you change an ideology as easily as taking an object that is total unnecessary to someone's daily life?

    i'm not sure where all this came from. this has nothing to do with my original statement. i abhor guns. in a perfect world, they'd be illegal. 

    all i said was, we have different expectations of groups where a very small portion of said group commits heinous acts. for gun owners, when a mass shooting happens, we expect them to bend over backwards to fix the problem. when an extremist kills a bunch of people, the right calls for muslims to condemn them and stand up and do something about it. the left says it isn't their responsibility. 

    often says i'm comparing apples to oranges (paraphrasing), but i'm just talking about our expectations of the moral obligations of groups of people seem to be different depending on our views of each group. 
    I thought I understood what you are saying.  Expectations of groups to police themselves.  What I am seeing is that one job is a lot tougher.  It is a lot tougher to change a terrorist’s ideology than to enact gun control and safety measures.   That is what I was getting at.   It should be simple to give an object you will likely never use or need to make someone else’s world safer.  An act of a Congress can go a long way.   There is no act of Congress that can change a terrorist’s mind.

    i guess If I am understanding your question correctly is that my expectations of gun owners is higher because there are clear actions  that can be taken to help the situation and they choose not to act.  I don’t see as many clear actions that Muslims can take tomorrow to limit terrorism.  So, I am hard on gun owners because they refuse to act.
    Yes, exactly. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,066
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 12,316
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • MoonpigMoonpig Posts: 605
    I mean, I'll probably get thrashed from the "false equivalency" crowd, but why, as liberals, do we:

    -say it's not all muslims when a muslim carries out a terrorist attack, and when people lash out at the muslim community for not speaking up against muslim extremists, we say it's not their job to do so, because it's not really islam the terrorist is preaching, etc, yet...
    -when someone shoots up a school or a movie theatre, we liberals expect gun owners to step up and fix the gun problem?
    That is an excellent point and I have fallen victim to such thinking in the past.
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,074
    https://twitter.com/kendisgibson/status/1127332950461288449?s=21
    Nice to be able to spend that much on suits ha ..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,066
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,753
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

    The TEC-9 they used was purchased privately and illegally through some asshole nitwit. It was not something they could go and buy at a local gun shop. The ban actually worked, but a law abiding gun owner became an illegal arms dealer and accomplice in a mass shooting just like that.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,753
    I mean, I'll probably get thrashed from the "false equivalency" crowd, but why, as liberals, do we:

    -say it's not all muslims when a muslim carries out a terrorist attack, and when people lash out at the muslim community for not speaking up against muslim extremists, we say it's not their job to do so, because it's not really islam the terrorist is preaching, etc, yet...
    -when someone shoots up a school or a movie theatre, we liberals expect gun owners to step up and fix the gun problem?
    Because the issues are completely different. 

    With gun control, we expect and hope that gun owners, the so-called good guys, will advocate for effective gun legislation that will help to reduce gun violence.

    With terrorist attacks, what sort of legislative change are we expecting or hoping that Muslims would lobby for? What do you see making a difference? I don’t recall actually seeing the Muslim community argue against laws regarding terrorism or taking a pro-terrorism stance the way that gun owners take a pro-gun stance. 

    Both are societal issues, but I see the two groups reacting quite differently in their responses. 
    I see many parallels.  
    What, specifically? 
    I already stated. our expectations of one group simply don't allign with those of another because they are of different political/theological persuasion. 

    Yeah, we can legalize nuclear bombs and 99% of the population can be trusted not to set off their nuclear bomb.  That doesn't mean we should legalize nukes.    YEah, we can trust 99% of gun owners to not murder somebody but do they need the guns in the first place?  Is the benefit that gun owners get from their weapons enough to compensate for all the negatives that gun victims and their families deal with?  I don't have gun and maybe I just don't understand what I've been missing.

    Yeah, we can trust 99% of Muslims not to be terrorists, but what is the simple action to take like taking a gun from a box in someone's closet?   How do you change an ideology as easily as taking an object that is total unnecessary to someone's daily life?

    i'm not sure where all this came from. this has nothing to do with my original statement. i abhor guns. in a perfect world, they'd be illegal. 

    all i said was, we have different expectations of groups where a very small portion of said group commits heinous acts. for gun owners, when a mass shooting happens, we expect them to bend over backwards to fix the problem. when an extremist kills a bunch of people, the right calls for muslims to condemn them and stand up and do something about it. the left says it isn't their responsibility. 

    often says i'm comparing apples to oranges (paraphrasing), but i'm just talking about our expectations of the moral obligations of groups of people seem to be different depending on our views of each group. 
    I thought I understood what you are saying.  Expectations of groups to police themselves.  What I am seeing is that one job is a lot tougher.  It is a lot tougher to change a terrorist’s ideology than to enact gun control and safety measures.   That is what I was getting at.   It should be simple to give an object you will likely never use or need to make someone else’s world safer.  An act of a Congress can go a long way.   There is no act of Congress that can change a terrorist’s mind.

    i guess If I am understanding your question correctly is that my expectations of gun owners is higher because there are clear actions  that can be taken to help the situation and they choose not to act.  I don’t see as many clear actions that Muslims can take tomorrow to limit terrorism.  So, I am hard on gun owners because they refuse to act.
    Yes, exactly. 
    I'm with you two. I don't see the parallels unless you only make a surface level comparison without considering context and criteria.

    Liberals not advocating for banning Muslims from the country is hypocritical because we expect gun owners to participate in enacting a resolution for reducing and limiting gun violence? I'm not seeing it. Is it a fair trade then if we push for a ban of gun ownership for males between the ages of 16 - 65 instead? No Muslims or no men owning guns in this country? Which would be more beneficial to human life?
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 12,316
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

    What Assault Weapon do you refer to?
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 19,882
    Add “using a disrespectful tone” to the list of reasons a “responsible” gun owner will shoot you for. Guns for everyone, no limits, no impediments, let everyone have one.

    https://apple.news/AUrlF5leeRzSpyZvdElScVg
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,066
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

    What Assault Weapon do you refer to?
    Use the google.  I can't answer everything for you.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,066
    tbergs said:
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

    The TEC-9 they used was purchased privately and illegally through some asshole nitwit. It was not something they could go and buy at a local gun shop. The ban actually worked, but a law abiding gun owner became an illegal arms dealer and accomplice in a mass shooting just like that.
    The girlfriend bought it legally though and gave them to the two boys which was illegal.  The Kel-tec was also purchased legally.

    Everyone forgets that it was an import ban.  You could still buy assault weapons at a far more expensive price but you could buy them.

    Also saying "it worked" is like saying it was working before that then since not many happened prior to it but we could debate that idea all day.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,846
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,846
    The ban on AR-15 was lifted in 2004?  Who was the POTUS ... yup Bush ... add this another reason why he is the worst POTUS ever ... 
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 12,316
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

    What Assault Weapon do you refer to?
    Use the google.  I can't answer everything for you.
    That's why I'm asking, from google it doesn't seem like they could go to a store and buy an assault weapon.
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,066
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

    What Assault Weapon do you refer to?
    Use the google.  I can't answer everything for you.
    That's why I'm asking, from google it doesn't seem like they could go to a store and buy an assault weapon.
    You could still do that.  It was an "import ban".  No more assault style weapons imported or made but they found loopholes in to making them here which opened up more additional legislation and terminology for the next ban should that ever come around.

    You could still buy things at the store.  It wasn't a complete ban like California did where you couldn't even do a person to person transfer.  California also made you re-register the firearm if you wished to keep it which most people didn't bother doing from what I remember.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,753
    tbergs said:
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

    The TEC-9 they used was purchased privately and illegally through some asshole nitwit. It was not something they could go and buy at a local gun shop. The ban actually worked, but a law abiding gun owner became an illegal arms dealer and accomplice in a mass shooting just like that.
    The girlfriend bought it legally though and gave them to the two boys which was illegal.  The Kel-tec was also purchased legally.

    Everyone forgets that it was an import ban.  You could still buy assault weapons at a far more expensive price but you could buy them.

    Also saying "it worked" is like saying it was working before that then since not many happened prior to it but we could debate that idea all day.
    So, then ultimately it wasn't the ban that was ineffective as you have tried to claim, but the limited scope of the law because the gun lobby was able to ensure loopholes, like gun show purchases. The ban was effective, just not 100% because it was set up to fail from the beginning. Unfortunately real measures will never be allowed unless all gun owners and the gun lobby push for the changes. 
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,066
    tbergs said:
    tbergs said:
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

    The TEC-9 they used was purchased privately and illegally through some asshole nitwit. It was not something they could go and buy at a local gun shop. The ban actually worked, but a law abiding gun owner became an illegal arms dealer and accomplice in a mass shooting just like that.
    The girlfriend bought it legally though and gave them to the two boys which was illegal.  The Kel-tec was also purchased legally.

    Everyone forgets that it was an import ban.  You could still buy assault weapons at a far more expensive price but you could buy them.

    Also saying "it worked" is like saying it was working before that then since not many happened prior to it but we could debate that idea all day.
    So, then ultimately it wasn't the ban that was ineffective as you have tried to claim, but the limited scope of the law because the gun lobby was able to ensure loopholes, like gun show purchases. The ban was effective, just not 100% because it was set up to fail from the beginning. Unfortunately real measures will never be allowed unless all gun owners and the gun lobby push for the changes. 
    The ban was 100% effective in controlling the importation of assault style weapons, it did not effectively curb gun related or assault type deaths.
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 12,316
    tbergs said:
    tbergs said:
    And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
    “These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

    I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

    I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.
    How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?
    Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

    The TEC-9 they used was purchased privately and illegally through some asshole nitwit. It was not something they could go and buy at a local gun shop. The ban actually worked, but a law abiding gun owner became an illegal arms dealer and accomplice in a mass shooting just like that.
    The girlfriend bought it legally though and gave them to the two boys which was illegal.  The Kel-tec was also purchased legally.

    Everyone forgets that it was an import ban.  You could still buy assault weapons at a far more expensive price but you could buy them.

    Also saying "it worked" is like saying it was working before that then since not many happened prior to it but we could debate that idea all day.
    So, then ultimately it wasn't the ban that was ineffective as you have tried to claim, but the limited scope of the law because the gun lobby was able to ensure loopholes, like gun show purchases. The ban was effective, just not 100% because it was set up to fail from the beginning. Unfortunately real measures will never be allowed unless all gun owners and the gun lobby push for the changes. 
    The ban was 100% effective in controlling the importation of assault style weapons, it did not effectively curb gun related or assault type deaths.
    Well then, where is the argument.... 

    It also only lasted for 10 years... because why restrict anything that has to do with Assault Rifles. They are a part of everyday life ofc.
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,846
    Texas police officer fatally shoots woman who reportedly said ‘I’m pregnant

    https://trib.al/BUBOftL?fbclid=IwAR2y6ghdujHnc8LA1kys4JjlLQ6IUOotM3A-WjO4KTKIvtiuN8KQevdBgqU

    Might as well just put all police shootings here as well...
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    edited May 14
    I mean, I'll probably get thrashed from the "false equivalency" crowd, but why, as liberals, do we:

    -say it's not all muslims when a muslim carries out a terrorist attack, and when people lash out at the muslim community for not speaking up against muslim extremists, we say it's not their job to do so, because it's not really islam the terrorist is preaching, etc, yet...
    -when someone shoots up a school or a movie theatre, we liberals expect gun owners to step up and fix the gun problem?
    Because the issues are completely different. 

    With gun control, we expect and hope that gun owners, the so-called good guys, will advocate for effective gun legislation that will help to reduce gun violence.

    With terrorist attacks, what sort of legislative change are we expecting or hoping that Muslims would lobby for? What do you see making a difference? I don’t recall actually seeing the Muslim community argue against laws regarding terrorism or taking a pro-terrorism stance the way that gun owners take a pro-gun stance. 

    Both are societal issues, but I see the two groups reacting quite differently in their responses. 
    I see many parallels.  
    What, specifically? 
    I already stated. our expectations of one group simply don't allign with those of another because they are of different political/theological persuasion. 

    Yeah, we can legalize nuclear bombs and 99% of the population can be trusted not to set off their nuclear bomb.  That doesn't mean we should legalize nukes.    YEah, we can trust 99% of gun owners to not murder somebody but do they need the guns in the first place?  Is the benefit that gun owners get from their weapons enough to compensate for all the negatives that gun victims and their families deal with?  I don't have gun and maybe I just don't understand what I've been missing.

    Yeah, we can trust 99% of Muslims not to be terrorists, but what is the simple action to take like taking a gun from a box in someone's closet?   How do you change an ideology as easily as taking an object that is total unnecessary to someone's daily life?

    i'm not sure where all this came from. this has nothing to do with my original statement. i abhor guns. in a perfect world, they'd be illegal. 

    all i said was, we have different expectations of groups where a very small portion of said group commits heinous acts. for gun owners, when a mass shooting happens, we expect them to bend over backwards to fix the problem. when an extremist kills a bunch of people, the right calls for muslims to condemn them and stand up and do something about it. the left says it isn't their responsibility. 

    often says i'm comparing apples to oranges (paraphrasing), but i'm just talking about our expectations of the moral obligations of groups of people seem to be different depending on our views of each group. 
    I thought I understood what you are saying.  Expectations of groups to police themselves.  What I am seeing is that one job is a lot tougher.  It is a lot tougher to change a terrorist’s ideology than to enact gun control and safety measures.   That is what I was getting at.   It should be simple to give an object you will likely never use or need to make someone else’s world safer.  An act of a Congress can go a long way.   There is no act of Congress that can change a terrorist’s mind.

    i guess If I am understanding your question correctly is that my expectations of gun owners is higher because there are clear actions  that can be taken to help the situation and they choose not to act.  I don’t see as many clear actions that Muslims can take tomorrow to limit terrorism.  So, I am hard on gun owners because they refuse to act.
    Yes, exactly. 
    first, I don't think clear actions should be the barometer for expectation. however, leadership and speaking out and any type of influence, no matter the cause, is a clear action. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    And of course, all of the above is separate from the ridiculous notion that you can equate possession of an inanimate, unnecessary object with a core feature of a person’s identity and culture. 
    again, not what i was saying. but i've explained it enough. 

    Saying "I see parallels" is not an explanation. 
    that's not all that i said. 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 19,882
    Wait, what? They’re holding someone “responsible?” 


    https://apple.news/AGJS9oI_gRiSr3L1o31F59A
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,066
    Wait, what? They’re holding someone “responsible?” 


    https://apple.news/AGJS9oI_gRiSr3L1o31F59A
    I agree with this 100%.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 11,956
    Wth? Whyba “costume” at all? The whole purpose is it could be anyone from the school...or community. Stupid stupid people. 

    But then again - lawmakers and their lack of action and the NRA have our people without the proper knowledge in a position of having to deal with this shit.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 11,956
    https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/18/us/indiana-house-party-shooting/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

    Happy Saturday! Thankful these patriots were able to defend themselves against the tyrannical government at a house party! Those terrible government types are always hiding at house parties!!!!
    hippiemom = goodness
Sign In or Register to comment.