America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
that's dumbPJPOWER said:
Probably not healthy for people in other countries either, but I do not see gun control similar to some of those countries happening in the US, nor would I support it here. Comparing the US to other countries is very close to making an “apples and oranges” type comparison. There is a reason it was so much easier to pass gun bans in other countries...CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc).The Juggler said:
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....PJPOWER said:
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.HughFreakingDillon said:
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.PJPOWER said:
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either).mrussel1 said:
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.PJPOWER said:
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?dignin said:
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.PJPOWER said:
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signsunsung said:
Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
The fuck...
And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.0 -
Yes, and the tech shooter used hallow point which I also believe should be outlawed. That's a whole different argument though.october22 said:
No, I assumed that's what you meant. I just wanted to clarify. I'm not so certain the carnage would have been much different in those cases besides Vegas. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 with two handguns. The Vegas shooter had explosives and had he not had access to rifles, I think one could argue he could have done the same damage through other means.mrussel1 said:
No, not semi automatic hand guns. I'm against semi rifles and the corresponding high capacity clips. I think we can all agree the carnage at Pulse, LV and Broward would have been far less with a more pedestrian weapon. I am taking for granted that you understood I meant rifles considering the previous discussions around military grade weapons.october22 said:
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.mrussel1 said:
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
But just because you can't stop everything with a single law(s) doesn't mean you should not take any action. In other words, because I can't guarantee the elimination of school shootings by outlawing AR's, doesn't mean the community would not be better safer without them. As I pointed out several times, in a different way, the risk to the community far outweighs any benefit that I can see.0 -
Action on guns and immigration screeches to a halt in Congress - The Hill https://apple.news/AfRw3znfSQWyvVa3P1ax2_w
Damn these politicians work so damn hard at doing zero ...jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it more radical?october22 said:
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.mrussel1 said:
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.0 -
It just makes no sense. I guess learning what works in the rest of the world is pointless.Degeneratefk said:
Hammer, meet nail.The Juggler said:
In other words, "since this reasonable and very simple argument disputes everything I say, I'm just gonna go ahead and say those countries are different. Apples and oranges."PJPOWER said:
Probably not healthy for people in other countries either, but I do not see gun control similar to some of those countries happening in the US, nor would I support it here. Comparing the US to other countries is very close to making an “apples and oranges” type comparison. There is a reason it was so much easier to pass gun bans in other countries...CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc).The Juggler said:
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....PJPOWER said:
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.HughFreakingDillon said:
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.PJPOWER said:
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either).mrussel1 said:
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.PJPOWER said:
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?dignin said:
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.PJPOWER said:
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signsunsung said:
Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
The fuck...
And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.www.myspace.com0 -
Point takenmrussel1 said:
Yes, and the tech shooter used hallow point which I also believe should be outlawed. That's a whole different argument though.october22 said:
No, I assumed that's what you meant. I just wanted to clarify. I'm not so certain the carnage would have been much different in those cases besides Vegas. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 with two handguns. The Vegas shooter had explosives and had he not had access to rifles, I think one could argue he could have done the same damage through other means.mrussel1 said:
No, not semi automatic hand guns. I'm against semi rifles and the corresponding high capacity clips. I think we can all agree the carnage at Pulse, LV and Broward would have been far less with a more pedestrian weapon. I am taking for granted that you understood I meant rifles considering the previous discussions around military grade weapons.october22 said:
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.mrussel1 said:
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
But just because you can't stop everything with a single law(s) doesn't mean you should not take any action. In other words, because I can't guarantee the elimination of school shootings by outlawing AR's, doesn't mean the community would not be better safer without them. As I pointed out several times, in a different way, the risk to the community far outweighs any benefit that I can see.0 -
I will admit my ignorance on firearms. never shot one. probably never will.october22 said:
Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it more radical?october22 said:
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.mrussel1 said:
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
how is banning all semi-autos banning ALMOST ALL guns?Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Hugh - he was reading my response as meaning semi handguns too, not just rifles. The intent of my post was about rifles. I'm not in favor of banning semi hand guns. That would leave simply revolvers and bolt action rifles, basically. I think that's too far personally.october22 said:
Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it more radical?october22 said:
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.mrussel1 said:
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.0 -
So can you answer why these massacres don’t happen in other countries heck even our northern neighbors don’t have to deal with these kinds of issues, so tell us why only in this so called most advanced nation in the world these occurred ..october22 said:
Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it more radical?october22 said:
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.mrussel1 said:
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
what I find most amusing about all of this is the "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners" is the hallmark of the argument on the republican side.
yet, when it comes to immigration, that's PRECISELY what they are doing; punishing everyone, law abiding/tax paying/society contributing or not.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Hypocrisy. It's what the right does best.HughFreakingDillon said:what I find most amusing about all of this is the "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners" is the hallmark of the argument on the republican side.
yet, when it comes to immigration, that's PRECISELY what they are doing; punishing everyone, law abiding/tax paying/society contributing or not.
Star Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 250 -
that, and projectionHesCalledDyer said:
Hypocrisy. It's what the right does best.HughFreakingDillon said:what I find most amusing about all of this is the "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners" is the hallmark of the argument on the republican side.
yet, when it comes to immigration, that's PRECISELY what they are doing; punishing everyone, law abiding/tax paying/society contributing or not.0 -
And fear, don’t forget fear.CM189191 said:
that, and projectionHesCalledDyer said:
Hypocrisy. It's what the right does best.HughFreakingDillon said:what I find most amusing about all of this is the "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners" is the hallmark of the argument on the republican side.
yet, when it comes to immigration, that's PRECISELY what they are doing; punishing everyone, law abiding/tax paying/society contributing or not.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
The only punish the illegal immigrants. And illegal immigrants actually punish the legal ones. That's why Ceasar Chavez was actually against illegal immigration. He probably turns in his grave every time they march in his name.HesCalledDyer said:
Hypocrisy. It's what the right does best.HughFreakingDillon said:what I find most amusing about all of this is the "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners" is the hallmark of the argument on the republican side.
yet, when it comes to immigration, that's PRECISELY what they are doing; punishing everyone, law abiding/tax paying/society contributing or not.
So what does a law abiding illegal immigrant look like?0 -
Like the guy who cuts your lawn or dries your car at local car wash or the women who clean your house or the kid who cleans your table after you’ve eaten your steak...mace1229 said:
The only punish the illegal immigrants. And illegal immigrants actually punish the legal ones. That's why Ceasar Chavez was actually against illegal immigration. He probably turns in his grave every time they march in his name.HesCalledDyer said:
Hypocrisy. It's what the right does best.HughFreakingDillon said:what I find most amusing about all of this is the "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners" is the hallmark of the argument on the republican side.
yet, when it comes to immigration, that's PRECISELY what they are doing; punishing everyone, law abiding/tax paying/society contributing or not.
So what does a law abiding illegal immigrant look like?jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
Particularly one that came over with their parents as a juvenile....0
-
Or carves up the sides of beef or pork at the meat packing plant.josevolution said:
Like the guy who cuts your lawn or dries your car at local car wash or the women who clean your house or the kid who cleans your table after you’ve eaten your steak...mace1229 said:
The only punish the illegal immigrants. And illegal immigrants actually punish the legal ones. That's why Ceasar Chavez was actually against illegal immigration. He probably turns in his grave every time they march in his name.HesCalledDyer said:
Hypocrisy. It's what the right does best.HughFreakingDillon said:what I find most amusing about all of this is the "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners" is the hallmark of the argument on the republican side.
yet, when it comes to immigration, that's PRECISELY what they are doing; punishing everyone, law abiding/tax paying/society contributing or not.
So what does a law abiding illegal immigrant look like?09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I didn't ask for stereotypes of jobs for illegal immigrants0
-
I think my point was missed.
I just see it as ironic to call an illegal immigrant "law-abiding." The comparison was made that legal gun owners say "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners," I think the proper equivalent would be "don't punish the legal immigrants." Which we don't. Or maybe to say "we should punish the illegal gun owners" which we do. Mixing those two statements together is not a fair comparisson.
Don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for many of these families that come. But that doesn't mean I believe in open boarders. If there are no consequences for traveling here illegally, then that is what we have.
And to put it into perspective, there are about 4 times as many people who die crossing the border than die from school shootings. So there is a major safety issue. All this cry for gun control after every school shooting (and I am for more gun control by the way), but then we want to turn our heads to illegal immigration that kills even more.
I just don't get how we are painted as such evil people for wanting to secure our borders.
400 deal in school shootings in 5 years since Sandy Hook
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/15/us/school-shootings-sandy-hook-parkland.html
300 dead last year alone from boarder crossing. And that numbe rhas to be way low, no telling how many are just missing and never found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico–United_States_border
0 -
what did a person who was brought to the US by their parents at a young age do illegally? nothing. they were legal under obama-rule. then trump changed that and is ripping families apart. that was the comparison I was making. not about people who made the choice to break the law and cross the border illegally.mace1229 said:I think my point was missed.
I just see it as ironic to call an illegal immigrant "law-abiding." The comparison was made that legal gun owners say "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners," I think the proper equivalent would be "don't punish the legal immigrants." Which we don't. Or maybe to say "we should punish the illegal gun owners" which we do. Mixing those two statements together is not a fair comparisson.
Don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for many of these families that come. But that doesn't mean I believe in open boarders. If there are no consequences for traveling here illegally, then that is what we have.
And to put it into perspective, there are about 4 times as many people who die crossing the border than die from school shootings. So there is a major safety issue. All this cry for gun control after every school shooting (and I am for more gun control by the way), but then we want to turn our heads to illegal immigration that kills even more.
I just don't get how we are painted as such evil people for wanting to secure our borders.
400 deal in school shootings in 5 years since Sandy Hook
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/15/us/school-shootings-sandy-hook-parkland.html
300 dead last year alone from boarder crossing. And that numbe rhas to be way low, no telling how many are just missing and never found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico–United_States_border
anyway, back to guns...........Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help