The recent tragedy in Vegas has resulted, so very unfortunately, with the same old, same old. The left are out insisting on "common sense" gun control as the means by which we can rid mankind of the kind of evil that resulted in so many dead and injured. But as McVeigh and 19 muslims proved, there are many ways for madmen to kill lots of people. So it ain't guns. Never was and never will be. Taking them from the rest of us only puts more people at risk with less hope of rescue.
We hear again about "gun show loopholes", which do not truly exist as they are described by know-nothings. And to the extent that gun shows have ever been tied to crime is only due to so-called "straw purchasing", which is already illegal. It isn't possible to make what is illegal more illegal.
Someone on Facebook mentioned preventing the mentally ill from having guns, as if that hasn't been addressed already as well. The true issue here is one of civil rights and when one is certified as being mentally ill and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms. It isn't a simple thing to make such determinations, and certainly, as with no-fly lists, there would certainly be those who are wrongly regarded to be among those with whatever degree is decided upon to deny a person his Constitutional right to bear arms.
Speaking of which, more than one person has suggested that anyone on a no-fly list should be denied. But again, there have been many cases where someone is wrongly added to that list, and now, as if being wrongly denied the ability to travel by plane wouldn't be bad enough, a person would lose his right to self-defense, too.
Of course the big thing now is bump stocks...a devise that allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire multiple rounds quickly, almost like a fully automatic weapon. They've been approved for sale because they don't actually convert such weapons to full auto, and few people even knew they existed before the Vegas tragedy. It even appears as if the NRA is willing to stand down on this particular issue and allow the knee-jerk control freaks to outlaw them. This doesn't deal with the issue of just how simple it would be to make a homemade version that would work just as well as the store bought, but such people never think beyond the self-serving politics in which they're engaging.
(And that means, no, I don't think they really care about saving lives. I think they care about appearing to care about saving lives, or they'd deal with the real issue....which ain't guns.)
And then there's the question of "need", or more precisely, lefties whining that they don't see any need for anyone to have an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapon, an AR15 style weapon (because they look scary) and in this case, a need for bump stocks that allow one to fire their weapon like it's a Tommy-gun. The better question here is, who are these people to suggest they can impose their idea of "need" upon another as if they know each other person's personal situation. I recall the riots after the Rodney King verdict where Korean store owners were on the roofs of their businesses with guns protecting their property. I'd wager their need was real and legitimate. But "need" is irrelevant. It's called, the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
What's more, this whole gun-control thing smacks of bad parenting, where all the kids suffer because of the misbehavior of one sibling. I hate that, and I hate it more on the adult level where it is even more common. With this issue, it is especially heinous as it puts people at risk, just to politically posture one's self as "doing something".
But then, guns ain't the problem, anyway. Never were and never will be. In the meantime, I'm posting links to a few relevant articles and vids. They address this topic well. Take the time.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/03/democrats-have-no-idea-how-to-prevent-mass-shootings/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.9bed45490864
IF the above two don't hook you up, try this one...the article where I found them:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/10/04/are-there-any-new-gun-regulations-that-are-appropriate-in-the-wake-of-las-vegas-n2390116
https://youtu.be/UEihkjKNhN8
https://youtu.be/SqJ_4YhYMhE
One more thing: "silencers". I thought this had been thoroughly debunked, but perhaps not. I've seen a few vids that compare guns with and without suppressors. In these vids, it is clear that the guns are still loud, just not so loud that damage to the ear is a problem, though many would still use ear protection. In other countries, it's considered bad form not to suppress one's rifle when hunting or target shooting.
But then I decided to google words to the effect "gun silencers that actually silence guns" and came upon some vids that perhaps suggest there's more to the story.
One vid showed a fully automatic weapon (I won't mention the type here---cuz I didn't write it down and don't want to take the time to find it again) that was remarkably "silenced" by it's fully integrated suppressor (part of the gun). The mechanics of the weapon made a bit of a racket, but had the Vegas shooter such a weapon thirty-two stories up, perhaps more would have been shot before they could tell where the bullets originated. Of course, buying a fully automatic weapon is incredibly difficult and most licensed dealers can't sell them anyway.
Another presented a pistol with an integrated suppressor that was also rather quiet. It was made by a company that is actually in the business of making suppressors for a variety of products and decided to try their hand at designing a pistol. That is, they're not actually a firearms manufacturer outside this particular pistol.
Yet another showed a guy adding multiple suppressors in order to see if he could get it "Hollywood" quiet. That is, like all the silenced weapons in the movies that gun-control nuts think are representative of the real world. This guy had about five screwed on to the end of his pistol's barrel and it was rather an awkward piece at that point. While it was really quiet, he removed one of them so it would be more practical.
All three of these weapons were very pricey. The automatic in the first example is probably over ten grand, and I'm guessing much more. Both pistols start around $1200.00. They may be considerably more as well...I'm going from memory here.
Still and all, guns aren't the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
163 comments:
Front page article in the STrib yesterday about how many of the guns being used in crimes here in the Peoples Republic are "illegal". Not that they are fully auto or have silencers "illegal", but that they have been obtained illegally. More specifically, they are firearms that are perfectly legal to own and posses, that have been either stolen from their legal owners or purchased by a "straw purchaser". That people then use those firearms in the commission of further crimes, has absolutely nothing to do with the efficacy of existing law. In fact, it just reinforces the point that people who are going to use firearms in the commission of serious crimes, are not going to purchase or acquire those firearms legally to begin with. The fact that this is a surprise to anyone is beyond comprehension.
Here it is almost a month since you posted this article, and yet our favorite troll has not commented pro-gun control! He must be ill.
Maybe his mom wouldn't let him use the computer.
Just saw something on Facebook that shows how many fewer mass killings places like Russia and China have because we have more guns. Do we really want to trade? I guess they aren’t counting the mass killings by the governments.
Craig,
That kinda falls in line with Franklin's sentiment regarding those who trade liberty for security.
There’s that. But I wouldn’t say people are particularly secure in Russia or China.
Exactly.
Wow. How thick of you guys to miss the simple point. Russia and China are worse places to live because people really aren’t safe or free. We’re better off because we’re free. But we’re not that safe. Canada’s safe. So is Switzerland where they have plenty of sporting guns. Swiss men do military service and can apply to buy their firearm but they have to provide justification and apply for a permit. If approved, the gun is converted to a non-assault weapon. Restrictions can be placed on both the firearm and its ammunition.
If we are a better democracy, then we ought to be capable of thinking and acting. We don’t have a problem with rocket propelled grenades. We shouldn’t have a problem with assault rifles. No one needs an assault rifle.
The only arguments you two have are just hyper versions of idiots grumbling about seat belt laws and texting while driving laws. Enforced laws and fines have saved hundreds and thousands of lives.
Wow, omniscience must be such a burden, to be able to make such pronouncements about others shows a surplus of chutzpah for sure.
I agree that we should immediately restrict or ban things that you’ve decided people don’t need.
In the last 15 years young American males have killed 250,000 people. Most of them known to the killer.
In that same time span, Islamic terrorists haves killed around a thousand people in the US, Canada, and Europe.
You like locked cockpit doors and TSA screening. But you dont want to do anything about assault rifles? Zero credibility verging in zero character.
And great use of facts, Craig. Or... rather great effort at ignoring any.
Thanks for telling me what I know and don’t know. I’m impressed at your extensive knowledge of assault rifles though.
Don’t reach for any rational argument, Craig. You’ll only pull a leg.
Yeah, those young American males do a lot of murdering. I guess the fact that most of that is gang-related has noting to do with it. Feodor is such an ignorant fool.
I’m in such a state of awe at your knowledge of what others think and know, that I’m unable to even contemplate a response beyond sheer awe and wonder about your powers.
Just curious, with your vast and extensive knowledge of assault rifles, how many of those 225k are related to “assault rifles”?
Wow. You guys are some stone cold hearted Christ’s-love denying bastards for sure. The fake Hibernian cares nothing for a quarter million of his own fellow citizens but is up in arms about Islamic terrorists who kill 0.4% of that number. Making Glenn really fucked in the head.
And, Craig, you write off the 85 men, women, pregnant women, and children killed in the 36 days of Las Vegas and Texas and the 1,000 killed and 2,000 wounded in this country between those two mass shootings. Twisted, son. Dark hearted.
Let’s start on assault weapons, Craig, and rejoice in saving lives and see how that motivates us to be just as serious about guns as we are about seat belts and drunk driving.
Muslims have killed millions of people over the years. Only atheists/communists/socialists can compete with them.
"Assault weapon" is a made up idea from the anti-gun LEFT. Mostly because they thought the "AR" in "AR-15" stands for "Assault Rifle" when it really stands for "Armalite Rifle," Armalite being the maker.
If it looks "military" or "scary" then it is an assault weapon. An example of how stupid this idea is -- the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle has the EXACT capabilities and uses the EXACT ammunition as the AR-15 and AR-15 clones and yet it never came under any "Assault rifle" bans. That shows just how stupid such bans are.
Ok, so your not going to answer the question. Not in the talking points.
But, again, your knowledge of other people’s thoughts, feelings, and emotions is quite stunning and impressive.
Glenn wants to talk serial numbers while pregnant women are being buried. No heart.
In the last 15 years Islamic terrorists have killed around 1,000 people in the west. While 250,000 people have been gunned down in this country in that same time period.
Facts.
“A Trump nominee for a top Defense Department post said Tuesday he thinks it's "insane" that civilians can buy assault rifles in the United States, days after a deadly mass shooting in Texas.
"I'd also like to, and I may get in trouble with other members of the committee, just say how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy ... a semiautomatic assault rifle like an AR-15," said Dean Winslow, nominee for assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs, during a Tuesday hearing.”
I don't talk serial numbers fool.
FACTS -- you limit Islamic mayhem to "the west" which is sort of a very flexible location. Hitler didn't kill too many people in the USA either, but he killed 12,000,000 in Europe!
Again, your 250,000 statistic is mostly gangs and even suicides. But your ilk is good at manipulating data to support your anti-gun zealotry.
You keep citing people who call such rifles "assault weapons," which they aren't, but it's a good phrase to scare people with. The LEFT always goes for the emotions over rational thought. Thanks for more evidence proving that point.
Craig, what do you care about thousands when you glibly ignore the 85 in just a little over a month? You want to demand numbers, I’ll get numbers for you.
I’d like to see respect for the dead lying in front of you calling out for a civilized nation. Show me you’re civilized and rational, then your questions will be asked honestly.
250,000 lives gunner down in 15 years. How can you not treat this like massive drunk driving, seat belt idiocy, prescription drug abuse, etc. ALL of which Republicans were in their right minds to act upon.
Still can’t answer one simple question. I guess those talking points just didn’t cover it.
I’m offering an answer. Seems like you’re too scared to know.
Give me the number below which you don’t care about assault gun deaths and above which you do. And then let’s see what research shows.
I never said that there was a number below which I wouldn’t care. I’m asking you a question which has an answer, yet you seem hesitant to provide that answer. Your assumptions are getting in your way.
I haven’t seen you care yet. People slaughtered doesn’t move you. Do numbers of slaughter people move you to act? What’s the number by which your “thoughts and prayers” turn into adult action?
20 children in Newtown, 6 adults. 49 dead in Orlando. 58 in Las Vegas. 25 men, women, children, a pregnant woman in Sutherland Springs. 1000 more dead between the two.
What’s the number you need? Don’t be scared. Carefully consider the number that would be momentous enough to make you act as if everyone of them were killed by someone who claimed a Muslim faith? Because the 1,000 killed over the last 1years has you supporting action.
And 250,000 dead killed by our own doesn’t.
That much is fact.
What’s the number, Craig?
You’re going to a lot of effort to avoid answering a simple factual question. I have to wonder why you are reluctant to do so, and why you’re so intent on ascribing motive and lack of action with no basis to do so.
Put aside your assumptions and answer one simple question.
What’s the number Feo?
50% more than are killed by Islamic terrorists in the last 15 years.
At least. Half again as many Americans killed by asssult rifles as by terrorists. And not just Americans killed by terrorists. All those killed in the west. North America, South America, Central America, Europe.
Assault rifles in the US have been used by Americans to kill at least half again as many as those killed by terrorists (some of whom used assault difles themselves).
You get your anger thrills warring against Muslims and immigrants gunning up fear about 1,000 killed over 15 years and act the denying, inhuman fool for over 1,500 Americans just by assault rifles. No wonder you don’t care about 250,000 gun deaths. No wonder you don’t care about black and brown bodies being dropped to the ground.
Bigoted Republican propaganda messed with your humanity. And now your soul is corrupt. You can’t act for executed babies and children, mothers and fathers.
Tell me again what can’t be surmised about you? Your words here reveal the lies you treasure.
So, you don’t have a number. Thanks, I see no reason to waste more time with someone who’s more interested in assumptions, than in facts.
What’s the number Feo?
The number is right there, Craig. Your eyes can read it. Your lying heart scrambles your brain. Over 1,500 for the last 15 years. Closer to 2,000 actually.
But you keep acting the fool. You don’t pay the people who dig the graves.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/the_ar15_is_not_an_assault_weapon.html
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
https://mediainfidels.com/?p=2347
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
Clearly, feo is incapable (that is...too stupid and dishonest) to address the point of this post, which is that guns are not the problem. But he's fine parroting lefty talking points that have no basis in fact. If I were to punch him in the face, my fist would be an assault weapon. As the last link clearly shows, death by beating happens more often than what in feo's fevered imaginings passes for "assault" weapons.
feo dares speak of "adult action", as if he's adult enough to even know what that looks like. He proves he doesn't by drooling on about assault rifles, clear in the knowledge that this fiction actually exists though it most provably does not. Thus, his "adult action" is to attack inanimate objects rather than to deal with the attitudes of those who would use them to kill. But then, he's an idiot with a false sense of intellectual and/or moral superiority.
He is good for a laugh, though.
And yet it took you multiple evasive comments to come up with it.
Can you define in terms of cyclic rate and ballistic performance what an assault weapon is?
Of course, you don’t pay them either.
God knows you don’t care, Craig. Plain for all to see here.
I notice also that feo wants to focus on one particular weapon used by terrorists without also counting other weapons, like, you know, hijacked airplanes. OH WAIT! That doesn't count because it falls outside his 15 year criteria. How about bombs, cars/trucks, knives, axes, machetes? Again, it's not the inanimate object, but the attitude of the user.
He also DARES speak of the deaths of executed babies when he supports the execution of the unborn. What a hypocrite! Talk about a guy with a lying heart and corrupt soul! But then, feo's a lefty and morality and leftism don't recognize each other.
Seat belts aren’t the problem either, Marshall. Texting while driving isn’t the problem either. Red lights, stop signs; not the problem. Outlawing rocket propelled grenades from civilians; not the problem. Laws forbidding rape, incest; not the problem.
Clear thinking, Marshall. You’ve absolved all laws from responsibility. Can’t get anything past you.
Wow, claiming to be God, impressive.
What are the distinctives Feo?
Marshall, we took action on planes. If you can recall. Laws were passed. Doors were changed. Boarding procedures rearranged, re-rearranged, re-re-rearranged.
Ban assault rifles if you care about 1,500 Americans killed as much as you care about 1,000 killed by terrorists. And but all those were Americans.
You don’t think God can think, Craig? Or care?
No, I don’t think your thoughts have any relationship to God’s.
So now you want to ban something you can’t define. Are you really suggesting that banning something that is responsible for less than 2% of shootings is satisfactory?
Still can’t answer.
Let’s ban alcohol, cigarettes, and hammers while your at it.
Did I say satisfactory? You don’t get answers when you can’t read, Craig. One comes before the other.
Ban assault weapons: no Columbine, no Newtown, no Orlando, no Las Vegas, no Texas slaughtered and wounded. I’d say that the dramatic impact would be a moral motivation to really enforce control of handguns. Get that 250,000 down to 10,000.
Simple as seat belts. Mourn the lost, give praise for ALL the saved lives.
But you don’t care. Not even about the 2% killed by our own. You only care about the 1% over the whole west senselessly killed by terrorists.
250,000 clearly doesn’t bother you if 2,000 don’t. God can read, Craig. God has the answer on you.
Still can’t answer.
Are you really suggesting that banning inanimate objects would have resulted in “no” to all of the incidents you mentioned. Really?
In all cases but Vegas, a shotgun would have caused the same level of damage.
I love how you continue to insist that you know what bothers me. It’s possible to have a rational fact based discussion while still mourning the tragedies.
Still can’t answer.
The fool Feo thinks you don't care that people are murdered as long as you believe the 2nd Amendment allows us to own even an AR-15.
And are you saying, Craig that seat belt laws haven’t saved lives? Seat belt laws don’t make people fasten their seat belts. Are you saying that rape laws don’t stop any rakes at all? Rape laws can’t literally stop people from raping. Stop signs don’t make anyone stop.
Let’s try a ban, Craig. And let’s enforce gun control to the max. Saying no to trying is not caring. I won’t say no to hunting and self-defense. In fact, I join in.
Let’s see if lives are saved. Let’s see if you can pull your heart from Marshall’s poison and all the soulless blowhards. Let’s see if you can justify a claim to care, starting with an affirmation to support bans on semi-automatics and license enforcement of pump and single action guns. Can you care, Craig? God pays attention, we Christians say.
Yeah, we've really fixed the airplane problem:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/11/09/report-tsa-screeners-failed-to-detect-most-test-weapons-in-undercover-operation-at-airports/
Exactly! If mere laws and procedures ward off terrorists intentions, think how many lives a ban on semi-automatic manufacture and universal licensing procedures would save! Even from some terrorists!!
Although you still won’t answer, I’ll go this far. I will unhesitatingly support strictly enforcing our current in place gun laws. Let’s try that and see what happens. Then we can talk about going further.
I dont support blindly banning something you can’t define, a minuscule number of which are involved in a minuscule number of actual shootings.
But if you can’t define (rate of fire and ballistic performance) what you want to ban, why should I give you serious consideration.
Craig,
He can't define it because it is a fictitious classification for the types of weapons he thinks he's referencing. He refuses to accept, or he's too lazy to research, the fact that there are several weapons available to the public that have the same "rate of fire and ballistic performance" (as you put it) that were never classified as "assault weapons" while others were so simply based on cosmetic attributes. He also lacks the ability to understand that by removing one weapon, others will take their place in popularity and become the "weapon of choice" for feo's looking to murder. As the governor of Texas put it...in a manner even the simple-minded like feo should understand but don't or won't...murder is already outlawed and it still takes place. No law or restriction will prevent mass killings by those who intend to perpetrate such things. Timothy McVeigh did well on that score without using an "assault weapon". And as authorities have already recognized, bans on semi-automatic weapons have not save many lives at all.
The person who stopped the recent Texas shooter did so with the use of his own AR-15 "assault-style" rifle. The shooter was equipped to do more damage. How much more cannot be known, but given the numbers he murdered, he could easily have doubled that had he not been prevented from doing so by a good guy with a gun. Idiots like feo fail to concede the logic is opposite what he stupidly believes. MORE good guys with guns reduces the numbers of victims of feo's who murder. This was proven in Texas, and it was proven by Scalise's body-guards.
feo's an idiot. He can't think this through anymore than he can any other issue in which he's inserted himself.
I just saw this at Wintery Knight's blog, and it gets to the point of this post. It still isn't the guns, and removing them only results in a different tool being chosen by the feo's who intend to murder.
Correction: I said earlier that the Texas governor mentioned laws against murder being ignored, but it was actually the Texas A.G. who made that comment.
Art, it’s why I am being specific regarding cyclic rate and ballistic performance in defining an assault weapon. I don’t think the talking points cover this.
You want to ban Muslims and carry out extreme vetting because Islamic terrorists kill 1,000 westerners over 15 years.
But you refuse to even think about banning semi-automatic weapons and carry out extreme vetting for gun owners when 250,000 Americans are killed over that same time period.
You guys are sick in the head.
Once again, your going to great lengths to avoid answering a simple question.
Of course, you can’t demonstrate that we want to “ban Muslims”, or that we “won’t even consider” things. I’d suggest that making things up is an actual sign of “sick in the head”.
I have to note the fact that you’ve done a little bait and switch as well, you’ve gone from banning “assault weapons”, to banning “semi automatic weapons”. I guess it’s easier to do this than to define assault wespons.
I also note your switch from “Americans” to “westerners”, and the choosing to ignore the total number of people killed by Muslims.
Maybe it’s because your concern for these victims is only important to the extent you can cherry pick the numbers to advance an agenda.
Of course, if you subtract suicides, that 250,000 drops by about 65%, but why go to the trouble of breaking down causes.
I sincerely doubt Feo's statistics about gun crimes -- I already pointed out that many are gang-related and suicides, but facts don't matter to his ilk.
Also, world-wide Muslims have killed way more than 250,000 people in the past 15 years. And Muslims have an agenda -- world subjugation. Little things like that don't bother ignorant fools like Feo.
Banning semi-automatic weapons would remove the vast majority of pistols from circulation, let alone rifles. So we are then left with 19th century technology to defend ourselves.
I don’t see your problem, Glenn. Get a grenade launcher. You’ll be safe
Islamic terrorists kill 1,000 people in the west.
“It’s an outrage! Ban them! Control them!”
Guns are used to kill 250,000 Americans.
Craig: “uh, what’s the ballistics on that?”
Sick. In. The. Head.
This apparent fear of answering a simple question is becoming more and more amusing.
Of course it’s perfectly rational to ban something you can’t define.
Don’t let little things like accuracy stop a good talking point.
250,000 killed in 15 years. And Craig wants to make sure the word “guns” doesn’t include bows and arrows.
Sick. Head.
Impressive, your inability or unwillingness to answer one simple question while simultaneously lying about me is almost as impressive as your omniscience.
Still. Can’t. Answer. Scared?
When you act stupid, Craig, in the face if 250,000 killed, you’re sick in the head.
We’re nit writing legislation. I’m asking for a sign of spiritual health and getting none. God knows.
1. The fact of 250,000 ought to be an outrage to anyone, not least to the faithful.
2. There is no reasonable expectation of getting 250,000 down to zero. Don’t be stupid.
3. Denying assaualt vehicles to public sale and enforcing driver’s license and registration are the simple analogies. Don’t be stupid.
4. Ban semi-automatic weapons and bump stocks from to public sale. (And ban grenade launchers from blood fantasies of Glenn.)
5. Strictly enforce registration of handguns and shotguns and single action rifles. The Airforce failed to pay attention to the shooter’s criminal and psych realities and failed to put the info on the registry. The air force was stupid and some should be criminally liable.
6. Hundreds of thousands of lives can be saved over the years. Just like seat belt and no-texting laws have done. There is no expectation of getting to zero deaths. Don’t be stupid.
7. Affirmation to the spirit of these facts and plain true recommendations is all that’s needed to get the poison out of your head.
8. Your strategy of perseveration and lies don’t work. You’re just being stupid.
1. Never said it wasn’t
2. Never said there was. I would suggest that banning a type of weapon you can’t define, that is used in a minuscule percentage of shootings isn’t a particularly good way to accomplish much.
3. Making up mythical categories of vehicles and comparing a privilege to a right isn’t helping your “case”.
4. I have no problem restricting bump stocks. But your sudden switch of terminology away from assault weapons makes me wonder if the reason you won’t answer the one simple question is ignorance of the subject. If it’s ignorance, that’s one thing. If it’s intentional bait and switch then that just raises questions about your honesty.
5. I’ve already said that strictly enforcing existing laws should be done before anything else. But it’s convenient to your pretense to ignore that. I’m sure you realize that “single action rifle” isn’t really a category (technology there might be a few older designs, but nothing worth mentioning). It’s this kind of thing that makes me wonder why you can’t define what you want to ban.
6. Hell, intervention in people who are suicidal could save hundreds of thousands of lives every couple of years, as opposed to the decades it would take from banning assault weapons. That also assumes that the perpetrators wouldn’t just use different weapons and that folks who kill people will obey this additional law. But, it’s ok to be optimistic.
7. You haven’t provided any facts beyond an approximate number of total gun deaths. (Given that the most recent numbers I’ve found are from 2015, even your claim is factually inaccurate) then your lack of specific defined recommendations is also problematic. The simplistic “ban some guns I can’t define” isn’t particularly helpful.
8. No lies, just a request that you answer one simple question.
Your tactic of trying to divert attention from your inability to answer one simple question isn’t working. Your continued clinging to it isn’t stupid it’s insane.
1. Never said it was. Goes to summary.
2. You did. By suggesting suicides don’t count you try by inhuman reasoning to get down to a - for you - negligible number. If the point of humanity is raised at whatever number, you’ll reduce it to an ignorable level. The only rational end if your inhuman and juvenile reasoning is that, really, when one thinks about, no one actually does because of a gun. Goes to summary.
3. Not accepting common language when you are, in fact, not a legislator, is playscting your morals. Assault weapons aren’t a fight. And by your Wonderland fantasies you cannot define what is a gun. Not without accepting grenade launchers, too.Goes to summary.
4.You lie by not representing my easy to understand writing. Ban assault weapons, strictly control handguns, shotguns, single action rifles. You are prevaricating and corrupting your morals. Goes to summary.
5. See. Prevaricating your morals. Want to negotiate what rifle action is allowable? Single vs repeating? Fine. Let’s negotiate. But sign off on clearly spiritual intentions: ban semi-automatic weapons from the public. You won’t. Because you’re playacting your morals. Goes to summary.
6. Didn’t suggest not treating the mentally ill. Different issue. Banning and enforcing is what’s I’ve been raising. You’re avoiding. Goes to summary.
7. You’re prevaricating without any pretense to moral outrage here. Goes to summary.
8. A lying denial of clear lies.
Summary: you’re not outraged. You don’t have the moral motivation to suggest practical, effective action with a determination to see what works and tweak what doesn’t. You fail moral maturity.
250,000 Americans killed by guns. And you’re not moved.
You are sick in the head.
Notice how lying Feo is always ascribing beliefs, feelings, actions, etc to all of us which are totally untrue yet make him feel superior to all of us. HE really is a P.O.S.
And then, finally, where I began, you and your fellow thugs are moral hypocrites. You all demand action over Islamic terrorists while being unmoved to call for action over white Christian male American terrorists... who have killed a lot more Americans. A lot more.
1. Then why bring it up.
2. Not at all, just pointing out the reality that by adding in the suicide numbers and pretending like it’s a one size fits all solution just skews the discussion and raises more questions about your honesty.
3. You’re the one making up mythical imaginary categories, refusing to define your terms, and using a bait and switch tactic. But, please blame me for asking that you be consistent and precise.
4. No lies here. It’s not my fault you can’t keep your terms straight, make up imaginary classes of firearms and keep switching what you want to ban. At least you’ve finally admitted that you want to ban more than “assault weapons”. Of course you still can’t define what it is you want to ban.
6. What in the hell does trying to get you to clarify have to do with morals? How is it moral to ban 99.9 of one subtype of an inanimate object, based on what people misuse the .1% for.
7. Once again, your omniscience is showing.
8. Except you haven’t actually shown where I’ve lied. But you’ve made lots of crap up and imputed all sorts of motives and things that aren’t based in any reality.
Summary: you haven’t the first freaking idea whether I’m outraged or not. You need to maintain that fiction to allow yourself to continue to avoid answering one simple question.
And then, finally, where you began. Making crap up and pretending that your omniscience allows you to get away with this sort of foolishness.
Answer. The. Damn. Question.
Glenn, I’ve been pointing that out over the course of multiple comments. All I can assume is that it’s a smokescreen to hide his inability to answer one simple question and his ignorance of the issue beyond some talking points.
Wow. You have zero capacity for moral self reflection. 1. Why bring it up.
Repeatedly, it’s been pointed out to you that you engage fervently in dialogue here about what to do regarding Muslim terrorism in America. You are motivated to recommend new policies, new actions. You rationalize out your outrage.
But for the far more destructive killing by white Christian terrorists, you can’t be moved to engage in raising a cry for action, rationally thought out or not. You talk ballistics and serial numbers. You play language games as if precise terminology is what you and I need to agree upon all while avoiding any call to action for 250,000 lives just in the last 15 years.
But you and your thug partner Glenn think your words do not accurately represent how your mind works absent the guidance if a soul. You cannot define “gun” in the rights you claim. And you cannot recognize your sick soul revealed by the one point necessary for everything but absent from your lips.
Point #1.
You are, therefore, a hypocrite. You thrill to patriotism and are not concerned about human life. You swallow 250,000 killed by guns. You choke in disgust for 1,000 killed by Islamic terrorists. Why? It makes you feel like an American to hate Muslims, can be the only surmise. Even when the dead aren’t American. Americans killing Americans takes away your thrill. So you bicker about ballistics.
You are a hypocrite.
Because, in sum, you are sick in the head. Glenn, too. And Marshall, the slick poison seller, eats his own profits.
Answer. The. Damn. Question.
Stop. The. Lying.
Find. Your. Humanity.
Any answer will easily follow when you do.
He won't, Craig. He lies because that's what false priests do. He can't answer your question because a) he's too ignorant of the topic to do so, b) he's too dishonest to do so even if he took the time to educate himself, and c) he's too enamored of his own unjustified opinion of himself to risk facing his impotence.
Note that he has yet to address the point of the post, that guns aren't the problem. He hasn't even thought (thinking not being his strong suit) to ask what might be if it isn't guns. I even provided a hint with my recent link to Wintery Knight's post.
No. He chooses to go the gun control route because he lacks the wisdom and honesty to face reality:
--No law will prevent murderers from murdering if they are intent on murdering.
--No law will be perfectly implemented in such a way as to prevent the possibility that one who is not entitled to arm will possibly be able to arm...as this latest tragedy in Texas has shown.
--No law preventing legal access to firearms will prevent the suicidal from finding a way to kill themselves.
--No law preventing the legal access to firearms by law-abiding Americans will save lives as much as law-abiding Americans bearing arms will.
--The 20,000 or so gun-control laws already on the books across American have done nothing to prevent the misuse of firearms, nor the ability of the criminally minded or insane to acquire and misuse them.
All this and more is more than exhaustively proven, yet feo hasn't the honesty or wisdom to face facts. In light of this, I'm not as concerned that he won't answer your question as I am in seeing him provide evidence that his desire to prevent the law-abiding from owning and bearing arms will somehow succeed where it never has before.
So, as bad guys with guns are always stopped by good guys with guns, the logical path to less innocent death is for more law-abiding people to bear arms, fewer locations that deny law-abiding people to enter with their guns and more of said people to be ready and willing to step up when feo's attempt to murder. When feo can provide evidence of another way that is more likely to achieve his alleged goal with regard to preserving life, it will be a first.
My humanity isn't lost, and never has been.
Answer. The. Damn. Question.
Stop. The. Hiding.
Art,
Of course your right, even if he is being ignorant, dishonest, self absorbed, petulant, or obtuse it won't matter. The only way he can cling so tightly to his manufactured outrage is to cherry pick statistics and aggregate them in such a way as to ignore the motivation behind the people who use firearms in horrible ways while placing as much blame as possible on scary inanimate objects.
https://stream.org/what-mass-murderers-have-in-common/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/14/guess-which-mass-murderers-came-from-a-fatherless-home/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23197/texas-shooters-former-classmates-he-was-atheist-james-barrett
Great, Mother Superior’s plan is that when all the killing is over... a good guy will come along to save the taxpayer the cost of a trial
Your plan works Marshall for #27 in Sutherland Springs. Your plan works for #59 in Las Vegas. Your plan works for #50 in Orlando and the 21st child in Newtown.
But what’s your plan for the 26 dead and 20 wounded in Texas? What’s your plan for the 58 dead and 546 wounded in Las Vegas? What’s your plan for the 49 dead and 58 wounded in Orlando? What’s your plan for the 30 children of Newtown? And the 6 adults?
What is your plan, Marshall? Someone will come along with a gun at some point? Meanwhile, arm your worship hour to the teeth?
You have no plan for the dead. Only for the taxpayer. You’re sick in the head.
ADQ
Why don’t you settle for this no-plan when it comes to the far less lethal Islamic terrorism? Your song is different for those far fewer musters. For that you have all kinds of actionable plans. Don’t even have to be a terrorist just have to be a Muslim.
But for white Christian terrorists... no plan. No changes. Just buy a gun. And when he’s done walking down the pews shooting four year old babies in the head, and pregnant women... get him when he comes out.
1,000 dead in 15 years from Islamic terrorism in the whole of the west. And you are outraged.
250,000 Americans shot to death by Americans. No plan. No outrage.
Sick in the head.
ADQ
Feo is a pathological liar
There is no such thing as a white Christian terrorist. "Christian Terrorist" is an oxymoron. And Feo is a moron.
Where is Feodor's concern for the MILLIONS of babies aborted - He's not seeking to outlaw abortion!
He’s right about him not having an actionable plan. Until he can define “assault weapon”, he has no plan.
Unless “ban stuff regardless of the impact” counts as a plan.
Oh, abortion is a sacrament for far to many on the left. To be protected at all costs.
I see the white men are getting frantic now. Reduced to pulling in other issues to distract, deny, and lie. Familiar strategies for those with a dysfunctional moral compass. Can’t answer the human question. Sick in the head.
Says the faux black guy who’s been bringing up all sorts of distractions to avoid one simple direct question that he can’t answer.
Maybe if they shot the lifeless clumps of cells it’d be on your radar.
I really don’t know where your humanity is, Craig. Can’t help you answer that question. For a few days I’ve tried to help you with clues about humanity. But I can’t answer the question on where it is. It’s up to you to find your humanity. I’d suggest getting out of the dark, though. Hard to find anything where you are.
A.D.Q.
It never ceases to amaze me the incredible gall of an abortion supporter daring to lecture anyone else about "humanity". Considering the source, it would be appropriate for feo's biography, "The Audacity of a Dope".
And speaking of what a dope feo is, he pathetically aspires to profundity with this idiocy:
"Great, Mother Superior’s plan is that when all the killing is over... a good guy will come along to save the taxpayer the cost of a trial
Your plan works Marshall for #27 in Sutherland Springs. Your plan works for #59 in Las Vegas. Your plan works for #50 in Orlando and the 21st child in Newtown."
So much is wrong with this sad attempt to appear thoughtful that it almost brings me to tears to think anyone could be so stupid.
The idea of an armed citizenry precludes any killing by people like those responsible for each of the incidents feo cites. Not a one involved a feo seeking out populations of armed victims. Each sought out those presumed to be unarmed (though just in case, one wore kevlar and another locked himself in his hotel room). With the possible exception of the guy locked in his hotel room 32 stories above his victims, any adult with a gun could have lessened greatly the number of dead and/or wounded...perhaps totally preventing any. So it's not a matter of killing the murderer after the fact, which only a feo would pretend was suggested.
But there was another incident in a church with an entirely different outcome thanks to an armed "good guy". Back in 2007, a woman named Jeanne Assam volunteered to work security at her mega-church in Colorado Springs. She prevented a massacre when she shot and killed a man storming the building to kill as many people as possible. Assam is a former police officer.
Most important, of course, is feo's rejection of reality. As mentioned before, Timothy McVeigh did not use guns to murder over 160 and injure over 600 others in one fell swoop. So feo pretends that guns are the problem when that is not the case. Thus, it is also not the case that the removal of guns would mean no more mass killings. It takes a small mind like feo's to pretend the answer is to disarm the law-abiding, when unarmed victims are those that are getting murdered.
Where's the humanity in leaving people defenseless? feo can't help with clues because he doesn't have any.
A quote I read today: "Those who support "gun control" are engaging in threats of violence against people who are most likely not going to harm others, and will get the state to act on these threats through the use of firearms in the hands of agents of the state. This is undeniable."
That describes Feo and his ilk.
Glenn still hopes an well armed white militia can secede from the Union. You're going to need armed vehicles and rocket propelled grenade launchers to defend yourself against the US government, Glenn. You need to be well armed and assault rifles wont cut it. I think you should try to buy some grenade launchers, military helicopter, assault vehicles. IF you really believe the 2nd amendment the way you say you do.
More lies about my beliefs by Feo. The man is indeed a pathological liar -- he just can't help himself; after all, he is a son of the father of lies.
Interesting statement by another blogger:
"Spike in US gun death rate for second straight year," the headline reads. We should all just stop there. We have what we need to know. Guns can kill people and people are using them to do it. Got it. Get rid of guns. Except the actual story is a little different than that. The CDC reported that in 2015 the deaths from guns was 11 per 100,000 people and now it "spiked" to 12 per 100,000 in 2016. That's down from as high as 15 per 100,000 people in the 90's. So 1 is a spike? Or is this less-than-honest reporting? In the military they have a term: "Fire for effect." Is this "reporting for effect" rather than expressing the truth?
"The outrage over all those killed, kindergartners among them, brought new and enforced laws tracking and banning the BUYING OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF CERTAIN CHEMICALS without justification!"
Laws that will not prevent the theft of those chemicals in large amounts, the legal purchase of those chemicals in legal amounts over and over until the desired quantity is acquired or the use of alternative chemicals that will provide the same result. It also won't prevent the desired result achieved by altogether different means. Your idiotic suggestion cannot prevent the evil from committing evil acts if they are intent and industrious. Only absolute control of the civilian population can hope to achieve the level of security you think pointless laws will guarantee.
In the meantime, you refuse to address the FACT that good people with guns reduce the chances that people will be murdered by bad guys with guns. Thus, a solution is already proven and you don't have the humanity to support it...because you're evil yourself, being a false priest. Clearly you don't care about 250,000 people killed with guns. You care about denigrating those who do care by supporting the right to bear arms, as bearing arms has a proven effect. This, too, has been proven by the fact that gun purchases have gone up in recent years, while the crime rate has gone down...except in cities under Democratic control and with stiffer gun-control laws.
Actually, looking further, it turns out that Homeland Security has never been able to control ammonium nitrate the way they want because lobbyists win over Republican congressman over DHS recommendations.
I went over your head, Marshall, and made my point too hard for you to read.
Your argument is that when some picks up an assault rifle to kill people he will be able to do so until someone with a gun stops him.
Leaving you with a plan only for the living. The dead are dead because you are giving killers all the time available until the good guy shows up.
And yet the Texas shooter wasn’t stopped by the good guy was he? He got in his car and drove off.
A second possibility is that the good guy/s are also killed.
A third possibility is that the good guy law enforcers are killed.
You are sick in the head because you cannot simply acknowledge that keeping guns out of the picture actually saved the lives you write off because your hope rests in a neighbor rushing out without his shoes on to throw a couple of shots as the killer leaves the church where he executed a baby, a pregnant woman, and men and women between their pews.
You’re sick in the head.
"I went over your head, Marshall, and made my point too hard for you to read."
You're nowhere near that difficult to understand, except when you're trying to sound like you're intelligent. Then you just sound like a bigger idiot.
"Your argument is that when some picks up an assault rifle to kill people he will be able to do so until someone with a gun stops him."
Not my argument, but that is the way it works, whether the tool used to murder is a gun, a car, a knife, one's fists, a baseball bat, a rock or whatever.
My argument is that when one decides to kill, they find a way. An armed citizenry has proven to be a deterrent. Every time someone chooses to go on a killing spree, someone who is armed is usually involved in putting an end to the spree. I believe that even such a lightweight intellect as yours could devise more than a few ways to kill large numbers of people without ever using a gun. Removing guns from your choice of tools to murder would not matter.
"Leaving you with a plan only for the living. The dead are dead because you are giving killers all the time available until the good guy shows up."
You're so incredibly stupid. The dead are dead because no one stood between them and the murderer. If armed people were among those targeted, fewer would be dead. If the murderer knew there would be armed people present, he would have sought out a place where he felt confident no one was armed. That's how it works.
"And yet the Texas shooter wasn’t stopped by the good guy was he? He got in his car and drove off."
Yes, he was. Driving off did not mean he was stopped. It meant he was, because he had been shot and took off to escape, where he had planned to kill more at another location. The amount of ammo in his possession indicated that.
But the important point that you're too stupid to get is that he would have been stopped sooner had there been someone in the church who was armed.
In addition, guns will always be available to those who insist upon getting them. Are you so stupid as to believe that outlawing the manufacturing, sale and possession of firearms would actually stop the manufacture, sale and possession of firearms? You're an idiot!
Still can’t answer one simple question.
"Not my argument, but that is the way it works"
Heart disease death about 196 per 100,000 - Marshall by his silence: "that is the way it works"
Diabetes death about 25 per 100,000 people - Marshall by his silence: "that is the way it works"
Drug overdose deaths about 20 per 100,000 - Marshall by his silence: "that is the way it works"
Gun deaths about 12 per 100,000 people - Marshall's words: "that is the way it works"
Islamic terrorism deaths about 4 per 100,000 people. Marshall: "CHRIST ALMIGHTY WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!!! CLOSE THE BORDERS!!! SHIP OUT ALL MUSLIMS!!!! LABEL THEM DANGEROUS AND SHOULD BE SHUNNED!!! ISLAM IS FROM THE DEVIL!!!
Marshall, you are one fuck stupid idiot. As is everyone holding your position.
"An armed citizenry has proven to be a deterrent.".
FACT #1: We are the most heavily armed nation in the world.
(https://www.reuters.com/article/us-world-firearms/u-s-most-armed-country-with-90-guns-per-100-people-idUSL2834893820070828)
FACT #2: Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries.
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries.
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/)
Craig, given the context of 250,000 dead Americans from guns over the last 15 years, so sharp of you to focus on Feodor's opinion re ballistic data. Really extraordinary focus.
I've given up. My answer is the your humanity cannot be found.
Sick in the head.
Given up, you never tried to do anything but divert the attention away from your ignorance. You claimed that banning assault weapons would have positive consequences, yet you can’t define what makes something an assault weapon. If you can’t define something, how can you ban it and how can you make claims about the results of said theoretical ban.
Ignorance, fear, laziness, blindness, gumption deficit, or something else.
The fact remains that you can’t answer one simple question.
The fact that you think model numbers are where we start makes you sick in the head.
The fact that you can’t define what you think should be banned indicates your lack of original thought on the issue.
The fact that you’ve had to resort to making stuff up, tells me all I need to know.
250,000 Americans gunned down do not need original thought. There is no original thought to be had. Look up canard, Craig. That’s all you need to know about you.
You’re not serious. You’re avoidant, diversive, denting, card playing. Making you a moral coward.
If you were serious you’d come to this discussion following the normal human approach.
Step 1. Outrage at the number of lost lives when other countries have far, far fewer deaths per capita. Outrage that we have these artificial myths that perpetuate, collide with, support more slaughter. Commit oneself to stopping it.
Step 2. Commitment to effective change, not cosmetic. Itmay take tweaking of services and laws but the goal is not just a law but effective changes and a reorientation if emphasis. Children and babies lives are more important than fake parsing of an amendment. Hunting is in, militias are out because a true militia these days need tanks and helicopters and rather large, long range, quite explosive guns, like hand launched mussels and grenades.
Step 3. What can we do to get tremendous effective change and save hundreds of thousands of lives over years?
a. What services for the suicidal white men killing themselves?
b. What education and job training and entrepreneurial business generation policies can serve economically stricken areas where guns and drugs are two of the most problematic consequences?
c. What weapons will we ban to ensure profound change? Not perfection! But profound change.
You see where your disingenuous, diversionary leap comes on the list so far? Last.
Normal human people engage with each other on step 3 discussions when they've agreed in principle to the first two.
Are you ready for Step 3, Craig? Then join with us in outrage. Responding that we cannot know if your outraged or not is a diversion. Simply admit to outrage. Say it with us, Craig: “I am outraged at the slaughter. I am outraged at the sick ways we find to do nothing.. I am committed to help stopping it.”
And the day with us: “I am committed to effective change that stops the killing. No more excuses. No more lies and denials and mythic claims about unreal militias. No more limiting grand action; it’s grand action I want and then tweak what doesn’t work. Too many babies, children, parents, great citizens are being lost. We must stop this now! It is paramount, along with cancer, diabetes, seat belts, and jobs.”
Do that, and we have the trust as dialogue partners go talk 3c. If you can’t do it, then you’re not asking me any questions with honest intent.
Still can’t answer one simple question. You say you want “effective” change, yet can’t define what you’d change or show any metric of effectiveness.
As to your step 3, I’ve been personally involved in doing (rather than discussing) things to effectively deal with those sorts of issues for over 20 years. It looks like I may be ahead of you.
But, as long as you can’t define your terms, I see no reason to waste time with broad amorphous emotion driven blather.
“It looks like I may be ahead of you.” And you’re the one who whines foul when I use the evidence of what you write to conclude about umuou you don’t think I can know. What do you know of my gun control advocacy? Nothing.
Hypocrite.
Steps 1 and 2 are not terms to define. They are humane motivations from which to join in commonality so terms can be approached in trust.
And as is clear, you don’t have the honesty to ask about terms because you can’t even join in on emotions of human concern. Something I’ve pointed out to almost a dozen times.
Hypocrite. You have no interest in terms. I’d bet you only interest is to blurr the issue.
Which really is that guns are killing Americans at a rate 250 times greater than terrorists - for which you do make public pronouncmemts of outrage here, calling for more massive federal action.
Hypocrite. And lacking decent humanity.
Idiot, I’ve been in step 3 for 20 years, so yeah, I guess I might be ahead of you in taking action.
My interest is to get you to do what you obviously fear. Defining the specifics of the terms you have been using. I understand that it’s easier to dodge specific definitions to give yourself an out when cornered.
But unless you can actually define the terms and steps specially, you’re just playing on emotion.
If 20 plus years of doing things makes me a hypocrite, then you may be right. But, I’ll take 20 plus years of employing the homeless, and housing those in need over some anonymous whiner on the internet who can’t answer one damn simple question.
1. You don't think good. I did not deny what your wrote (like you deny what you read): that you're "involved in doing... things to effectively deal with those sorts of issues..." But that, like all else you write here, does not signify what you think "effectively dealing" is. It's a cloak, fog, diversion, and dishonest. Glenn and Marshall, I'm sure think they've "been in step 3" as well. Because they think blocking new restrictions and keep a fundamentalist notion of the 2nd amendment is "effectively dealing" with the issues. (Secretly I think you do, too.)
And this is what becomes of...
2. You don't feel good either. That you cannot dredge up "emotion" when 250,000 Americans are cut down over 15 years but DO dredge up emotion when 1,000 Americans are killed by terrorists over the same time frame, is exactly why you are sick in the head. I'm not playing on false emotion. I'm asking you to show humanity before parsing policy.
Because that's the only legitimacy laws and policies have: humanity.
And you still can't show any. Because you're sick in the head.
While 16-17000 people killed by guns is more than any civilized country should tolerate, the U.S. is not even in the top 25 countries with the highest murder rate. Remove the suicides and that 16-17K goes down considerably and puts things in a factual perspective that is inconvenient to low intellect, false concern people like feo.
What's more, according to FBI stats concerning weapons used in homicides, the types of weapons of which feo is looking to deprive law abiding citizens hoping to protect themselves, their loved ones and property is far lower on the list than fists and feet. So even if feo borrowed a spine and a pair and risked his unjustified high opinion of himself, his first step will have less than a negligible effect on deaths.
As to those murder rates, if we remove the cities where most murders occur, cities run by Dems in which the types of policies feo suggests are in place, the United States becomes and even safer place to live, and the widespread possession of firearms by the general population of law-abiding people is a major reason why.
So if you want to play with stats, feo, you might want to bone up and practice a little honesty...as difficult as that is for the likes of you. Because you're sick in the soul.
According to the CDC (information given to me without specific reference), there were 32,000 gun deaths in 2016.
60% were suicide (19,200)
3% were accidents (960)
4% were justified self-defense (1280)
33% were homicides (10,560)
80% of homicides were gang related (8448), leaving 1,712 homicides not gang-related in a population of 312 million people.
I wasn't given the numbers of homicides from other causes (strangulation, stabbing, beating, poison, etc), but my guess is that they outnumber the non-gang related homicides by firearms.
See, Craig. No outrage. Marshall feints at outrage when he writes no civilized country should tolerate what we do. But then he goes on to celebrate how we are so much better off than undeveloped countries. Glenn, following Mother Superior has no real emotion either.
They think they are on step 3, Craig. But they’re broken, having not found any humanity in their dark. They’re below zero.
They prove to be just what I wrote. Sick in the head.
The US has the highest gun related murder and manslaughter rate in the developed world. Columbine was the most deadly school shooting in 1991. In 2007, in Sandy Hook, 21 1st graders were slaughtered by an assault rifle. On 2016, 49 people were gunned down. This year, 58 in Las Vegas.
From 1991 to 2917, NRA lobbying expenditures have tripled, paralleling the pace of “largest mass shooting of [white] people.
More Smericans own more guns than ever before. And for the second year in a row gun murders have risen.
Good people with guns don’t stop anything. They certainly don’t stop rising numbers of slaughter.
Marshall says it’s a shame. Then he says, no!, we’re all good! Things are worse in Botswana!! Yeah us!
Sick in the head.
It's called "perspective", feo, you sorry excuse. It's something you intentionally avoid in order to perpetuate your girlish alarmism. Murder and other crimes are higher where your mindset and policy proposals are in vogue. Then you dare suggest I'm the one struggling with reality. Worse, the reality of my positions and opinions are written in plain English for all to see, and you demonstrate, as if you're getting paid to do it, that you prefer to lie about it. But then, that's how you roll. You're the false priest.
Marshall considers 250,000 gun killed Americans girlish alarmism.
The 1,000 Americsns killed by Islamic terrorism, though, calls for drastic changes to American laws.
Sick in the head.
Any number of deaths by anything other than natural causes over any period of time is a concern. Your peculiar reaction to it is girlish alarmism. If we were to focus specifically on suicides, your ignorant bleating about "assault weapons" would likely have zero impact...unless as is typical of leftists and false priests, you purposely leave the definition of the term amorphous.
But your constant referencing of the numbers of Americans murdered by terrorists during the same period demonstrates your penchant for distortion as you match it against a number that includes suicides, accidents and lawful uses of firearms (such as by cops). What's more, what is called for by those like myself with regards immigrants and refugees from muslim dominant countries, is the same level of srutiny now already in place for acquiring firearms, in order to keep out those with bad intentions because they follow their religion far more devoutly than you do with whatever drivel you pretend in your role as false priest is Christianity.
I'm not parsing policy, I'm making one simple reasonable request that you define the policy you claim will be "effective". It's easy to be outraged, to whine and stamp your feet, it's easy to accuse others of being somehow lesser because that don't get caught up in emotion in the same way you do. But, apparently it's too hard to start from a point where you define your terms.
You seem to be embodying the old saying, "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.". you're so caught up in emotion, misrepresenting the views of others, and in asserting your superiority that you can't put in a tiny bit of effort into answering one simple question.
The fact that you've invested so much time, effort, and diversion into avoiding answering this one simple question, says all anyone really needs to know about you.
I listed death rates for heart disease and diabetes, which are far higher, even, than gun related deaths.
Now Marshall openly claims he has no concern at all for the millions of Americans who die from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. Cares not all for all the diseases that kill people.
No wonder he doesn't care, then, for Americans shooting themselves to death, either. Or killing each other.
He's only outraged by the far lower death toll in this country by Islamic terrorists.
Sick in the head.
Craig, policy is worked out 1. by people who make it. 2. If you want to talk about the particulars in a mock policy discussion, then come to the table in good faith. No need to stomp your feet. Just declare your outrage at the slaughter, and at the inaction of our society, and that you desire huge effective action to stop the killing.
You can even do that while you're sitting down.
Can't do it? Then you're avoiding. You're manufacturing an interest. You're prevaricating. You're trying a ruse.
You're a hypocrite. Over the fact that 250,000 Americans are lost to gun violence.
Because you're sick in the head.
Can’t answer one simple question: bob, weave, dodge, obfuscate, and take shots. Good tactic.
You know what you need to do. The rest will follow. You’re the one with the delay tactics. You’re scared to enter in. Or can’t find your humanity.
You know what you need to do, answer the one Simple question, And stop the obfuscation. Maybe if you do those two things, then you will be able to find your integrity.
Trust comes before specifics. And I don’t trust you. Show me you’re human. Show me that compassion in the face of 16 thousand gun deaths will not be overrun by ballistics (your concern) and serial numbers.
The one thing about feo is that one needn't worry about lacking the time to respond to older comments. He's always right there with a newer piece of idiocy. To wit:
"Now Marshall openly claims he has no concern at all for the millions of Americans who die from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. Cares not all for all the diseases that kill people."
This is proof either of feo's incredibly feeble intellect or his dedication to lying outright. Likely a convenient combination saving us all time in highlighting either. We're in a discussion regarding the idiocy of gun control laws of the type favored by chuckleheads like feo. The buffoon speaks of our lack of concern for the 250K gun-related deaths over a 15 year period...his main evidence for his little girl alarmism...and so I make a comment with direct reference to his use of that stat. My comment was, as is easily read and understood by people with integrity:
"Any number of deaths by anything other than natural causes over any period of time is a concern."
So not only am I looking to focus on the stats that feo is using, and how it should or shouldn't be considered with regard to dealing with the right to bear arms, but "heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc." are not examples of death by natural causes...a term used when neither disease nor misadventure is evident in one's passing.
What's more, his "inference" that one doesn't care about people killing themselves or others is baseless given the totality of my comments on this issue. He merely wants and needs us to be uncaring. It makes him feel so superior. Yet he continues to belie his claims of superiority by demonstrating just how inferior he is in every way.
Nice work, feo. You save me all sorts of time.
He dares say to Craig, "...come to the table in good faith." But he wouldn't know what "good faith" looks like if it kicked him in the groin. I say that rhetorically, given he doesn't even have a pair, as evidenced by his constant dodging of Craig's question.
Good faith would be to acknowledge the stats feo doesn't like. Those that show the low incidence of gun-related deaths in areas where gun-free zones do not exist, for example. Good faith requires not speaking on the rise of murder rates after insisting that Obama fixed that problem, which he didn't, so that he can suggest that Trump's winning the White House is the reason, which it isn't. Good faith would require acknowledging the negative impact of leftist influence and policies on the culture, which has resulted in all manner of bad behaviors. And good faith would recognize and acknowledge that inanimate objects have no bearing on the behaviors of those who use them for good or ill, and thus compassion for the dead and injured would focus on those who caused it...not what tool they used for the purpose.
But feo is the false priest, and honesty and "good faith" are completely anathema to him.
“A death by natural causes, as recorded by coroners and on death certificates and associated documents, is one that is primarily attributed to an illness or an internal malfunction of the body not directly caused by external forces.”
Marshall is as dumb fuck stupid as Trump.
You’ve done nothing to suggest that you’re worthy of trust, why would I trust someone who’s stock in trade is obfuscation, expletives, vitriol, and the inability to answer one simple question.
One has to have decency to trust. No surprise that trust isn't known to you.
Despite what coroners use for their official paperwork, disease is not cause, but a symptom. A failing immune system is natural in older people, but even that is caused in most others by poor nutrition, thus being an external factor. Of course, the real point for you, sad false priest, is that it represents another way to attack those with whom you disagree, as opposed to dealing with the epic failures of your pro-control arguments. Typical.
Marshall’s arguing with coroners sbout cause of death! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This what I mean by your break with reality. You’re defending lies, spreading lies, arguing nonsense, making your bed with perverts. Everything you lied about gay people doing is what you actually do! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Not arguing with coroners at all. Nice lie. How they use terms is for their own convenience. Getting cancer or diabetes is not "natural" and they are not by definition causal factors. How could they be when each is a result of something else? You'd have an easier time convincing people you actually have a superior intellect if you weren't so concerned with attacking people, proving instead you are no Christian.
In the meantime, you have yet to prove I've lied about anything, or that I struggle with reality. I don't know what you mean by lying about homosexuals, since I've no need whatsoever to do so, or that I do anything remotely similar to what they do...whatever the hell you mean by that. Homosexuality IS perversion. That is not debatable to honest people. Seeking a wife among young ladies is not...particularly in a time and place where it was rather common.
You confirm my belief...because it is true...that those like you and Dan seek to make of others immoral in order to mitigate your own support, defense and enabling of immorality. Because you have no shame, nor a true love of God. I continue to pray for you.
feo, being a liar and not very bright, feels he's correcting in questioning the humanity of those who aren't on board with his wacky and baseless gun control demands. Yet, we see no humanity in leaving people defenseless against predators. Arming one's self is far more likely to preserve one's life and property than disarming them would be. This is proven. Also proven is the impotence of "assault weapons" bans. The last one that was in place had absolutely no effect whatsoever, except to let the Dems who promoted that legislation feel good about themselves....while accomplishing absolutely nothing. Also proven is that one needn't use guns of any kind to kill lots of people in a short span of time. So to remove one tool used for the purpose will also do little to reduce murder if murder is the plan. This is actual reality.
"This is proven."
You lie in the face of facts. A habit you've acquired in trying to get your way in life the last several years. We have the highest rate of gun ownership among developed nations. We have, by far, the highest rate of gun violence and gun deaths in the developed world.
You can deny. You can lie. You can do all the things that sick white men have increasingly done as they feel betrayed by finding out that being specially privilege over others by the American Dream was corrupt and now the American Dream is corrupt by the things they so viciously believe in: laissez faire free market capitalism of the world.
Your convictions have betrayed you. And so you rage at the world with neurotic make believes.
You are sick in the head.
I will thank you to keep your sick, racist self-loathing to yourself. I understand it. You indeed are incredibly loathsome. But it isn't your race that's the problem. It's your moral corruption.
With that in mind, you show yourself a reprobate by ignoring realities and suggesting it is the gun rights side of the argument that is delusional. Statistics prove that the vast majority of gun-related murders are in areas, largely Democratically controlled, where there are the strictest gun control laws. Statistics have also proven that the so-called "assault weapons" ban of recent years was as impotent as your ability to prove yourself the intellectual you wish you were.
So please...by all means...prove that I've lied or that what I've said is incorrect.
And by the way, self-loathing white man, the rights we defend are granted to non-whites as well. Honest people of character understand that reality as well. Go ahead. Find an honest person of character and ask.
You shithead. Every one has known the facts for decades that the guns come into cities from Republican dominated states. You swallow canards and choke on facts (you'll just have to look up canard):
1) America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany.
From United Nations data, America far and away leads other developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides. Why? The US is an outlier on gun violence because it has way more guns than other developed nations.
2) America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world.
3) There have been more than 1,500 mass shootings since Sandy Hook.
4) On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in America.
5) States with more guns have more higher gun death rates per 100,000.
Data from a study in Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows states with more guns tend to have far more gun deaths. Not just one study, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide."
6) It’s not just the US: Developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths.
7) States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths.
When economist Richard Florida took a look at gun deaths and other social indicators, he found that higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness didn’t correlate with more gun deaths. But he did find one telling correlation: States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths. Richard Florida, “The Geography of Gun Deaths.”
This is backed by other research: A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.
8) Still, gun homicides (like all homicides) have declined over the past couple decades.
9) Most gun deaths are suicides.
10) The states with the most guns report the most suicides.
https://apps.voxmedia.com/at/vox-more-guns-more-suicides/screenshots/screenshot_s@2.png
11) Guns allow people to kill themselves much more easily.
The reason access to guns so strongly contributes to suicides is that guns are much deadlier than alternatives like cutting and poison.
Jill Harkavy-Friedman, vice president of research for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, previously explained that this is why reducing access to guns can be so important to preventing suicides: Just stalling an attempt or making it less likely to result in death makes a huge difference.
12) Programs that limit access to guns have decreased suicides.
When countries reduced access to guns, they saw a drop in the number of firearm suicides. The data above, taken from a study by Australian researchers, shows that suicides dropped dramatically after the Australian government set up a gun buyback program that reduced the number of firearms in the country by about one-fifth.
The Australian study found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides, and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides
A study from Israeli researchers found that suicides among Israeli soldiers dropped by 40 percent — particularly on weekends — when the military stopped letting soldiers take their guns home over the weekend.
13) Since the shooting of Michael Brown, police have killed at least 2,900 people.
14) In states with more guns, more police officers are also killed on duty.
https://apps.voxmedia.com/at/vox-police-are-more-likely-to-be-killed-in-homicides-in-states-with-more-guns/screenshots/screenshot_s@2.png
15) Support for gun ownership has sharply increased since the early ’90s.
In that time, the lobbying budget of the NRA has tripled.
16) High-profile shootings don’t appear to lead to more support for gun control.
17) But specific gun control policies are fairly popular.
Although Americans say they want to protect the right to bear arms, they’re very much supportive of many gun policy proposals — including some fairly contentious ideas, such as more background checks on private and gun show sales and banning semi-automatic and assault-style weapons, according to Pew Research Center surveys.
This type of contradiction isn’t exclusive to gun policy issues. For example, although most Americans in the past said they don’t like Obamacare, most of them also said they like the specific policies in the health-care law. Americans just don’t like some policy ideas until you get specific.
For people who believe the empirical evidence that more guns mean more violence, this contradiction is the source of a lot of frustration. Americans by and large support policies that reduce access to guns. But once these policies are proposed, they’re broadly spun by politicians and pundits into attempts to “take away your guns.” So nothing gets done, and preventable deaths keep occurring.
Like any typical gun control buffoon (and false priest for whom truth and reality has no value), you focus on guns rather than crime and morals...because you have no understanding of morality yourself. So quickly, to most of your points:
1. It's not surprising that more guns results in more gun related homicides. It's really an idiotic point. The issue is how many homicides regardless of the means by which murder is perpetrated.
2. It's because we understand, protect and respect the right of all to bear arms for protection. That's a good thing.
3. Doubtful. You must define what constitutes a mass shooting and also defend that definition as rational and honest for the purpose of a discussion like this.
4. Doubtful. See #3.
5. Probably more people, too, and more people unarmed and unable to defend themselves or other against asshats with guns.
6. Again, a meaningless stat. "Gun deaths" mean many things, including the killing of bad guys by good guys...such as cops.
7. See Chicago.
8. So guns aren't the problem. Blows your whole argument.
9. So what? There's no way to determine if those suicides would not have happened if guns weren't available. Depends on the person's own determination to end their lives...not the means by which they do it.
10. They likely have more people overall anyway, and thus, more people wanting to off themselves.
11. Duh.
12. See #10.
https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/
Suck on it, Marshall. From the heart of educated, rabidly conservative, white Texas.
“"Guns are an easily accessed symbolic 'tool' to morally and emotionally cope with distress. As such, guns maintain a desired 'moral order' as well as a moral identity, one which gun owners quite literally hold onto as a physical representation of their power and autonomy," the study reads...
"What’s paradoxical is that white male gun owners in the U.S. see themselves as hyper-patriotic, but they are the first to say, 'If the government impedes me, I have the moral and almost patriotic right to fight back.'
Nonwhite gun owners, on the other hand, generally do not turn to guns in times of loss and financially instability. Froese stated that this might be because minority groups have always dealt with “economic anxiety” and therefore “developed different coping mechanisms” over time.
The researchers say that to the white male gun owners, gun control represents an attack on their “masculinity, independence and moral identity.” It’s deep-rooted American symbolism and culture that is proving difficult to change.
https://apple.news/APCSn1VFmQpOJ57T1xyTuVg
Professors of sociology in Baylor’s College of Arts & Sciences, F. Carson Mencken, PhD, and Paul Froese, PhD, are the lead researchers behind the study, called “Gun Culture in Action,” which was published in Oxford Academic’s journal Social Problems on November 20th.
Ultimately, the study found that white males who have experienced or fear loss are more inclined to feel morally and emotionally attached to guns.
https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article/doi/10.1093/socpro/spx040/4643202?guestAccessKey=76e1827d-5520-4497-a1ce-2ec3a443c6c8
Why don't you cite the study a dozen more times, feo? That might make you think it really is worth a damn. I've only skimmed it at this point, but one glaring problem stands out. It is crystal clear that minority gun owners, that is, thugs, are those that feel empowered and most often used to deal with their stresses, mostly the result of leftist policies that have destroyed the notion of family among them.
All in all, the questions posed seemed well chosen to validate the various hypotheses. You seem to get all aroused over the fact that to you, it validates your hatred of your own race, you false priest racist. This crap might come from Texas, but it is clearly a leftist study meant to disparage those who understand and respect the 2nd Amendment. You're an idiot.
Too much to read, Marshall? Thoughts hurt your head, don’t they.
Stay stupid, then. Your pain, at the very least, will be less.
You’re the nigger in all these equations, Marshall. Brutal, ignorant, lazy of thought, tortured over sex, dying of corruption.
Not too much to read, sad and pathetic false priest. Only too much to read at present. I don't operate on your schedule. But unlike you, Dan and lefties in general, I actually read and study the links you post, and research the info for accuracy, honesty and relevance, despite how routinely my time is wasted doing so.
Stay classy, false champion of the black man. I'm sure they're pleased to have a racist like you on their side.
No one ever said nigger wasn’t a useful term. You just haven’t been using it right. Look in the mirror.
I'll be polling the many black people with whom I work to see if they agree with and/or support your use of the term.
You don’t work with them. If you knew what working with a person means you wouldn’t be in this mess. Show them your recent remarks that minorities = thug. Most folks will have the decency to walk away in silence. But you may get one who will waste their breath telling you the truth about yourself.
Of course, I made no such comparison. Are you suggesting that thugs are not a minority, too? Are you suggesting that all thugs are of a particular race or ethnicity? Of all the various people with whom I am in contact at work, I know of two who own any guns, and none who engage in criminal activity when not at work. I have no reason to suspect any of them are, regardless of their sex, race or ethnic background. So again the minority gun owners, thugs, are those who most feel empowered by their guns. You're putz, and again prove you're no Christian by assuming the worst in those with opposing views.
Marshall: “It is crystal clear that minority gun owners, that is, thugs...”
Marshal: “What?! What’d I say? I didn’t say minirities were thugs!”
Fucking idiot.
I didn't say minorities were thugs, you low intellect buffoon. Read it again and find your momma to explain it to you:
"It is crystal clear that minority gun owners, that is, thugs,"
It is crystal clear that category A, that is, category A1...clearly, to honest people not racist and dishonest like yourself, see that I'm speaking of a specific minority here...that is, thugs and all other criminals who use guns in the manner attributed to the vast population of white people by people like you and your Baylor "researchers". I concede that I could have worded it better, and most certainly concede that for stupid people like yourself, people who need to believe the worst of those who disagree, I should have been very careful as to how I word ANYTHING to prevent the very response so typical and expected of you.
Or perhaps I worded it exactly as I intended in order to draw out your typical, racist and hateful reaction. You're that easy.
Sorry, I missed the results of your honest conversations with black people about your possibly being the real nigger.
“Roy Moore's wife, Kayla, argued that her husband is no bigot at a Monday night campaign rally, saying that "one of our attorneys is a Jew."
Marshall: “I work with black people!”
"Sorry, I missed the results of your honest conversations with black people..."
Yes. You are sorry. A sorry excuse for a human being, a worse excuse for a Christian (pretending that you actually are one) and an even worse excuse for a black woman. Here, you continue to make the asshat mistake of presuming I work on your schedule. The fact is that you're impatience isn't worthy of any concern on my part.
As to Kayla Moore, how typical of you that you would attack a woman who is not likely comfortable in the public eye, responding as too many do to bullshit accusations of racism...accusations made simply to distract and put victims on the defensive, because the accusers are low character people. They're like you.
As to this:
"Marshall: “I work with black people!”"
I don't speak of my black co-workers in order to "prove" I'm no racist. I don't dignify the charge in the first place, especially when puked out by a puke like you, an actual racist. But YOU need to prove I am one in order to demonstrate you're not just a self-loathing white boy (you're no man based on your routinely childish behavior here)...which you are. Some day, Rachel, perhaps you'll find the spine to try.
Oh, Rachel. By the way... in reference to your racist comments from December 3, 2017 at 9:03 PM...
"No one ever said nigger wasn’t a useful term. You just haven’t been using it right. Look in the mirror."
I don't use the term. Despite the fact that I find emotion over the word pointless and manipulative, I choose to avoid using the term for the sake of peace. What's more, class demands better. Have your momma teach you what it means to have class.
Ms Moore chose her own words from inside her own bigoted head. Has nothing to do with the glaring lights. You disparage her presentation in public. I, her thoughts. But thanks for acknowledging that it was in fact icky.
You are so determined to be the fool you think a black person saying hello to you is live.
Notice that Rachel couldn’t say you weren’t a lazy racist hater. She just said it was impolite to call you a nigger.😂😂😂
Well, she has me there. But, then, black folks have a kind and loving heart, black women above all others. Just what I’ve been telling you for years now.
Thank you, Rachel!😂😂😂
Tell her you support Roy Moore.😂😂😂
"You disparage her presentation in public. I, her thoughts."
But Rachel (aka "feodor"). You don't know her thoughts, because you're not psychic. You evidently think "psycho" is the same thing. You don't know Mrs. Moore. Indeed, you know nothing about her. But you do know how to lie about people you don't know. That's how you roll.
"She just said it was impolite to call you a nigger."
You're talking in third person now? Because you DID call me that. Because you're a self-loathing white racist.
"But, then, black folks have a kind and loving heart, black women above all others."
What a racist thing to say! BTW, is it kind and loving to murder each other in the inner cities, to compose hip-hop "songs" that demean and objectify women, and as women to support those who do? You have a strange idea of "kind and loving heart". Could be because you're a false priest and fake Christian.
I continue to pray for your corrupt soul.
OOOOHHH!!! I thought that Rachel was a late addition because you actually DID talk to someone’s at your job who is black. I thought you were reporting what she said in response to my saying that you are the best representative of a nigger.
Silly me. You don’t have the balls to talk honestly with a black woman. And fear is the least of your worries.
Post a Comment