Yeah it should be even the FACTS from the FBI BJS and how in Venezuela 58 people are shot on a normal day. After a all out gun ban and this dumb ass keeps calling a magazine a clip and bullets shells. Shot guns use shells hand guns and rifles use bullets. But the main stream media ignores facts just like you anti gunners. That's why most of ya ban people who disagree no matter how polite they are.And the 2ND is about defense from tyranny foreign and domestic.
I agree, everything should be on the table, like who was this kid's doctor and what kind of mind-altering drugs was he on. But hell no, instead of getting to the root cause, which may implicate Big Pharma, let's simply go after guns.
You guys are a tiny bit nastier than usual. I know why. My, and many others', accusation that it's your fault has hit home. You feel embarrassed and guilty.
Easy access to guns, which you are responsible for having achieved, even to maniacs and lunatics, is a big part of the problem. Blaming gun-free zones and the fact that more good-guys aren't armed is nonsense, and you know it, hence the increased nastiness and aggressivity. Not being capable of admitting it, like Joe Scarborough and Sen. Manchin did, you double down on all your crackpot ideas.
Embarrased and guilty? Not in the slightest. People who flap with the breeze should be embarrased. People who try to take away the rights of others should feel guilty. Those of us who stand on prinicple have every reason to be proud.
Clearly, Mikeb, if anyone should be embarrassed and have remorse for their actions, it is you and your fellow persons that are afraid of 1800s technology.
The nastiness is simply the a natural human reaction to having nastiness dumped on you.
Yes, I did do some introspection after this latest shooting. Emotional issues tend to cause that. But the result is still the same thing I have said before:
Nothing short of a near total gun ban would have any real impact on 'gun-violence'. And a near total gun ban would only serve to increase violent crime and cause more suffering. Period.
YOUR nastiness is MY doing? C'mon, man, you can be more honest than that and take responsibility for what you say.
Your idea that "Nothing short of a near total gun ban would have any real impact on 'gun-violence'." is awfully convenient. It permits you to say no thanks to any gun control suggestions.
The more accurate observation would be that gun violence is directly proportional to the lack of gun control laws. If we moved half way to a total ban we'd have half as much violence, more or less.
Your problem is that by describing it accurately, you're hard pressed to oppose it and still pretend to be reasonable.
1. I tried to carry on a civil conversation here when I first started visiting. Go back and read the comments. I was polite, and Dog Gone, Laci, and Democommie were nothing but insulting and dismissive. Now that doesn't matter to me personally, but it does steer the conversation into nastiness.
2. Gun violence is directly proportional to the lack of gun control laws? How many times have I cited the examples of the Czech Republic, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Utah, Minnesota, and so forth? All of those have gun laws that I like, but low rates of violence. How many times have I shown you countries and areas with strict gun laws and high rates of violence?
Yeah it should be even the FACTS from the FBI BJS and how in Venezuela 58 people are shot on a normal day. After a all out gun ban and this dumb ass keeps calling a magazine a clip and bullets shells. Shot guns use shells hand guns and rifles use bullets. But the main stream media ignores facts just like you anti gunners. That's why most of ya ban people who disagree no matter how polite they are.And the 2ND is about defense from tyranny foreign and domestic.
ReplyDeleteI agree, everything should be on the table, like who was this kid's doctor and what kind of mind-altering drugs was he on. But hell no, instead of getting to the root cause, which may implicate Big Pharma, let's simply go after guns.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Yep, everything should be on the table - like ending the failed concept of gun-free zones. Let's have that conversation:
ReplyDeletehttp://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2012/12/17/lets-have-that-conversation-about-guns-n1468596
Oh wait, liberals don't really want a conversation. They just want to spew.
You guys are a tiny bit nastier than usual. I know why. My, and many others', accusation that it's your fault has hit home. You feel embarrassed and guilty.
ReplyDeleteEasy access to guns, which you are responsible for having achieved, even to maniacs and lunatics, is a big part of the problem. Blaming gun-free zones and the fact that more good-guys aren't armed is nonsense, and you know it, hence the increased nastiness and aggressivity. Not being capable of admitting it, like Joe Scarborough and Sen. Manchin did, you double down on all your crackpot ideas.
Embarrased and guilty? Not in the slightest. People who flap with the breeze should be embarrased. People who try to take away the rights of others should feel guilty. Those of us who stand on prinicple have every reason to be proud.
DeleteClearly, Mikeb, if anyone should be embarrassed and have remorse for their actions, it is you and your fellow persons that are afraid of 1800s technology.
Deletehttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8b_1355643365
orlin sellers
No Mike,
DeleteThe nastiness is simply the a natural human reaction to having nastiness dumped on you.
Yes, I did do some introspection after this latest shooting. Emotional issues tend to cause that. But the result is still the same thing I have said before:
Nothing short of a near total gun ban would have any real impact on 'gun-violence'. And a near total gun ban would only serve to increase violent crime and cause more suffering. Period.
The nastiness is of your own doing.
YOUR nastiness is MY doing? C'mon, man, you can be more honest than that and take responsibility for what you say.
DeleteYour idea that "Nothing short of a near total gun ban would have any real impact on 'gun-violence'." is awfully convenient. It permits you to say no thanks to any gun control suggestions.
The more accurate observation would be that gun violence is directly proportional to the lack of gun control laws. If we moved half way to a total ban we'd have half as much violence, more or less.
Your problem is that by describing it accurately, you're hard pressed to oppose it and still pretend to be reasonable.
Mikeb, two points:
Delete1. I tried to carry on a civil conversation here when I first started visiting. Go back and read the comments. I was polite, and Dog Gone, Laci, and Democommie were nothing but insulting and dismissive. Now that doesn't matter to me personally, but it does steer the conversation into nastiness.
2. Gun violence is directly proportional to the lack of gun control laws? How many times have I cited the examples of the Czech Republic, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Utah, Minnesota, and so forth? All of those have gun laws that I like, but low rates of violence. How many times have I shown you countries and areas with strict gun laws and high rates of violence?
Greg, shame on you for blaming others for the way you write.
DeleteYour examples are cherry picked to support your wrong-headed idea. Blaming gun control for gun violence is ridiculous.