HEARTLESS wrote: Listen to Obama tell us we are the only modern nation with this problem, then read the blog BS put forth by "gun expert" Jim Wright.
From my post:
I'm not so sure anyone here has ever said the U.S. is the only one with a gun violence problem. It's when that mantra is used to justify doing nothing that those who would advocate doing something, anything, to try and help address this issue that "persecuted" gun owners push back by using the "lies" accusation to get their way.
I guess if one wants to take things completely out of context, one might also infer that the President did in fact advocate no other advanced nations have the kind of mass violence that occurred in Charleston.
But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency (Emphasis mine). And it is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. And at some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.
HEARTLESS wrote: Listen to Obama tell us we are the only modern nation with this problem, then read the blog BS put forth by "gun expert" Jim Wright.
From my post:
I'm not so sure anyone here has ever said the U.S. is the only one with a gun violence problem. It's when that mantra is used to justify doing nothing that those who would advocate doing something, anything, to try and help address this issue that "persecuted" gun owners push back by using the "lies" accusation to get their way.
Question: Why do criminals pick places where people are likely to be unarmed to commit their crimes? (Hint: The answer is in the question.)
Until the Left is willing to accept that good people with guns is the primary deterrent to criminals, we are doomed to repeat the past over and over again.
HEARTLESS wrote: Question: Why do criminals pick places where people are likely to be unarmed to commit their crimes? (Hint: The answer is in the question.)
Until the Left is willing to accept that good people with guns is the primary deterrent to criminals, we are doomed to repeat the past over and over again.
As to your question, if you're going to intimate the answer is in the question, why ask it at all? That being said, I'd rather see you drinking wine than drinking the kool-aid of the gundamentalist extremist mentality. Show us data, verifiable data (other than from the debunked gundamentalist idols) that actually supports your assertion. Truth is, there is none.
Your "solution" appears to be along the lines of more guns.....more guns everywhere. Here's the thing, HEARTLESS, this isn't a left/right argument. It's a gun violence argument.
You've asked earlier to separate the term "gun" from the term "gun violence". We can do that, but it doesn't make the issue of violence perpetrated with a gun go away, just as taking the term "domestic" out of the term "domestic violence" doesn't make the issue of abuse perpetrated by a domestic abuser go away.
Question for you: do you support groups like Open Carry Tarrant County and their leader, Kory Watkins, in their efforts to get the "Left" to accept "that good people with guns is the primary deterrent to criminals"?
HEARTLESS wrote: Question: Why do criminals pick places where people are likely to be unarmed to commit their crimes? (Hint: The answer is in the question.)
Until the Left is willing to accept that good people with guns is the primary deterrent to criminals, we are doomed to repeat the past over and over again.
As to your question, if you're going to intimate the answer is in the question, why ask it at all? That being said, I'd rather see you drinking wine than drinking the kool-aid of the gundamentalist extremist mentality. Show us data, verifiable data (other than from the debunked gundamentalist idols) that actually supports your assertion. Truth is, there is none.
Your "solution" appears to be along the lines of more guns.....more guns everywhere. Here's the thing, HEARTLESS, this isn't a left/right argument. It's a gun violence argument.
You've asked earlier to separate the term "gun" from the term "gun violence". We can do that, but it doesn't make the issue of violence perpetrated with a gun go away, just as taking the term "domestic" out of the term "domestic violence" doesn't make the issue of abuse perpetrated by a domestic abuser go away.
Question for you: do you support groups like Open Carry Tarrant County and their leader, Kory Watkins, in their efforts to get the "Left" to accept "that good people with guns is the primary deterrent to criminals"?
Never heard of Kory Watkins or his group. Since you believe the fault lies with guns and gun owners, push for the release of James Holmes as he must have been under the guns' influence. Then put the two guns on trial. Also, if the police are ever needed, ask them to leave the evil guns at their patrol car and respond with whistles only.
HEARTLESS wrote: Never heard of Kory Watkins or his group. Since you believe the fault lies with guns and gun owners, push for the release of James Holmes as he must have been under the guns' influence. Then put the two guns on trial. Also, if the police are ever needed, ask them to leave the evil guns at their patrol car and respond with whistles only.
And therein lies a big part of the problem.....you "assume" you know what my beliefs are.
You might want to Google Kory Watkins to learn a little more. His advocacy appears to me to be quite similar to yours.
Under the "guns' influence"? Whistles? Really? So, now you're devolving into the asinine?
HEARTLESS wrote: So, how will punishing gun owners, that have broken no laws, end this violence?
Simple answer? It won't. Satisfied?
The problem, though, isn't that gun owners who've broken no laws are being "punished" as you put it. Rather, it's that legal gun owners are so entrenched in their perception(s) that anything and everything anyone tries to do to address the issue of gun violence somehow punishes them. To me, that simply does not wash.
HEARTLESS, I'm going to ask you to explain how laws "punish" law abiding citizens? More specifically, how do gun laws punish you, a law abiding gun owner?
HEARTLESS wrote: Question: Why do criminals pick places where people are likely to be unarmed to commit their crimes? (Hint: The answer is in the question.)
Until the Left is willing to accept that good people with guns is the primary deterrent to criminals, we are doomed to repeat the past over and over again.
As to your question, if you're going to intimate the answer is in the question, why ask it at all? That being said, I'd rather see you drinking wine than drinking the kool-aid of the gundamentalist extremist mentality. Show us data, verifiable data (other than from the debunked gundamentalist idols) that actually supports your assertion. Truth is, there is none.
Your "solution" appears to be along the lines of more guns.....more guns everywhere. Here's the thing, HEARTLESS, this isn't a left/right argument. It's a gun violence argument.
You've asked earlier to separate the term "gun" from the term "gun violence". We can do that, but it doesn't make the issue of violence perpetrated with a gun go away, just as taking the term "domestic" out of the term "domestic violence" doesn't make the issue of abuse perpetrated by a domestic abuser go away.
Question for you: do you support groups like Open Carry Tarrant County and their leader, Kory Watkins, in their efforts to get the "Left" to accept "that good people with guns is the primary deterrent to criminals"?
The term domestic abuse defines the type of abuse. Gun violence conveniently includes suicide, accidental or neglectful, justified self defense as well as murder. So since a gun is just an instrument, unless some is beaten with a gun, there is no gun violence (this is obviously extreme, but so are proposals that negatively effect law abiding gun owners for something they didn't do.)
In several previous posts, many have stated the solution to the problem is both punishment for the perpetrator and career ending intervention. Just because it is a different thread, doesn't change our suggestions.
Jim Wright.
