Oklahoma hospital shooting

[hog88]

Then you're as much of a part of the problem as the people who ONLY want to gun grab. There should always be room for compromise - especially in a country full of unstable people with easy access to a preferred "tool" that is repeatedly used to mass murder children in a place where they should be the safest.

I'm a 2A "guy" I own a AR but I'm also rational enough to understand that while individuals may be safe, competent, and responsible - as a society we are very clearly not.

I wonder how many parents of murdered children in the mass shootings were "no compromise 2a" before their world was shattered.

The problem is the ant-gunners who refuse to try and get what they want through the proper methods. If they will not even attempt to amend the 2A and continue to end run it through legislation and regulations there is no room for compromise.

Oh and piss on your emotional tug.

 

[0nelilreb]

So we’re back to It being a people problem.

Save the idiots and ban everything that can hurt us . It’s a bold concept cotton , let’s see if it pays off .

 

[Septic]

The problem is the ant-gunners who refuse to try and get what they want through the proper methods. If they will not even attempt to amend the 2A and continue to end run it through legislation and regulations there is no room for compromise.

Oh and piss on your emotional tug.

You could have just said "asd;ok lyhsoiud fsiodugausr7239-7rysd7u8fh" and it would have been just as helpful to the discussion.

I get it, you don't really care about the fact that firearm related injuries ARE the number one cause of death in children in adolescents. If you did, you'd be open to actual discussion rather than stomping your feet and folding your arms like child. In fairness, I could say the same about many of the no compromise anti-2a proponents as well.

If you aren't affected by the "emotional tug" of the vision of classrooms of murdered children, perhaps you're one of the empathy lacking sociopaths that probably shouldn't own a gun. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

 

[Vol8188]

States with weaker gun laws have higher rates of firearm related homicides and suicides, study finds - CNN

But not of homicides in general. Isn’t the goal to lower the number of homicides in general? Or is it only bad if someone dies by gun?

 

[Septic]

But not of homicides in general. Isn’t the goal to lower the number of homicides in general? Or is it only bad if someone dies by gun?

Literally no one is looking to tighten gun access because of justifiable firearm homicides. Conflating that within the context of firearm murders is a red herring and an attempt to obfuscate the argument.

So no. The outcry isn’t to lower the number of homicides in general. Just the ones where nuts have virtually unfettered access to tools that are capable of killing hordes of people and children with unbelievable ease.

 

[hog88]

You could have just said "asd;ok lyhsoiud fsiodugausr7239-7rysd7u8fh" and it would have been just as helpful to the discussion.

I get it, you don't really care about the fact that firearm related injuries ARE the number one cause of death in children in adolescents. If you did, you'd be open to actual discussion rather than stomping your feet and folding your arms like child. In fairness, I could say the same about many of the no compromise anti-2a proponents as well.

If you aren't affected by the "emotional tug" of the vision of classrooms of murdered children, perhaps you're one of the empathy lacking sociopaths that probably shouldn't own a gun. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

Yep, thanks for reinforcing the point that we have a people problem.

Just imagine if every time someone experienced a tragedy we passed legislation trying to prevent it from happening again. What a utopia of safety we’d be living in.

 

[MemphisVol77]

Gun accessibility doesn’t have to be the causative agent to present a solution to the problem. This is a logical fallacy.

Also, very sorry about your friend, that really sucks.

I reread my post after your reply last night because I didn't think I'd made a logical fallacy. Sure enough it was there but I was too tired to correct it.
I'll take the penalty, fair enough.

My thoughts got scrambled when I brought up my friend. It wasn't my intention to use an anecdotal incident that personally affects me as an emotional appeal either.
A sincere thank you for addressing that with class btw.

I was leading towards the defined motives or impetus of gun homicide prosecutions being addressed in a manner directly impacting mandatory sentencing. Make life mean mandatory life for all gun homicide. Instead of 25 with a possibility of 7, life means 40 with a possibility of 25.....

I mentioned crack cocaine and it's statistical impact for a very deliberate reason earlier. Mandatory sentencing in regards to that had a very direct and quantifiable effect on the gun homicide statistics discussed earlier.
If our esteemed President had a pair, or was cognizant enough to know if he does; he might have put a good 80's mixtape in the boom box for nostalgia, and brought up his part in that ole' 80's bill mentioning crack cocaine, instead of babbling about just needing a shotgun while defending from predators........

I hate our draconian prison state, and in my ideal world I would immediately support decriminalization of a few lesser drugs, immediate release of a plethora of non violent convicted inmates, do away with the private for profit prison industry.......
That's just a smudge of the stuff I already want anyways listed above.

Before we try taking away any gun rights, can we agree that absolutely no domestic gun violence perpetrators should be given a 2nd chance in cases where the trigger was pulled?

Does the Left want to-do-away-with/lessen/restrict gun rights? Or does the Left want to do away with/lessen gun violence?
One scenario can be done with both sides compromising and reaching across the isle.
As a non gun owning 2A supporter allow me to say the other scenario can't be done much further than it presently has been without rewriting some existing material.

It won't be a detectable spark or powder keg event with direct cause and effect if rewriting any material is handled incorrectly. It would be more like wet grass/rolled hay bails smoldering into an inferno. If you want to irrevocably divide the parties and fracture the republic to a degree that hasn't happened in 160 odd years, the other way will probably get you there sooner than you realize.

 

[Vol8188]

Literally no one is looking to tighten gun access because of justifiable firearm homicides. Conflating that within the context of firearm murders is a red herring and an attempt to obfuscate the argument.

I never mentioned justifiable at all. I’m stating there’s a problem with only looking at gun homicides instead of homicides in general.

The goal of gun legislation should be to limit homicides as a general category. Not to replace gun homicides. So why wouldn’t we compare gun laws or gun ownership rates to homicides in general?

It’s an intentionally misleading claim. If gun control doesn’t reduce homicide, why would we need it?

 

[Septic]

Yep, thanks for reinforcing the point that we have a people problem.

Just imagine if every time someone experienced a tragedy we passed legislation trying to prevent it from happening again. What a utopia of safety we’d be living in.

I stated from the beginning that both sides are the problem. Your "n0 c0mPrOmiZse!" myopia clearly didn't recognize that.

The rest is just deflection from having to acknowledge that you simply don't give a sh*t about the epidemic of mass shootings.

 

[0nelilreb]

Then you're as much of a part of the problem as the people who ONLY want to gun grab. There should always be room for compromise - especially in a country full of unstable people with easy access to a preferred "tool" that is repeatedly used to mass murder children in a place where they should be the safest.

I'm a 2A "guy" I own a AR but I'm also rational enough to understand that while individuals may be safe, competent, and responsible - as a society we are very clearly not.

I wonder how many parents of murdered children in the mass shootings were "no compromise 2a" before their world was shattered.

You can at anytime chose to make up for those of us who are part of the problem by turning over your firearms to a government entity. I have yet to see a firearm of any kind jump in a truck drive to a crowded place to kill someone . Those parents have a right to mad at anything they choose , I would be beyond pissed at the kid that chose to do , his piss poor parents, the teacher that propped the door open and those incompetent cops . Not the tool that was used . Work on the root problem and the result will lessen or go away .

 

[Septic]

I never mentioned justifiable at all. I’m stating there’s a problem with only looking at gun homicides instead of homicides in general.

The goal of gun legislation should be to limit homicides as a general category. Not to replace gun homicides. So why wouldn’t we compare gun laws or gun ownership rates to homicides in general?

It’s an intentionally misleading claim. If gun control doesn’t reduce homicide, why would we need it?

The term "homicide" incorporates justifiable killings in a thread that's specifically about unjustified shootings.

The discussion here is about murders, specifically gun related murders. Any attempt to reframe your opponents position on this matter is disingenuous and not worthy of continued discussion.

 

[Septic]

You can at anytime chose to make up for those of us who are part of the problem by turning over your firearms to a government entity. I have yet to see a firearm of any kind jump in a truck drive to a crowded place to kill someone . Those parents have a right to mad at anything they choose , I would be beyond pissed at the kid that chose to do , his piss poor parents, the teacher that propped the door open and those incompetent cops . Not the tool that was used . Work on the root problem and the result will lessen or go away .

I don't disagree with the gun not being able to shoot itself, but that's a cheap suit of an argument.

A hammer can't build a house without carpenter. But the house can't be built by a carpenter without it.

Both sides need to recognize that it's a multifaceted crisis and that each side will need to sacrifice and compromise. If not, we as a society should just admit we don't give a sh*t that kids are dying.

 

[Vol8188]

The term "homicide" incorporates justifiable killings in a thread that's specifically about shootings.

The discussion here is about murders, specifically gun related murders. Any attempt to reframe your opponents position on this matter is disingenuous and not worthy of continued discussion.

Your term was gun related homicides. Idk why this is so hard for you to understand. We should not be looking at gun related homicides but rather homicides in general.

Unless you are okay with people being killed as long as they’re killed by something other than guns.

So is the goal to reduce homicides in general or replace gun homicides? If it’s to reduce general homicides, data should be regarding homicides in general. Not specific gun homicides. Unless your goal is to merely replace those

 

[McDad]

I don't disagree with the gun not being able to shoot itself, but that's a cheap suit of an argument.

A hammer can't build a house without carpenter. But the house can't be built by a carpenter without it.

Both sides need to recognize that it's a multifaceted crisis and that each side will need to sacrifice and compromise. If not, we as a society should just admit we don't give a sh*t that kids are dying.

Looking forward to your campaign, election, and appointment to mediate the sides.

 

[Vol8188]

The term "homicide" incorporates justifiable killings in a thread that's specifically about unjustified shootings.

The discussion here is about murders, specifically gun related murders. Any attempt to reframe your opponents position on this matter is disingenuous and not worthy of continued discussion.

You realize you didn’t provide data on murder but rather gun homicide?

I’m not the one reframing. I’m stating specifically what your data. You data was specific to gun homicide.

So why would you look at gun homicide rather than homicide?

is your goal to reduce homicides in general or replace gun homicides with other homicides

 

[Septic]

Your term was gun related homicides. Idk why this is so hard for you to understand. We should not be looking at gun related homicides but rather homicides in general.

Unless you are okay with people being killed as long as they’re killed by something other than guns.

So is the goal to reduce homicides in general or replace gun homicides? If it’s to reduce general homicides, data should be regarding homicides in general. Not specific gun homicides. Unless your goal is to merely replace those

What's hard to understand is why you're trying to obfuscate the topic of discussion, mass shootings. You're clearly trying to hijack the thread with a red herring you feel would give your argument more leverage.

You seemed to imply that someone's "goal" was to lower homicides in general. Sure, let's start by tackling the number one cause of those homicides, gun violence.

 

[Septic]

Looking forward to your campaign, election, and appointment to mediate the sides.

Never said I had the answers, but I know where the journey starts.

 

[0nelilreb]

I don't disagree with the gun not being able to shoot itself, but that's a cheap suit of an argument.

A hammer can't build a house without carpenter. But the house can't be built by a carpenter without it.

Both sides need to recognize that it's a multifaceted crisis and that each side will need to sacrifice and compromise. If not, we as a society should just admit we don't give a sh*t that kids are dying.

We never talk about banning hammers or restricting them from from sh!tty carpenters either . We cant have a real discussion when you have leaders saying the 2a doesn’t mean private ownership , nobody needs anything but a shotgun , or we need to restrict or ban high powered firearms like the 9mm . You know as well as we do that these people have no clue about firearms , they can’t fathom that an AR-15 is just a 22 on steroids . How do you sit down and talk to people that not only don’t have a clue about the subject ( a right in this case ) but don’t bother learning anything about it other than it goes pew pew and can hurt you ? Honest question

 

[Vol8188]

What's hard to understand is why you're trying to obfuscate the topic of discussion, mass shootings. You're clearly trying to hijack the thread with a red herring you feel would give your argument more leverage.

You seemed to imply that someone's "goal" was to lower homicides in general. Sure, let's start by tackling the number one cause of those homicides, gun violence.

I’m the one changing the topic? In your last 3 post you’ve moved from “gun related homicides” to “murder” and now to “mass shootings”

You tell me then, what is the goal of gun legislation?

 

[Septic]

You realize you didn’t provide data on murder but rather gun homicide?

I’m not the one reframing. I’m stating specifically what your data. You data was specific to gun homicide.

So why would you look at gun homicide rather than homicide?

is your goal to reduce homicides in general or replace gun homicides with other homicides

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. My data cited "gun homicide" because that's the topic of discussion., try to keep up.

 

[Septic]

I’m the one changing the topic? In your last 3 post you’ve moved from “gun related homicides” to “murder” and now to “mass shootings”

You tell me then, what is the goal of gun legislation?

Yes you're the one changing the topic, you're trying to broaden the discussion to take the heat off of the topic at hand. You do this often and once again, it's not working.

Which legislation are you speaking of?

 

[McDad]

Never said I had the answers, but I know where the journey starts.

Since you know where the journey begins, to be candid, if you don't put yourself in a position of facilitating the journey the question is do you really give a sh*t that kids are dying (to put it in your words)?

 

[Vol8188]

Yes you're the one changing the topic, you're trying to broaden the discussion to take the heat off of the topic at hand. You do this often and once again, it's not working.

Which legislation are you speaking of?

Gun control in general. What is the goal of gun control? If it is to reduce homicide then I’m not changing the topic. You’ve brought up at least 5 different topics in your last few posts without any help from me (suicide, gun related homicide, murder, justifiable homicide, and mass shootings)

 

[C-south]

I'd wave off if I were you too. You were clearly attempting to conflate "cause of death" with "homicide."

By the way, the rest of us are talking about fruit salad. Here's a bowl of it for you.

Guns Became the Leading Cause of Death for American Children and Teens in 2020

So it was roughly 4500 deaths. Of those around 1400 were the result of homicide and not suicide. That alone should tell you of the mental health issues. Aside from that in 2019 there were over 600,000 abortions and I assume it was very similar, if not more, in 2020. What’s the argument you’re trying to make again?

 

[Septic]

We never talk about banning hammers or restricting them from from sh!tty carpenters either . We cant have a real discussion when you have leaders saying the 2a doesn’t mean private ownership , nobody needs anything but a shotgun , or we need to restrict or ban high powered firearms like the 9mm . You know as well as we do that these people have no clue about firearms , they can’t fathom that an AR-15 is just a 22 on steroids . How do you sit down and talk to people that not only don’t have a clue about the subject ( a right in this case ) but don’t bother learning anything about it other than it goes pew pew and can hurt you ? Honest question

So let me rephrase and please tell me if I'm wrong.

We can't have a discussion (you won't have a discussion) because the anti 2a crowd doesn't know enough about firearms to meet your threshold of competence on the subject?

Let me ask you - how many more kids have to die before it doesn't matter that our elected leaders don't know what a gas impingement system is on an AR?