6 Minutes and 20 Seconds . . .
Needed to murder 17 high school students. A Congress to afraid to pass laws and oppose the NRA and its members, a minority of the population holding the majority hostage to it’s tyranny.
And then there is this dirt bag, Republican Senator Rick Santorum suggesting students should learn CPR rather than becoming engaged in the political process of this nation. I hope they take the time to vote this tribe out of Congress.
Emma Gonzalez versus a Senatorial piece of garbage.
Doctor’s twitter Comments to Rick Santrum:
– Gobsmackingly uninformed. Rick Santorum “instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that– where there is a violent shooter.” perhaps best to leave publichealth and #medicine to docs.
– As a surgeon, I’ve operated on gunshot victims who’ve had bullets tear through their intestines, cut through their spinal cord, and pulverize their kidneys and liver. Rick Santorum telling kids to shut up and take CPR classes is simply unconscionable.
– Marie Antoinette: Stupid peasants, let them eat cake. Rick Santorum: Stupid students, let them learn CPR.
– For 13 years I worked as a physician in a trauma center. If a gunshot victim is pulseless, his chance of survival approaches zero. Neither CPR, transfusions, nor surgery will save him. But scientific facts matter little to smug rhetoric-spewers like Rick Santorum.
– 1. Kids can learn 2 things at once.
2. But prevention of a gunshot wound is better than treatment
3. And by the time you get you CPR, the patient is dead
– In my 1st career I was an OR tech, I scrubbed in & assisted surgeons. I’ve seen gunshot victims who’ve had bullets rip through their spinal cords & intestines & tear their other organs to shreds. Rick Santorum telling kids to be quiet & take CPR classes is simply disgusting.
Young victims of violence in Chicago
By Alex Bordens and Abraham Epton
Chicago Tribune (2016)
Updated automatically with data collected by
the Tribune Breaking News Desk
Chicago’s violence doesn’t have an age limit. Since September 2011, at least 169 people under 17 have been killed in shootings and at least 1,622 people in that age group have been shot. The Tribune will be updating this page as often as we receive reports of children under 17 shot or killed in Chicago.
http://apps.chicagotribune.com/news/local/young_victims/
Hit “upload” too fast just above.
Seems like just the other day I looked at this Chicago Trib auto-updating item and it was only up to 167 killed by gunfire since September 2011 — all under 17. High schools have 17, 18 and 19 year olds too of course. But as long as it keeps happening over and over, overwhelmingly on the wrong side of the tracks nobody or the right side seems to take much notice (until it starts happening to the their kids of course).
At least on the wrong side of the tracks there is a solution — raise wages enough so it’s not the wrong side anymore. Another perpetually ignored item.
Passions are high over this issue, but there are few discussions over what actually works to limit gun deaths. If you want to focus on school (?mass?) shooting then say so. If like Denis you want to highlight teen gun deaths then say so. The are related but far from the same issue, and the optimum solutions are different.
The two latest examples, FL and MD, had dramatically different results. What made them different? MD was one death away from being classified as a mass shooting. Why did it not escalate?
If you want to ban a style of gun, then learn something about that style of weapon. In the 2nd video Linda Chavez described them as guns designed for military use. Which guns were not so designed and then used?
Putting the emotions aside, this is not a simple issue. If you want discussion you have to provide an environment and promote discussion.
Complex problems demand complex solutions. Demanding legislative action is valid, but at least know something about the complexities and history of legislative attempts. Nearly (and maybe) everything proposed legislative solution has/is being implemented in the states. Study their results.
Before the name calling is continued and for the record, I am not a NRA member, but have been a sportsman/ hunting/shooting enthusiast my whole life. I also do not own an Assault Rifle. What ever that is, because defining it is just another of the complexities?
Also, those who think the Australia solution is the best answer, study the constitutional differences which made the Oz solution viable.
watched this last night:
Florida shooting survivors speak at Harvard ahead of March For Our Lives – Students who survived the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School spoke at Harvard University on Tuesday about gun reform.
runs over an hour…it made me feel slow & inarticulate….i don’t know about anyone else, but i’m ready to turn the country over to these kids right now…
Run,
Agreed. Hard to imagine a world where Santorum is paid any attention. His disconnected thoughts serve no purpose, but show how our discussions have deteriorated into pre-stamped patterns, regardless of topic. Gun control, climate change, trickle down economics, same mold for every situation.
Reminds me of:
Mr. Praline: Um…now look…now look, mate, I’ve definitely ‘ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not ‘alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein’ tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
Owner: Well, he’s…he’s, ah…probably pining for the fjords.
Mr. Praline: PININ’ for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got ‘im home?
Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin’ on it’s back! Remarkable bird, id’nit, squire? Lovely plumage!
Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.
(pause)
Owner: Well, o’course it was nailed there! If I hadn’t nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent ’em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
Mr. Praline: “VOOM”?!? Mate, this bird wouldn’t “voom” if you put four million volts through it! ‘E’s bleedin’ demised!
Owner: No no! ‘E’s pining!
Mr. Praline: ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
EM:
I believe you are the only one who has paid attention to the point here. It is just another f***ing deflection. Another, now is not the time. Another, you are too young to be concerned with this grownup problem. Another frustrated “skinhead lesbian” whining about injustice. I hope they do come out and vote this year and in 2020. Teach Rickie Santorum something on Civics.
We have some in our state running for state office and also in congress. They seem to think they will be able to cross the aisle and work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans who to date have shown no willingness to move in our direction unless it favors the status quo which does not work. Whatever . . .
Thank you for the return.
There is a slimy layer of Santorum covering the entire CNN set. Everyone, everyone who works there gets some of it on them.
Note that 27 states already require cpr training in high school. (But not Florida btw). But then also how many school districts include it already in Fl?
Only America could be dumb enough to deliberately allow the creation of a heavily armed right wing militia movement and then pressure them economically by exporting the factory jobs and wrecking their communities. It’s almost like we saw what the Germans did in the early 1930s and said, “hold my beer!”
Banning assault style rifles works to reduce killings.
http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MassShootingFour-1024×745.png
From Wiki on the effectiveness of the 1994 act
“Studies on effectiveness of the legislation
A 2002 study by Koper and Roth found that around the time when the ban became law, assault weapon prices increased significantly, but this increase was reversed in the several months afterward due to a surge in assault weapons production that occurred just before the ban took effect.[2]
In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence”.[30] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes”. The committee noted that the study’s authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[1]
In 2004, a research report commissioned by the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes. That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. The authors also report that “there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.” [31]
In 2004, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, “in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990–1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime. Page 10 of the Brady report, however, adds that “an evaluation of copycat weapons is necessary”. Including “copycat weapons”, the report concluded that “in the post-ban period, the same group of guns has constituted 3.1% of ATF traces, a decline of 45%.”[32] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he “can in no way vouch for the validity” of the report.[33]
A study conducted by Dube in 2013, showed that the passing of the FAWB in 1994 had an insignificant impact on violent crime in Mexico, while the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 combined with political instability was correlated with an increase in gun-related homicides among Mexican municipalities near the border.[34] Also in 2013, Koper reviewed the literature on the ban’s effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He also concluded that the ban did not seem to affect gun crime rates, but may have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[35]
Research by gun advocate John Lott found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates,[36] but provided evidence that the bans may have reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[37] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott’s look at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott’s research accounted for state assault weapon bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
In a 2013 report Samantha Bricknell from the Australian Institute of Criminology, Frederic Lemieux and Tim Prenzler compared mass shootings between America and Australia and found the “1996 NFA coincided within the cessation of mass shooting events” in Australia, and that there were reductions in America that were evident during the 1994–2004 US Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[3]”
I don’t know what happened to my generation. I remember the students protesting the Vietnam war. It was simple reasoning. They were the ones being sent to die, but they could not even vote. Thus no say.
The counter to their protest was as we hear now directed toward these students. Same crap phrases discounting off their undeniable right to speak being they were doing the dying.
They, we got the vote. We got the right of adulthood. They even voted for the one who said he would end it all.
What happened?
I am so hopeful watching these students today. I just want to make sure they do not grow up as my generation did and become what they protested.
Daniel:
I agree with you. As 18 year olds, I hope they all come out and vote.
Jerry Critter, you chart is for mass shootings and does not specify the type of weapon.
Run, Daniel and EM voting in the midterm and Prez elections is the issue driving this movement. Biden said: “Democrats must harness the energy in 2018 or be prepared for 8 more years of Trump.” The Dem party is searching for an election issue. Russia, DACA have or are near failure, and Gun Control is the current windmill of hope. I suspect, it too as an issue, will be reduced by the midterms.
Leaving Trump hatred as the driver of core Dem voters. Some here think that will not be enough. http://angrybearblog.com/2018/03/i-pour-some-cold-water-on-2018-midterm-overoptimism.html
Its the guns. Any bullshit attempt to deflect from that blindingly obvious fact is just that. Bulllshit. For the past twenty years, at the insistence of the bullshitters and those who they have purchased we have legislated as though the solution to gun violence is more guns. We are living with the result. We have done the experiment. The data has been collected. You don’t have to be a genius to analyze it. If the founders had any idea how their work would have been perverted over two hundred years later they would have never dropped a deuce on the constitution. What is there about the phrase “Well regulated militia” that is so difficult to understand? We are idiots under the spell of 1950’s television.
The right wing has a smear campaign that suggests Emma Gonzalez ripped up a copy of the Constitution but here is the real story:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/us/emma-gonzalez-photo-doctored-trnd/index.html
Gotta love how hard CoRev is working for the NRA:
“Research by gun advocate John Lott found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates,”
John Lott has been shown to be an unreliable right wing hack so many times. Anyone you cites his intellectual garbage does zero respect.
“Jerry Critter, you chart is for mass shootings and does not specify the type of weapon.”
This is CoRev’s rebuttal to the chart produced by Mother Jones? I guess he thinks mass murders are carried out by bow and arrows. No wonder he cites John Lott as an authority!
CoRev does research using Wikipedia? I go to the Giffords Law Center who comment in studies on the effectiveness of the Brady bill when it is actually used:
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/effectiveness-brady-actbackground-checks/
BTW – check out for yourself what Koper said about his study:
‘Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.’
The NRA is misrepresenting this research. For which we all hope CoRev is being properly compensated by the NRA.
“Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.” That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.
This was the close of this FactCheck discussion of Koper’s findings. Of course this is far from the message that CoRev portrayed here.
Pgl, why the irrationality? It wasn’t my cite it was Wiki’s, which by the way had several other studies which ranged from insignificant:
“insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence”
and
“did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes”. The committee noted that the study’s authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[1]
and the Brady Center study said before the 1994 Act: blah, blah blah and then after implementation of the Act lower by more blah blah, with the kicker being: “A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he “can in no way vouch for the validity” of the report.[33]”
And you want to complain about, without any specific evidence, a Lott study?
CoRev,
So what?
Pgl, also re-read your Fact-check reference and point out the points supported by data and those which were just Koper’s conjectures. I’ll show you the difference in thinking about the subject and emoting by using your own comment: “Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it MAY help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and EVENTUALLY bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”
May eventually and small are trigger words if you are thinking.
BTW, what was my message?
CoRev:
Your message was:
“Before the name calling is continued and for the record, I am not a NRA member, but have been a sportsman/ hunting/shooting enthusiast my whole life. I also do not own an Assault Rifle. What ever that is, because defining it is just another of the complexities?”
No one has called you or anyone else here names before your initial message/comment and as far as I can tell afterwards.
The limitation on bullet-spewing-weapons in 1994 did not go far enough as noted. It allowed for magazines to be developed with larger capacities for already existing semi-automatic bullet-spewing weapons. In which case, it was not an apples to apples comparison between Australia and the US. Australia went all out and the US half-stepped it in its ban with only banning newer bullet-spewing weapons. In effect, back step it and ban all bullet-spewing weapons and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds that are semi-automatic.
Please do not bore me with an alleged ability to swap out magazines quickly. I am not a sportsman, just an old X-Marine Sergeant, never hunted animals, hunted people, and target shoots distance. The .223 and the 5.56mm are different rounds. You should not fire a 5.56 mm round in a rifle chambered for .223. The throats or leade of the chamber are different. You could cause a malfunction.
Jerry Critter, asks so what? Why cite something that is barely relevant to today’s gun control issues.
CoRev,
You are saying that a significant drop in mass shooting killings is “barely relevant”? I think your comment is barely relevant.
” It wasn’t my cite it was Wiki’s”.
Do you have a clue how Wikipedia works? Any clown can edit it at any time. I use original sources. And if you do not know how tarnished the reputation of John Lott is – you know nothing about anything.
““A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he “can in no way vouch for the validity” of the report.[33]”
[33[?. CoRev is cutting and pasting Wikipedia again. Could he at least tell us what footnote 33 refers to. Like I said earlier – I check original sources. But CoRev does not even bother to tell us what his source is besides some obscure Wikipedia garbage.
Jerry Critter provides us with a Mother Jones graph and CoRev gets all huffy about it. Given that CoRev fails to go to original sources preferring to cut and paste Wikipedia garbage, permit me to provide the detailed research that Mother Jones has been compiling:
ttps://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
@!Run, that actually wasn’t my message. My message was: “Passions are high over this issue, but there are few discussions over what actually works to limit gun deaths.” (My 1st sentence.) You have shown you know something about the common AR-15 type rifle calibers.
@Jerry Critter, your original comment linked mass killings to the 1994 ban: “Banning assault style rifles works to reduce killings”, but the chart never showed:which weapons were used. It implies that the assault weapons ban lowered mass killings, even while not defining the weapons used in each period. Perhaps the article says provides more details, but you have not referred or drawn from it. Today’s issue is improved Gun Control legislation and without knowing the weapons in your study is not relevant to today’s issue.
@pgl, had you read my Wiki reference the footnotes were defined
Pgl, if you are going to gripe about cutting and pasting, don’t mess up your own. Link was incomplete.
US don’t have a gun problem…. it got a people problem.
Kids are shooting up schools at a miniscule rate compared to the morbidity of opioids.
No one is raging to ban opioids, maybe the NRA ain’t so big?
Both opioids and gun violence are a shame and come from the decay of society…. not only the deplorables.
From my small n observations; colleges are having a serious problem keeping the kids off booze and dope, and related lack of good order.
“@Jerry Critter, your original comment linked mass killings to the 1994 ban: “Banning assault style rifles works to reduce killings”, but the chart never showed:which weapons were used. It implies that the assault weapons ban lowered mass killings, even while not defining the weapons used in each period. ”
I’m sorry CoRev but you are really being dishonest here. First of all the weapon of choice was not bows and arrows – a point I made earlier which you ignored. Secondly, I provided Mother Jones details which led to charts like these. I see you ignored that too.
Keep on putting up worthless Wikipedia pages as that is all you got.
My proposal is to put a tax on bullets such that the tax raises enough money to pay for the costs imposed by gun violence. The tax could depend on the leathality of the bullet being higher for an AR-15 bullet(cartridge) than a 12 gauge shotgun shell for example. (A 45 would have a higher tax than a 22 for example because it can do more damage etc.). YOu might only apply it to puchases of more than 10 bullets at a time, thus making mass shooters take more time to get the vast amounts of ammunition they need. (How much ammo is needed to protect a home, my contention is that unless your having a shootout with the police etc, 10 bullets should be adequate.
Ilsm,
C’mon, Man!
Let me know the next time a mass murderer walks into a crowd and kills a bunch of people by foricing them to take opioids.
Just another stupid deflection that is the result of your favorite tool, whataboutism. Y’know, that tactic created by the KGB.
People can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Well. maybe you can’t.
I had hoped to have a discussion of the actual issues surrounding the current gun control movement. Instead we’ve discussed quality of Wiki research, Mother Jones Charts, taxes on bullets, something called bullet-spewing weapons, right wing militias, CPR and slimy ex-politicians.
When ILSM brings up one of the key component issues, the people doing these acts, he gets blasted with an angry rant.
Systems aimed at better identifying a potential perpetrator before the possibility of an act is perhaps most important. Yes, the people performing these mass killings is important. Blaming the weapon is ironic.
There are a myriad of methods to reduce/prevent access to some weapons.
Hardening the schools and other “no shoot” zones is another method for reducing these events.
The blind focus on guns is like focusing on the type of alcohol a drunk driver had before s/he killed. There were over 10,000, just under 29/day, drunk driving deaths in 2016, and in 2017 the drug intoxicated driving deaths actually exceeded those of alcohol. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
We have all kinds of legislation to reduce these incidents, even confiscating the driver’s license, and still we do not confiscate the vehicle. Yet, that is the Democrat’s preferred approach to reducing the much smaller number of mass shooting deaths.
So what is the goal of this gun control legislation, fewer gun deaths or fewer guns?
Sorry. This is all about deflection, a deflection from student paticipating in politics and what happened and Rick Santorum’s attitude towards them. EM has it right. My posts on Opioids are further down the list.
The reason people want access to semi automatic rifles is that they are as effective in defensive mode as in offensive mode. Without semi automatics the drop off in firepower compared to what a criminal, or tyrannical government, might have is considerable and life threatening.
They fear being relatively unarmed in the face of tyranny and anarchy, and, based on the historical record, this fear is justified. That is why the Second Amendment is there. Without the ability to protect yourself, freedom is problematic.
Sammy:
I refuse to take you seriously on this topic. You sound like a 16 year old.
The rapper Killer Mike, believe it or not, has an excellent take on this point of view:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/03/25/rapper-mike-gun-control-promises-return-slavery/
One memorable quote “…..no one attacks NRA meetings. Wonder why?”
CoRev,
I own a bolt action .270. It is more powerful than a 1917 Enfield .303, but same rate of fire. Because the cartridge is same as a .30.06, more powder. Basis is WW I military art.
EM does no thinking…….. straying from gun powder violence as if opoids killing and maiming thousands is not the same wretched society.
As to preventing shootings by policing, it is like treating everyone for cancer whether the tumor would kill them or not.
Blaming the law+ for not bringing in Cruz is a fetch similar to EM thinking.
+NRA think.
So what on the .270, 5.56mm, .223, 30-06 and the .303. We are not talking about opioids. Next time I post on them, feel free.
“I refuse to take you seriously on this topic. You sound like a 16 year old.”
You are the one who is acting like a child. Fingers in ears, humming “I’m not going to listen”” hum,hum.
Like it or not, I stated the position of gun control opponents. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like there is much of a middle ground, but, at least, you should gain some insight. Gun advocates are very well justified, so you should look to other avenues that can reduce these tragedies.
If you look at the latest tragedy, there were a lot of contributors:
1) Mental illness
2) Psychotropic drugs
3) Law enforcement failure to heed multiple warnings
4) Law enforcement inaction at the time of the crime.
5) Schools being a gun free zone.
Yet you focus only on the guns. Co Rev made an excellent point above:
“So what is the goal of this gun control legislation, fewer gun deaths or fewer guns?”
Sammy:
I focused on Santorum not wanting to listen to Emma Gonzalez and other victim’s commentary and telling them it is not to be discussed by them. These are the victims and Santorum, a public servant, and you apparently refuse to listen. There can be no middle ground when the commercial NRA and a minority of citizens practice a tyranny of a minority holding the nation hostage to their demands. Your liberty, freedom, and rights do not extend so far as to hold a nation hostage to the harm being inflicted on them by these imaginary individual rights. The rights of the individual do not extend so far.
No where has the nation even come close to what other nations have done to restrict access to bullet-spewing weapons, greater fire power, and the ability to cause harm. No where in the history of man has the rights of the individual to pursue liberty been so sacrosanct as to allow the violation of the freedom from harm and to live in safely.
No one has taken your assault-type bullet-spewing weapons of the past. The industry and a minority of individuals chose to improve upon them in magazine capacity and capability during the ban due to a loophole. Australia took everything. That is the difference between the US ban and Australia’s ban.
I am a shooter and have been since I was 12 years old as taught by my Scoutmaster. I excelled at it. In 68, I qualified pre-qualification date, at Edson range and did not even fire 10 rounds. I still shoot distance. I am tired of the weak arguments of a few who violated the intent of the ban in 94, those who propose weak arguments of those who claim to be protecting their rights while perpetuating harm on the majority, and tired of the weak arguments proposed as an answer to not listening. In the end, your stance will fail.
” You sound like a 16 year old.”
Sorry. I missed this. You were actually complimenting me. My bad.
“I had hoped to have a discussion of the actual issues surrounding the current gun control movement. Instead we’ve discussed quality of Wiki research, Mother Jones Charts, taxes on bullets, something called bullet-spewing weapons, right wing militias, CPR and slimy ex-politicians.”
Wikipedia is not a research organization. You lead with some cherry picked right wing nonsense so spare us your claim that you wanted an informed discussion.
@Run, “Australia took everything. That is the difference between the US ban and Australia’s ban.” There are far more important differences between Oz and the US that allowed them to ban and pay for confiscating chosen weapons. Even though some weapons are removed from genereal society it hasn’t actually helped the crime issue.
Isn’t your logic just a little confused when you say to Sammy: ” You sound like a 16 year old.” after highlighting 17 YO Emma Gonzalez: “Sorry. This is all about deflection, a deflection from student paticipating in politics and what happened and Rick Santorum’s attitude towards them.” I suspect few here even get Sammy’s irony?
I cited the emotion surrounding the latest anti-gun movement because we just don’t seem to have a rational discussion. You: “Sorry. This is all about deflection, a deflection from student paticipating in politics and what happened and Rick Santorum’s attitude towards them. ”
and
“There can be no middle ground when the commercial NRA and a minority of citizens practice a tyranny of a minority holding the nation hostage to their demands.” But, still laud the tyranny of the teen minority marching and demanding gun control change, while knowing almost nothing about the subject.
We all know how the”camel’s nose under the tent” politics work. We know what the end goal really is, and the past 1994 Ban was just another failed attempt.
So if you want fewer gun deaths the answer is clear: Stop gun suicides. If you want fewer school mass shooting the answer is also clear, harden the schools, as was done in MD. If you really want fewer guns, stop violent crime and make all levels of US government more responsive and protective to their constituents.
If, however, your goal is to eliminate guns, the Australia Solution, prepare yourself for another civil war by buying you own arms, because that “minority of citizens practice a tyranny of a minority” is already well armed.
If you think this is a simple problem then define the problem and propose solution(s). Obviously, the teens you laud can not, and so far neither have the adults, because they can not do so without emotionalism. If banning is a solution, we can not even define what we want banned: “bullet spewing thing a bobs”. What gun doesn’t spew a bullet?
Your emotion, comments, etc. and Sammy’s comments never touched the topic of the post. This is your typical modus operandi CoRev, highjack, deflect, go off topic, etc. There is no room for this here at Angry Bear. You were answered on the difference between Australia and the US with their ban on bullet-spewing weapons and the US. That is and your continuous massaging of it has no bearing.
There is no rationality because there is never ever time to have a discussion in Republican-minds as proposed by the foreign influenced NRA bought and paid for Republicans do not want to have one beyond the status quo. In the end you will lose and those of us who are more rational with our bullet-spewing weapons will lose also because of your ignorance. SCOTUS Justice had it right, Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg are asking for too little. We should be asking for a repeal of the misinterpreted 2nd Amendment as the present interpretation by Roberts and Scalia is a fraud on this nation.
“Without semi automatics the drop off in firepower compared to what a criminal, or tyrannical government, might have is considerable and life threatening.” -Sammy-
I forget who the comedian was who, when talking about creationists, said: “they think The Flintstones is a documentary”. In this matter, Sammy thinks “Red Dawn” is a documentary. If you have ever seen this movie you’ll understand what I am saying. If you have not seen this movie, congratulations on your good fortune.
In way of explanation, it is about US teens fighting an invasion of brown people from cuba and nicaraqua(led by Communist Russians) in some western state. Basically, if you could edit out the russians behaving badly, the movie would be like a wet dream for every trump voter. Beyond silly to think a bunch of teens, or adults, are going to be an effective deterrent against trained troops, but machine guns.
Which brings up the home defense thing. If possible, that is almost more laughable. If you are not carrying a loaded machine gun with you at all times, what’s the point? It’s like they think that “home invaders” are like the cable repairman:
“We have scheduled your home invasion between 2pm and 4pm on Wednesday. Please be locked and loaded”.
EM, laughably clueless.
CoRev,
All you are doing is nibbling around the edges. If you really want fewer gun deaths, address the problem directly, reduce the numbers of gun. It is clear. The number of shooting and the number of deaths are directly related to the number of gun!
Jerry Critter, >1/2 to 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. What you are doing is blaming the vehicle or the alcohol for drunk driving deaths. We’ve done a pretty good job on drunk driving deaths by concentrating on the people problem.
Concentrating on guns while ignoring the person behind the trigger truly is nibbling around the edges. The inanimate gun can not cause anything without that person.
Walking and chewing gum at the same time is hard, so no one should try to do either.
Background checks, licensing, training, testing, periodic retesting, periodic additional background checks are all ways of dealing with the “people” problem needed in addition to limiting types of guns, gun magazines, and modes of firing. Nobody is proposing only one solution as a cure-all.
Jerry Critter, agreed, but yours is the 1st comment to address these kinds of actions, and that is after being lead here. All your other comments, and most others focused on the inanimate gun.
Thank you, CoRev, for leading me to a more extensive list of items. 😜
You’r welcome! At least you got there, although I am exhausted. 😉