Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

when you claim that there is no "gun violence" and there are no "assault weapons" you lose all credibility.   these are ignorant and false statements that just deflect from actual discussion.  please stop doing it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're also using the wrong definition of assault in relation to assault weapons.   in this context, the assault being referred to is "a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces."   it has nothing to do with a physical attack on another person.   the name reflects that this type of weapon originated as an offensive weapon designed for the military.

Quote

Definition of assault

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a violent physical or verbal attack

b: a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces

c: a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)an assault on drug trafficking

2law

when you look at the actual context of the term, your argument that there are assault knives, spoons and forks is just ignorant and false as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

Certainly an interesting correlation described therein.  One might wonder that all of the extant weapons at that time not being used in massacres, or one might draw a conclusion that those interested in performing such acts were not extant gun owners and needed to procure weapons.  If the latter, well maybe such bans are very effective.  this could be an argument for such bans but perhaps against the need for confiscation. It could also be a coincidence, unrelated to th eban but explainable, I suppose by other trends, jailing, demographics of echo booms in the population and the trend for such crimes to be somewhat age specific.  Me, I am not one to readily believe in coincidence when the trends are so strong both pre and post ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

But it doesn't address all violence, so why should we do it?   There will still be mass shootings.   Seems like we should do something specific to lower the frequency and number of deaths in mass shootings.

yes, it addresses ALL violence

eliminate it all should be the goal 

 

society has nothing to fear from people who are good and honest and don't want to harm others - fact

those who ARE violent, criminal, dishonest and such ? we don't need them in our society

agreed ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh if only people fit neatly into the artificially created dichotomous categories.  What if some folks are mostly honest and generally non-violent, but can stray from those moorings from time to time?  What if, in fact, the latter is the largest demographic and the artificial categories nearly unpopulated?  No matter.  Rhetorical device with no practical application other than obfuscation.  

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

yes, it addresses ALL violence

eliminate it all should be the goal 

 

society has nothing to fear from people who are good and honest and don't want to harm others - fact

those who ARE violent, criminal, dishonest and such ? we don't need them in our society

agreed ?

so again, your plan will eliminate all violence? seems like you're just lying again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I think he said he wants to bring back mental institutions and lock them up for life. 

ETA- 0 clue how that stops all violence.  I guess they just magically wont be violent in the institution? 

Not locking them up for life, but executing them. Makes a ton of sense that increasing governmental violence will stop all violence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

yes, it addresses ALL violence

eliminate it all should be the goal 

 

society has nothing to fear from people who are good and honest and don't want to harm others - fact

those who ARE violent, criminal, dishonest and such ? we don't need them in our society

agreed ?

Even if we could identify a group of such people, this statement as articulated is false.

The road to hell is not paved with malice aforethought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Ahh if only people fit neatly into the artificially created dichotomous categories.  What if some folks are mostly honest and generally non-violent, but can stay from those moorings from time to time?  what if, in fact, the latter is the largest demographic and the artificial categories nearly unpopulated?  No matter.  rhetorical device with no practical application other than obfuscation.  

SC's odd thoughts regarding violence and adoption of laws lead me to this thought experiment.  For these purposes, the population is static with no changes to age, immigration, etc.

Year 0:  All current laws in place.   Punching someone in the face is illegal.

Year 1:  The government declares that punching someone in the face shall be legal in all circumstances.   I think it is safe to assume that the number of people getting punched in the face will rise with the removal of the threat of prosecution.   The question, though, is why?   SC's view of the world is that there are suddenly more violent people, since criminals don't obey laws anyway, so it couldn't be the change in law.  I believe that people are exactly violent as they have always been, but with the removal of laws against punching people in the face, they no longer need to restrain themselves.

Year 3:   The government reinstates laws prohibiting punching people in the face.   I assume that the number of people getting punched in the face lowers, because people generally obey laws.   But I wonder if the taste of violence without consequence results in a higher rate of face punching than in year 0?  I think it would.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, -fish- said:

SC's odd thoughts regarding violence and adoption of laws lead me to this thought experiment.  For these purposes, the population is static with no changes to age, immigration, etc.

Year 0:  All current laws in place.   Punching someone in the face is illegal.

Year 1:  The government declares that punching someone in the face shall be legal in all circumstances.   I think it is safe to assume that the number of people getting punched in the face will rise with the removal of the threat of prosecution.   The question, though, is why?   SC's view of the world is that there are suddenly more violent people, since criminals don't obey laws anyway, so it couldn't be the change in law.  I believe that people are exactly violent as they have always been, but with the removal of laws against punching people in the face, they no longer need to restrain themselves.

Year 3:   The government reinstates laws prohibiting punching people in the face.   I assume that the number of people getting punched in the face lowers, because people generally obey laws.   But I wonder if the taste of violence without consequence results in a higher rate of face punching than in year 0?  I think it would.   

 

What frustrates me the most with SC is that he thinks we should be stricter in enforcing the law because it's a major deterrent to criminal behavior, while also saying that there is no point to making laws because criminals will just break them anyways.  Every potential solution gets rebutted with one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

no.   you are conflating the legal concept of assault with a definition of "assault rifle" or "assault weapon."  you're just wrong.  

But you have to admire his resolve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zow said:

But you have to admire his resolve. 

I think you're conflating "resolve" with "lead poisoning."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -fish- said:

For which?   Assault weapons are defined in the legislation that regulates them, which includes multiple states and the 1994 regulation.  There isn't a single definition.   Assault weapons are what applicable legislation defines them to be.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Interesting you change the term from Assault Rifle to Assault Weapon.  Even then you are quoting the portion that fits your narrative.  You completely ignored the same Wikipedia entry that point out the term was not created by the Gun Industry. 

"In the past, the names of certain military weapons used the phrase, such as the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977".  This was over a decade before the book mentioned in the footnotes.

Assault Rifle on the other hand was the literal name of a German gun. So it has been in use way prior to what your are referencing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

at least 2400 people are shot hunting annually. Luckily only about 75 die. 

This actually provides further proof of just how lethal assault rifles are during mass shootings. I mean look at el paso. 22 dead out of 46 shot. 

Out of how many? Last I saw it was over 35 million.

Your comparison is not even close to being right.  You comparing an accidental shooting which is most likely a mishandling of a gun to a targeted shooting with the intent to kill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

you're also using the wrong definition of assault in relation to assault weapons.   in this context, the assault being referred to is "a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces."   it has nothing to do with a physical attack on another person.   the name reflects that this type of weapon originated as an offensive weapon designed for the military.

when you look at the actual context of the term, your argument that there are assault knives, spoons and forks is just ignorant and false as well.

Must have missed the assault spoon and fork comment the other poster made or your making up details not sure which.

As far as assault knives they are a thing even to the definition you highlighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

I was actually shocked to read that alcohol was only a factor in 10% of treestand falls and 1.5% of firearm related injuries. Not sure how reliable some of these hunting sources are, but seems to be a commonly repeated stat and I don't find anything debunking it. 

Seems stupidity is a much bigger cause. Who knew?

  

Yeah, my source for my post was South Park. I was going for funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, zDragon said:

Interesting you change the term from Assault Rifle to Assault Weapon.  Even then you are quoting the portion that fits your narrative.  You completely ignored the same Wikipedia entry that point out the term was not created by the Gun Industry. 

"In the past, the names of certain military weapons used the phrase, such as the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977".  This was over a decade before the book mentioned in the footnotes.

Assault Rifle on the other hand was the literal name of a German gun. So it has been in use way prior to what your are referencing.  

Well, no, the German gun was a Sturmgewehr, which translated is consistent with the concept of an attack or "storm."   It still has nothing to do with "assault" as SC uses it.  And even though there was a weapon with a German name used in WWII, "assault rifle" didn't become common in use in the US until gun manufacturers began using it in marketing.   

Typically legislation refers to "assault weapons" to include semi-automatic shotguns with particular traits.   Assault rifle would be a subset of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Dickies said:

What frustrates me the most with SC is that he thinks we should be stricter in enforcing the law because it's a major deterrent to criminal behavior, while also saying that there is no point to making laws because criminals will just break them anyways.  Every potential solution gets rebutted with one or the other.

Combine that with saying that weapons don't matter, and the violent people can use bats and knives.  Then he also admits he couldn't defend his family with a bat or knife as effectively, especially if the intruder had a gun, because that is a superior weapon.   :loco:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Well, no, the German gun was a Sturmgewehr, which translated is consistent with the concept of an attack or "storm."   It still has nothing to do with "assault" as SC uses it.  And even though there was a weapon with a German name used in WWII, "assault rifle" didn't become common in use in the US until gun manufacturers began using it in marketing.   

Typically legislation refers to "assault weapons" to include semi-automatic shotguns with particular traits.   Assault rifle would be a subset of that.

You said "The term assault rifle was first used by the gun industry for marketing purposes.".  

This is a false statement.  It looks good for what you want to use it for but in fact is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

no

its actually insulting to say hear such a blanket statement of ignorance 

I thought that South Park line was more well known than it apparently is.

Here is what I was quoting: https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/9ab4e9bc-cbc4-4ae5-babc-6f0e2b994dba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, zDragon said:

You said "The term assault rifle was first used by the gun industry for marketing purposes.".  

This is a false statement.  It looks good for what you want to use it for but in fact is wrong.

Whether you want to use "assault rifle, "assault firearm," or "assault weapon," the modern usage was instituted post World War II by gun manufacturers to market their products.   As someone fluent in German, sturmgeweher literally translates to "storm gun."   The German refers to surrounding or moving around, not to rain, etc.  So "assault rifle" is a fair translation.   

Quote

 

“Assault rifle” was first used to describe a military weapon, the Sturmgewehr, produced by the Germans in World War II. The Sturmgewehr — literally “storm rifle,” a name chosen by Adolf Hitler — was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire. It was the progenitor for many modern military rifles.  

But the term “assault rifle” was expanded and broadened when gun manufacturers began to sell firearms modeled after the new military rifles to civilians. In 1984, Guns & Ammo advertised a book called “Assault Firearms,” which it said was “full of the hottest hardware available today.”

“The popularly held idea that the term ‘assault weapon’ originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong,” Mr. Peterson wrote. “The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.”

 

link

It's an odd semantic argument to make, particularly when I've repeatedly stated that an assault weapon is whatever a law defines it to be.   Rifles are a subset of weapons, so in many cases, "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are used interchangeably.

In any case, contrary to Mr. Cat's outright lies, they most certainly do exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Whether you want to use "assault rifle, "assault firearm," or "assault weapon," the modern usage was instituted post World War II by gun manufacturers to market their products.   As someone fluent in German, sturmgeweher literally translates to "storm gun."   The German refers to surrounding or moving around, not to rain, etc.  So "assault rifle" is a fair translation.   

link

It's an odd semantic argument to make, particularly when I've repeatedly stated that an assault weapon is whatever a law defines it to be.   Rifles are a subset of weapons, so in many cases, "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are used interchangeably.

In any case, contrary to Mr. Cat's outright lies, they most certainly do exist.

Seems to me no matter what you say your wrong as proved by your links.  Sure say "modern" so it fits your point. From what I can tell from your links is the US military was already using the term along with others and the Germans named there firs tone after it.  It seem the industry had a book advertised in Guns & Ammo way after for their first use of the term.

Why are you mentioning anything about Mr. Cat? Not sure how that fits this conversation. Guess your obsessed with that poster or are you saying your lies are better than his lies? What did lies come up again? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zDragon said:

Seems to me no matter what you say your wrong as proved by your links.  Sure say "modern" so it fits your point. From what I can tell from your links is the US military was already using the term along with others and the Germans named there firs tone after it.  It seem the industry had a book advertised in Guns & Ammo way after for their first use of the term.

Why are you mentioning anything about Mr. Cat? Not sure how that fits this conversation. Guess your obsessed with that poster or are you saying your lies are better than his lies? What did lies come up again? 

 

you quoted my post responding to SC's lie that "there are no assault weapons."   even with your irrelevant semantic arguments, it's clear that there are, in fact, assault weapons.   that's why lies come up again.  because we were discussing a lie.   hope that helps.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and :lol: at Sturngewehr being the resson there is a term called assault rifle. Because Americans are famous for being linguists :lmao:

Edited by msommer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, -fish- said:

you quoted my post responding to SC's lie that "there are no assault weapons."   even with your irrelevant semantic arguments, it's clear that there are, in fact, assault weapons.   that's why lies come up again.  because we were discussing a lie.   hope that helps.  

I responded to your statement that the Gun industry originally came up with the term. Which it is obvious they did not and that is not semantics.

I could care less about SC and you calling each other liars.  I simply wanted to know the basis of your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zDragon said:

I responded to your statement that the Gun industry originally came up with the term. Which it is obvious they did not and that is not semantics.

I could care less about SC and you calling each other liars.  I simply wanted to know the basis of your statement.

And you’ve ignored two sources confirming what I said.   I’m done.  Believe what you want.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Even if we could identify a group of such people, this statement as articulated is false.

The road to hell is not paved with malice aforethought. 

actually with violent criminals the road is paved for a very long time - repeat offenders etc

those groups are identified - its why people are caught before they act, its why we look in retrospect and think damn, that guy people knew was violent the authorities just didn't do anything etc etc

malice is involved often in crimes - aforethought too

 instant violence from people never before violent etc is not common 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

What if some folks are mostly honest and generally non-violent, but can stray from those moorings from time to time? 

we just accept it as part of the free society we live in .... like, we accept 1 million drunk drivers on the road every year, right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, -fish- said:

And you’ve ignored two sources confirming what I said.   I’m done.  Believe what you want.  

you cannot admit being wrong

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you cannot admit being wrong

 

Since I provided multiple sources showing I’m right, it would be awfully silly.  

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

actually with violent criminals the road is paved for a very long time - repeat offenders etc

those groups are identified - its why people are caught before they act, its why we look in retrospect and think damn, that guy people knew was violent the authorities just didn't do anything etc etc

malice is involved often in crimes - aforethought too

 instant violence from people never before violent etc is not common 

Only a touch over half of violent offenders taken to court have a previous conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Only a touch over half of violent offenders taken to court have a previous conviction.

link ?

what about murderers - people using guns in their violent acts ... what's those numbers ?

and .... 50% reduction ... doesn't that sound good? banning AR15's will result in 0% reduction in violence.... which are the Democrats all in on ? 

:(  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

link ?

what about murderers - people using guns in their violent acts ... what's those numbers ?

and .... 50% reduction ... doesn't that sound good? banning AR15's will result in 0% reduction in violence.... which are the Democrats all in on ? 

:(  

Sorry, I missed the conversation - what would result in a 50% reduction?  What's the action that's going to be taken?

And it's about 2/3 of the murderers.  Of course, we're talking about any conviction for a felony or misdemeanor.  If you're talking about previous felony convictions, it's about 40%.  At least it was last time I looked up the BJS stats - they may be old.

As far as violent felons who had previous violent felonies, it was less than 20% last I looked.

I'll look for a link to BJS studies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

And you’ve ignored two sources confirming what I said.   I’m done.  Believe what you want.  

The sources you provided show references prior to what you are trying to say. Then you changed the terms you wanted to use, then you went on to semantics, then on to modern age. i'm sure you next point of reason would be in the last three decades, etc,etc.

I've already figured out that you were wrong since you provided your sources.  So really I'm just filling time but seems like you have a unhealthy obsession here. I'd suggest taking a break to level your thought process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 banning AR15's will result in 0% reduction in violence.... which are the Democrats all in on ? 

:(  

Available factual data says otherwise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

Since I provided multiple sources showing I’m right, it would be awfully silly.  

Your source proved you wrong.  

"The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler........However, other sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the production order"

 

BTW...my last response to this.  No need to have a conversation with someone who doesn't read there own resources.

Edited by zDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zDragon said:

Your source proved you wrong.  

"The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler........However, other sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the production order"

 

BTW...my last response to this.  No need to have a conversation with someone who doesn't read there own resources.

Show any English speaker using the translated term.  I don’t care if the Vikings had a gun that translated to assault rifle.  It didn’t become part of our lexicon until later.   In any case, SC claims the term was made up by liberals.  Since the earliest use was by a Nazi (in German) or by the gun industry, he’s wrong.  But thanks for playing.  As always, your contribution has been pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF? 

Who responds to a conversation with their alias? Seems odd. 

 

(unless the other username was banned. In which case, using an alias is against forum rules)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

Available factual data says otherwise.  

you don't have a credible source - and stats from 30 years ago ? please

common sense is enough to see that vast majority of violence that chooses guns chooses handguns ... remove the AR15 and they'll just choose ..... what ? c'mon, guess what they'll use -fish- .... guesses ? any guesses at all ?

if Ford Mustangs were used in 2% of all DUI deaths, and we wanted to stop DUI's .... banning Ford Mustangs would be a great idea - that's Beto and the liberal left right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Sorry, I missed the conversation - what would result in a 50% reduction?  What's the action that's going to be taken?

And it's about 2/3 of the murderers.  Of course, we're talking about any conviction for a felony or misdemeanor.  If you're talking about previous felony convictions, it's about 40%.  At least it was last time I looked up the BJS stats - they may be old.

As far as violent felons who had previous violent felonies, it was less than 20% last I looked.

I'll look for a link to BJS studies

high repeat criminals - mix in the other % of violence associated with illegal drug use ...........  I think those two things need addresses/attacked and leave law abiding gun owners alone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

high repeat criminals - mix in the other % of violence associated with illegal drug use ...........  I think those two things need addresses/attacked and leave law abiding gun owners alone

Okay.  Felons are already banned from possessing a firearm.  What are you proposing be done to lower the rate by 50% as you just stated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

Okay.  Felons are already banned from possessing a firearm.  What are you proposing be done to lower the rate by 50% as you just stated?

I know that, we also have stacks of laws that bind felons and citizens .... common sense laws, they're in place, right now.

You are right - how do we stop them then? pretty please with sugar on top like Biden suggests with signs? no - I propose instead of early releases and a lenient system, make violence exceptionally hard punished - make it clear no tolerance. Teach it in schools right along side anti-bullying and anti-drug use.

I would like to see pro-gun campaigns too - showing that defense rifles and acceptance weapons are not bad - its using them badly that's bad

But again there are so many layers - economy, get rid of thug nation and gangs, illegal drug use, poor poverty areas etc etc .... another entire topic but focusing on all that would actually change things

taking away a rarely used gun in crimes? will change nothing but hamper 15 million to 60 million legal law abiding people 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I know that, we also have stacks of laws that bind felons and citizens .... common sense laws, they're in place, right now.

You are right - how do we stop them then? pretty please with sugar on top like Biden suggests with signs? no - I propose instead of early releases and a lenient system, make violence exceptionally hard punished - make it clear no tolerance. Teach it in schools right along side anti-bullying and anti-drug use.

I would like to see pro-gun campaigns too - showing that defense rifles and acceptance weapons are not bad - its using them badly that's bad

But again there are so many layers - economy, get rid of thug nation and gangs, illegal drug use, poor poverty areas etc etc .... another entire topic but focusing on all that would actually change things

taking away a rarely used gun in crimes? will change nothing but hamper 15 million to 60 million legal law abiding people 

 

I’m not asking you what you don’t like. I’m asking what your policies will be to, as you say, stop the people with records from committing acts of violence.  

We aren’t going to send them all back to elementary school.  We aren’t going to stop all crime. I’m asking what concrete policies you’d like to see instead of the concrete policies others have suggested. So far I’ve seen anti-violence and anti-bullying campaigns in schools. That’s it. 

“Make violence exceptionally hard punished” means nothing to me. What penalties do you want to see? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I know that, we also have stacks of laws that bind felons and citizens .... common sense laws, they're in place, right now.

You are right - how do we stop them then? pretty please with sugar on top like Biden suggests with signs? no - I propose instead of early releases and a lenient system, make violence exceptionally hard punished - make it clear no tolerance. Teach it in schools right along side anti-bullying and anti-drug use.

I would like to see pro-gun campaigns too - showing that defense rifles and acceptance weapons are not bad - its using them badly that's bad

But again there are so many layers - economy, get rid of thug nation and gangs, illegal drug use, poor poverty areas etc etc .... another entire topic but focusing on all that would actually change things

taking away a rarely used gun in crimes? will change nothing but hamper 15 million to 60 million legal law abiding people 

 

pardon my ignorance, but what's an acceptance weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I’m not asking you what you don’t like. I’m asking what your policies will be to, as you say, stop the people with records from committing acts of violence.  

We aren’t going to send them all back to elementary school.  We aren’t going to stop all crime. I’m asking what concrete policies you’d like to see instead of the concrete policies others have suggested. So far I’ve seen anti-violence and anti-bullying campaigns in schools. That’s it. 

“Make violence exceptionally hard punished” means nothing to me. What penalties do you want to see? 

I've been explaining for 400 pages - go back and read them all.

banning and confiscating firearms for law abiding citizens isn't the answer - what IS the answer is harder that's true, its to attack the core problem of violence.

exceptionally hard penalties is a good start - I would love to see people know that if they murder, they'll be caught and executed in a few months time. That Nikolas Cruz lives today is a travesty IMO and a disgrace to the memory of those he killed. That's a deterrent and it has merit but its not the only thing.

again ... that's a many faceted subject, its very easy to ask "what would you do ?" and then respond " well then, lets ban some guns since you don't have a concrete answer"

and you know that when you ask it - start a thread, I'll join in discussing all the options to make this a country with fewer violent people. to do that - you need to ask why they're violent, right ? if they're just that way  - then you have to remove them from society or just accept violence. If they're turning that way for drugs, focus on that. If they're being violent by crimes of passion, by poverty etc, all that can be looked at. its a deep subject, you know this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, the rover said:

pardon my ignorance, but what's an acceptance weapon?

is just a description like liberals use to describe things ....... I also call it a weapon of peace, weapons of understanding and weapons of defense

everyone likes to add words ... right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

is just a description like liberals use to describe things ....... I also call it a weapon of peace, weapons of understanding and weapons of defense

everyone likes to add words ... right ?

words have meaning.   when you misuse them you just make it more difficult to understand what you're saying.   I guess you're still referring to your lie about liberals creating the term "assault rifle" even though you've been proven wrong.   this just makes you look even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

words can change, all the time

when people attach words for political agenda

assault is an action ........ and my semi-auto Remington hunting rifle from 1970 isn't any more "assaulting" than it is "sleepy" or "accepting" or "tolerant"

its a gun - it doesn't do actions

oh ... its not a weapon of war either, and yet, its also high velocity, a very similar to what Beto said needed to be confiscated - and the Democrats and Liberals roared in applause at his words :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.