Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[jc456]

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

so when is your legislation coming out to take illegal guns off the streets? You legislate that and then you may get attention. otherwise you have zip.

What is wrong with gun lovers automatically being registered in a posse registry for their State and county?

they are when they purchase one legally.

 

[danielpalos]

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

The point is, the militia is best for the common defense.

especially in cities like chicago. let's get these gang bangers and their illegal guns off the street.

We need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

so when is your legislation coming out to take illegal guns off the streets? You legislate that and then you may get attention. otherwise you have zip.

What is wrong with gun lovers automatically being registered in a posse registry for their State and county?

they are when they purchase one legally.

Registered posse should be able to carry concealed weapons and be available to assist law enforcement.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Cars/trucks are heavily regulated . You need a license to drive and insurance to own.

The nypd also has contacts wh area truck rentals to prevent just such attack’s .

Rumor is the guy got the truck in Florida .

I know a few illegals that drive without a license or insurance, so wrong again!

 

[jc456]

Cars/trucks are heavily regulated . You need a license to drive and insurance to own.

The nypd also has contacts wh area truck rentals to prevent just such attack’s .

Rumor is the guy got the truck in Florida .

I know a few illegals that drive without a license or insurance, so wrong again!

they become known about if they do that.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Cars/trucks are heavily regulated . You need a license to drive and insurance to own.

The nypd also has contacts wh area truck rentals to prevent just such attack’s .

Rumor is the guy got the truck in Florida .

I know a few illegals that drive without a license or insurance, so wrong again!

they become known about if they do that.

If caught.

My point is there are assholes that break the law daily...

 

[jc456]

Cars/trucks are heavily regulated . You need a license to drive and insurance to own.

The nypd also has contacts wh area truck rentals to prevent just such attack’s .

Rumor is the guy got the truck in Florida .

I know a few illegals that drive without a license or insurance, so wrong again!

they become known about if they do that.

If caught.

My point is there are assholes thay break the law daily...

yep understood what you meant. I was giving why they do it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

/----/ HD will get sued because blood sucking lawyers always go after the deep pockets even though HD was a passive victim. HD will most likely settle to avoid the expense of jury trials and the possibility the plaintiffs will win.

Yes, they will. and they will also probably institute new procedures to keep this sort of thing from happening again, which is THE WHOLE PURPOSE of civil litigation.

The gun industry, however, has a special carve out after the DC Sniper case, where the victims won money after the gun industry sold guns to a convicted felon and a minor. Then they went on to market deadlier guns and nastier guns and things like Bump Stocks.

If Home Depot acted like the Gun Industry, they'd be renting trucks that look like this, and then mocking your manliness for not owning one.

Just what do you think will prevent anyone from renting a truck and doing the exact same thing?

And FYI there are millions of pick up trucks for sale in the country so what will stop a guy from buying a big ass truck and an 8 foot snow plow and mowing down a few dozen people?

 

[westwall]

Yeah, but they do it so efficiently, and after the massive terrorist attacks in France and elsewhere using trucks, I feel that all people who wish to buy or rent trucks should have to undergo a background check, and any company that rents a truck that is then used in a crime should be shut down immediately and the owners and workers thrown in prison.

That will show those terrorists who's boss!

Except Truck attacks are still pretty rare. One or two globally a year..not a big thing.

We have a bunch of mass shootings a year. The rest of the world doesn't, they have the good sense to not let people buy guns.

They used to be rare. Now they are becoming commonplace.

• 2002 Lyon car attack, France (building ramming + fire)
• 2006 UNC SUV attack, University of North Carolina, United States (ramming people)
• 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, Scotland, United Kingdom (building ramming + detonating gas cylinders)
• 2008 Jerusalem vehicular attack , Israel (ramming vehicles and people)
• 2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack, Israel (ramming people)
• 2011 Tel Aviv truck attack, Israel (ramming vehicles and people)
• 2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack, Israel (ramming + stabbing)
• May 2013 Murder of Lee Rigby, London, England, United Kingdom (ramming + stabbing)
• 2013 Tiananmen Square attack, China (ramming people + bursting into flames)
• May 2014 Ürümqi attack, China (ramming + throwing bombs off the vehicle)
• 2014 Jerusalem tractor attack, Israel (ramming people + bus)
• 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack, Canada (ramming)
• October 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack, Israel (ramming people)
• November 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack, Israel (ramming + hitting with a metal crowbar)
• 2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack, West Bank (failed ramming + stabbing)
• 2014 Dijon attack, France (ramming people)
• 2014 Nantes attack, France (ramming people)
• 2016 Nice attack, France (ramming people + gunfire)
• 2016 Ohio State University attack, United States (ramming + stabbing)
• 2016 Berlin attack, Germany (shooting truck driver + ramming people)
• 2017 Jerusalem truck attack, Israel (ramming people)
• 2017 Westminster attack, London, England, United Kingdom (ramming + stabbing; some victims were thrown off Westminster Bridge by the ramming)
• 2017 Stockholm attack, Sweden (ramming people)
• June 2017 London Bridge attack, England, United Kingdom (ramming + stabbing).[31]
• 2017 Finsbury Park attack, London, England, United Kingdom (ramming people)
• June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack, Paris, France (ramming a police car)
• 2017 Paris mosque attack, failed car ramming into crowd in front of Creteil mosque in revenge for ISIS attacks[32]
• 2017 Levallois-Perret attack, Levallois-Perret, France (ramming soldiers)

" style="position: relative; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; width: 220px;">

Video of the vehicular ramming at the Unite the Right Rally that killed one person and injured 19

• 2017 Charlottesville attack, during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States (ramming people)
• 2017 Barcelona attack (ramming people)
• 2017 Cambrils attack (ramming people)
• 2017 Edmonton attack, Canada (ramming + stabbing) [33]
• 2017 New York City attack (ramming cyclists and runners)[34]

Other[edit]

• 1973 Olga Hepnarová case, Czechoslovakian woman using a truck to go on a rampage
• 1995 Shawn Nelson case, plumber using a stolen tank to go on a rampage
• 2004 Marvin Heemeyer case, welder using an armored bulldozer to destroy buildings
• 2006 San Francisco SUV rampage, 2006 case of a paranoid schizophrenic man from Afghanistan using an SUV to go on a rampage
• 2008 Akihabara massacre, mass murder using a truck and a dagger
• 2009 attack on the Dutch Royal Family, case of a man driving into spectators on Koninginnedag 2009 in Apeldoorn, Netherlands
• 2010 Hebei tractor rampage, 2010 mass murder using a bucket loader
• 2013 Tumon[35]
• 2013 Venice, Los Angeles (one dead)[36]
• 2014 Sopot attack, Poland[37] (ramming people)
• 2015 Graz van attack, mass murder using an SUV and a knife
• 2016 Scunthorpe road rage[38]
• 2017 Balneário Camboriú road rage[39]
• 2017 Heidelberg attack[40] [41]
• 2017 Müllrose, Germany, drug addict kills two cops while fleeing in stolen car after stabbing his grandmother to death[42]
• 2017 Krewe of Endymion incident[43]
• 2017 Antwerp attack, failed car-ramming in Belgium[44]
• 2017 Guatemala City, a car rammed into a student protest: 13 injured, one dead. [45]
• 2017 Venezuelan protests, several cases of vehicle rammings during opposition marches by security forces or government supporters.[46][47][48][49][50]
• 2017 Times Square car crash[51]
• 2017 Melbourne car attack in Melbourne, Australia in which six people were killed and 36 injured.[52]
• 2017 Sandy attack, car-ramming and shooting in Sandy, Utah[53]
• July 2017 Helsinki attack, Finland, ramming people[54]
• August 2017 Helsinki attack, Finland, failed ramming[55]
• 2017 Sept-Sorts attack, France, ramming a pizzeria[56]

 

[Skull Pilot]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

Do you realize that less than 1% of all murders occur in mass shooting events or that less than 2% of all murders are committed with rifles of any kind?

More than 5 times as many people are killed with knives annually than rifles so if rifles are a "threat to society" then knives must be a 5 times larger threat no?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

You can pass all the laws you want and yet criminals will never care.

It is against the law to murder, so knowing there is a law against it that alone should stop most but it does not.

The tool matters not because you can ban all guns then they will use Trucks, or bats or bombs and yes it is easy to make homemade bombs.

So let look at reality and what we are doing is not working but more laws is not the answer either...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Because the "left" (read: commies) want to disarm us so badly that they masturbate at night thinking about it. They want full-blown communism (socialism) here and they know the only way to do it is by force. If we are armed, they have to put down a rebellion and will likely have much less than half the nation on their side. They must remove the ability to revolt before they "fix" our capitalist way of life.



I applaud you and respect your ability to see the issues in an objective manner.

I don't want to call out hypocrisy because it is hysterically rampant on both "sides" of the isle. One thing they are both consistent about is their authoritarian statism. They don't have our best interest in mind.

Whatever action government takes on the terrorism or gun violence problems, it cannot and must not in the slightest bit deprive us of our liberties. Authoritarians cannot be rewarded for the bad acts of others, or they will be tempted (and have been tempted) to artificially manufacture bad acts so they can further solidify power.

 

[JoeB131]

/----/ And once those new procedures are in place at the truck rental, you'll enjoy watching Muslims sue for discrimination and being profiled.

I always enjoy watching a big corporation get screwed over. Especially Home Depot, those people are bastards. (I worked as a subcontractor at one for two years)

But that's not the point. The point is, the Gun industry is intentionally irresponsible. If you guys weren't terrified a scary Muslim or black man was going to pop out and get you, you wouldn't want enough guns to fight off the Zombie Armageddon.

Their whole business model is built on fear, and having to not sell to the scary people hurts their business plan.

Now, we could have gun ownership like Germany, where they have 17 million gun owners, but they are background checked, thoroughly. But they have gun laws with teeth. And they have very few mass shooting incidents.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You can pass all the laws you want and yet criminals will never care.

It is against the law to murder, so knowing there is a law against it that alone should stop most but it does not.

The tool matters not because you can ban all guns then they will use Trucks, or bats or bombs and yes it is easy to make homemade bombs.

So let look at reality and what we are doing is not working but more laws is not the answer either...

/----/ The law against murder is not to prevent murders as much as for society to punish the murderer and put him away to protect society.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ And once those new procedures are in place at the truck rental, you'll enjoy watching Muslims sue for discrimination and being profiled.

I always enjoy watching a big corporation get screwed over. Especially Home Depot, those people are bastards. (I worked as a subcontractor at one for two years)

But that's not the point. The point is, the Gun industry is intentionally irresponsible. If you guys weren't terrified a scary Muslim or black man was going to pop out and get you, you wouldn't want enough guns to fight off the Zombie Armageddon.

Their whole business model is built on fear, and having to not sell to the scary people hurts their business plan.

Now, we could have gun ownership like Germany, where they have 17 million gun owners, but they are background checked, thoroughly. But they have gun laws with teeth. And they have very few mass shooting incidents.

/----/ We have gun laws with teeth too but they are not always enforced. Same holds true for drunk driving laws.

 

[iceberg]

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Simple.

Home Depot Trucks aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

But I will bet you'll find out that this guy had a harder time renting a truck from the Home Depot than that other nut had building up a small arsenal.

the point he made was whether or not we allow someone's bad actions to change our way of life.

as for your bet - why not prove it vs. lob bullshit out there for someone else to look into? your point, YOU make it.

 

[Slade3200]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

Do you realize that less than 1% of all murders occur in mass shooting events or that less than 2% of all murders are committed with rifles of any kind?

More than 5 times as many people are killed with knives annually than rifles so if rifles are a "threat to society" then knives must be a 5 times larger threat no?

No, you don’t seem to understand the point. Are you trying to understand or are you just reacting?

 

[danielpalos]

Should California, find a way to have a pool of registered posse available to assist law enforcement?

 

[Slade3200]

You can pass all the laws you want and yet criminals will never care.

It is against the law to murder, so knowing there is a law against it that alone should stop most but it does not.

The tool matters not because you can ban all guns then they will use Trucks, or bats or bombs and yes it is easy to make homemade bombs.

So let look at reality and what we are doing is not working but more laws is not the answer either...

YOu are right, criminals will break laws and there is no solution that will eliminate crime and murder. That isnt really the point. But if we can limit access to weapons capable of mass distraction then that could saves lives in some cases, wouldn’t you agree? A guy using a pistol is less dangerous than a guy with a Uzi. So making it difficult to get uzis is a good thing right? Makes us a little safer, and isn’t a tremendous violation of our rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

Do you realize that less than 1% of all murders occur in mass shooting events or that less than 2% of all murders are committed with rifles of any kind?

More than 5 times as many people are killed with knives annually than rifles so if rifles are a "threat to society" then knives must be a 5 times larger threat no?

No, you don’t seem to understand the point. Are you trying to understand or are you just reacting?

So it seems you don't give a shit about any murders unless they happen during a mass shooting.

I'm sure the families of the other 99% of murder victims appreciate that