Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[Skull Pilot]

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.

A fully automatic Uzi is already a restricted firearm.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Of course I do, why would you say that? You are bringing up a completely different issue. Such a lazy way of debating

 

[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.

A fully automatic Uzi is already a restricted firearm.

Do you support that restriction?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

A fully automatic Uzi is already a restricted firearm.

Do you support that restriction?

I really have no issue with the automatic weapon restrictions in place.

But I do have an issue with the move to ban semiautomatic weapons

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Disarming Americans is a liberal agenda. Show us one liberal agenda that started with X and ended with X once they got what they desired.

It didn't happen with gays, it didn't happen with the environment, it didn't happen with tobacco products, and it won't happen with guns. Like all liberal agendas, they say they only want X, and after X gets old, they go to Y, then Z..........

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Of course I do, why would you say that? You are bringing up a completely different issue. Such a lazy way of debating

Then why poo poo the fact that 5 times a many people are killed annually with knives than with rifles?

Clearly knives are the bigger threat to society than rifles

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Disarming Americans is a liberal agenda. Show us one liberal agenda that started with X and ended with X once they got what they desired.

It didn't happen with gays, it didn't happen with the environment, it didn't happen with tobacco products, and it won't happen with guns. Like all liberal agendas, they say they only want X, and after X gets old, they go to Y, then Z..........

Anyone who denies that the assault rifles ban is nothing but the first step to achieving the goal of banning all semiautomatic rifles is a liar

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

/----/ 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.

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics, they would be much closer to all those anti-gun countries you on the left brag about so much.

It's not the guns, it's the people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Disarming Americans is a liberal agenda. Show us one liberal agenda that started with X and ended with X once they got what they desired.

It didn't happen with gays, it didn't happen with the environment, it didn't happen with tobacco products, and it won't happen with guns. Like all liberal agendas, they say they only want X, and after X gets old, they go to Y, then Z..........

Anyone who denies that the assault rifles ban is nothing but the first step to achieving the goal of banning all semiautomatic rifles is a liar

Not to mention we did have an assault weapons ban, and it produced no results. That's why the Republican Congress never renewed it after ten years. Anti-gunners hate when you bring that up.

 

[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.

A fully automatic Uzi is already a restricted firearm.

Do you support that restriction?

I really have no issue with the automatic weapon restrictions in place.

But I do have an issue with the move to ban semiautomatic weapons

I think it is a fine debate to have. The merits behind the auto restrictions are the same merits for those that argue for further restrictions. Of course there are always going to be those who push for more and there are going to be those who want none and then there is the middle majority whose limitations vary, thus the debate.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Of course I do, why would you say that? You are bringing up a completely different issue. Such a lazy way of debating

Then why poo poo the fact that 5 times a many people are killed annually with knives than with rifles?

Clearly knives are the bigger threat to society than rifles

again, that isn't the argument... It is about the destructive power that we legally allow people to hold... Somebody storming a night club or concert with a knife may still kill a couple people but it wouldn't be anywhere near the damage they would do with a gun, or with an auto, or with a bomb... I think you understand

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Firearm ownership is none of your business, and certainly none of the federal government business.

Again, until the majority who don't own guns or even sensible gun owners who don't want crazy people to have them decided "enough is enough".

Nobody wants crazy people to have them now. But we are a country of 320 million people. In a country this large, you do have your share of crazy people. If Democrats didn't make everything into politics, maybe there would be a way to improve the system. However Democrats are less concerned about the advancement of our country than they are the advancement of their party.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Of course I do, why would you say that? You are bringing up a completely different issue. Such a lazy way of debating

Then why poo poo the fact that 5 times a many people are killed annually with knives than with rifles?

Clearly knives are the bigger threat to society than rifles

again, that isn't the argument... It is about the destructive power that we legally allow people to hold... Somebody storming a night club or concert with a knife may still kill a couple people but it wouldn't be anywhere near the damage they would do with a gun, or with an auto, or with a bomb... I think you understand

I am looking at annual totals.

Personally I don't think a murder that occurs in a mass shooting is any different from a murder that occurs any other time with any other weapon.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most of the sellers at gun shows are licensed and run background checks.

"Most'? "most" implies that are some who don't run background checks.

And the crooks know who those guys are, which TOTALLY DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF A BACKGROUND CHECK!

Not many gun crime are committed with guns purchased at a gun show. Most of the guns are purchased by a legal buyer who sells them to people not supposed to be buying guns. Either that or they get their hands on a stolen weapon.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Of course I do, why would you say that? You are bringing up a completely different issue. Such a lazy way of debating

Then why poo poo the fact that 5 times a many people are killed annually with knives than with rifles?

Clearly knives are the bigger threat to society than rifles

again, that isn't the argument... It is about the destructive power that we legally allow people to hold... Somebody storming a night club or concert with a knife may still kill a couple people but it wouldn't be anywhere near the damage they would do with a gun, or with an auto, or with a bomb... I think you understand

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a kid, people started to poison food. That's the reason we have all these safety tabs and anti-tampering containers today. Our two largest mass murders in this country happened with not one gun being used..........not one bullet.

 

[blackhawk]

Hypocrisy is not new in politics or unique to one side the left wanted to politicize Las Vegas the right wants politicize New York I know both sides will do it it would be nice if they wouldn’t start less than 24 hours after a tragedy occurs though.

 

[Crixus]

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.

That truck is a "Vehicle of War" and no civilians should be allowed to own or rent one......and Home Depot should be sent to jail....or something......

A rental truck was used to murder more people than than in any mass public shooting in the U.S....these "Vehicles of War" need to be banned....

Smart cars for everyone.

Ban BB guns to.

 

[Aletheia4u]

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.

Guns don't kill, but cars kills. I said that they should banned all motor vehicles. And that is including aircraft. You cannot run over a crowd of people with a bike. But you can get a lots of bruises from an angry crowd of people that has gotten hit by the bike.

 

[Rustic]

Just one month ago, a mental case who was not a Muslim killed 60 people and wounded 550 in Los Vegas. It was deemed an issue of (domestic) Constitutional rights, and we immediately decided that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING should be done to prevent such tragedies from happening again. (Even after BOTH PARTIES agreed that, at the very least, devices like bump fire stocks, which convert semi-automatic rifles into full fledged machine guns should be illegal....nothing has been, or will be done. That was the lowest of the low hanging fruit, and it's apparently off limits.)

Jeff Flake ✔ @JeffFlake
Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/925684982307348480 …

8:36 AM - Nov 1, 2017

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Dip shit

 

[Rustic]

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?

Firearm registration is unconstitutional