Mass shootings explained!

[Skull Pilot]

You've proved my point. Sympathy is not empathy, that you don't know the distinction is telling.

I can recognize emotions in other people. It's their behavior that I am talking about.

I can see that a parent is grief stricken but I don't have to approve of that parent using a dead kid as a prop in a political discussion.

You still don't get it. It's not your call to approve or disapprove of how a parent reacts to the violent death of their innocent child. Not until that parent smacks you in the mouth, then you can complain, but I doubt you would get sympathy from others and no one would have empathy for you.

So then it's not your call to approve or disapprove of my owning a so called assault weapon until I kill someone with it right?

And I don't seek sympathy or empathy from anyone. Not even people I know.

I don't like to burden others with my personal problems.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Newflash: The kid was killed in public.

Got it?

It doesn't matter where he was killed.

It sure as fuck DOES MATTER WHERE HE WAS KILLED.

And in what manner.

No.

I would feel the same way if a person used a kid killed in a car crash as a propaganda tool.

I have more respect for the dead than that.

 

[Sallow]

It doesn't matter where he was killed.

It sure as fuck DOES MATTER WHERE HE WAS KILLED.

And in what manner.

No.

I would feel the same way if a person used a kid killed in a car crash as a propaganda tool.

I have more respect for the dead than that.

I have respect for the living. In that, I want every person to have a shot at a full life.

If a person died in a car crash due to faulty mechanics, alcohol or any other preventable means...that needs to be addressed and dealt with.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I can recognize emotions in other people. It's their behavior that I am talking about.

I can see that a parent is grief stricken but I don't have to approve of that parent using a dead kid as a prop in a political discussion.

You still don't get it. It's not your call to approve or disapprove of how a parent reacts to the violent death of their innocent child. Not until that parent smacks you in the mouth, then you can complain, but I doubt you would get sympathy from others and no one would have empathy for you.

So then it's not your call to approve or disapprove of my owning a so called assault weapon until I kill someone with it right?

And I don't seek sympathy or empathy from anyone. Not even people I know.

I don't like to burden others with my personal problems.

You can own what you want as long as you obey the law. If a law requires you to be licensed, get the license; if it requires each gun you own be insured, get insured. If it requires your guns be secured in a gun safe, buy one and lock them up (yes, when home you can hold them/have them readily accessable).

Sadly, some with "personal problems" burden others by murdering their loved ones.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You still don't get it. It's not your call to approve or disapprove of how a parent reacts to the violent death of their innocent child. Not until that parent smacks you in the mouth, then you can complain, but I doubt you would get sympathy from others and no one would have empathy for you.

So then it's not your call to approve or disapprove of my owning a so called assault weapon until I kill someone with it right?

And I don't seek sympathy or empathy from anyone. Not even people I know.

I don't like to burden others with my personal problems.

You can own what you want as long as you obey the law. If a law requires you to be licensed, get the license; if it requires each gun you own be insured, get insured. If it requires your guns be secured in a gun safe, buy one and lock them up (yes, when home you can hold them/have them readily accessable).

Sadly, some with "personal problems" burden others by murdering their loved ones.

Sadly, O and the dems are explointing the murder of schoolchildren. That's beyond despicable and you go along with it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Herein SP lays out the real difference between moderates and the fringe. Moderates have empathy, the fringe does not. There's a time and a place to argue the pros and cons of gun regulations - doing so as was reported was the wrong time and the wrong place.

Dragging out your dead kid in public is despicable in my opinion. Even more so when that dead kid is being used as a propaganda tool.

I'll give you all the sympathy you want in private.

So when someone's right to life is violated, all those who love them should just do nothing on their behalf? This father is doing the right thing for his son and for all people who respect the right to life.

I hate to break it to you but the kid is dead so there is nothing that can be done for him.

If forcing gun nuts like yourself to face the atrocities of your convictions offends you - too fucking bad!

And again what atrocity have i committed with my weapons? How have I not lived up to my responsibilities as a gun owner.

Until you can answer those questions and provide proof you haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You still don't get it. It's not your call to approve or disapprove of how a parent reacts to the violent death of their innocent child. Not until that parent smacks you in the mouth, then you can complain, but I doubt you would get sympathy from others and no one would have empathy for you.

So then it's not your call to approve or disapprove of my owning a so called assault weapon until I kill someone with it right?

And I don't seek sympathy or empathy from anyone. Not even people I know.

I don't like to burden others with my personal problems.

You can own what you want as long as you obey the law. If a law requires you to be licensed, get the license; if it requires each gun you own be insured, get insured. If it requires your guns be secured in a gun safe, buy one and lock them up (yes, when home you can hold them/have them readily accessable).

Sadly, some with "personal problems" burden others by murdering their loved ones.

Some do. But that is no reason to blame everyone else for it is it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So then it's not your call to approve or disapprove of my owning a so called assault weapon until I kill someone with it right?

And I don't seek sympathy or empathy from anyone. Not even people I know.

I don't like to burden others with my personal problems.

You can own what you want as long as you obey the law. If a law requires you to be licensed, get the license; if it requires each gun you own be insured, get insured. If it requires your guns be secured in a gun safe, buy one and lock them up (yes, when home you can hold them/have them readily accessable).

Sadly, some with "personal problems" burden others by murdering their loved ones.

Some do. But that is no reason to blame everyone else for it is it?

It's not always about you SP or even about all gun owners. Pointing fingers is worthless, solving problems is what the debate on new gun regulations is all about.

Sending your six year old to school and having him or her shot and killed in class is a problem, no?

No one, Obama, Feinstein or me has advocated a ban on all firearms.

The response from the NRA and those who echo the NRA is for more firearms to be in the hands of more citizens and to blame government for not doing something about the mentally ill (demanding rights for gun owners, yet willing to restrict the rights of those who suffer from a mental illness; seeking less government and more government in the same breath).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Skull Pilot]

It sure as fuck DOES MATTER WHERE HE WAS KILLED.

And in what manner.

No.

I would feel the same way if a person used a kid killed in a car crash as a propaganda tool.

I have more respect for the dead than that.

I have respect for the living. In that, I want every person to have a shot at a full life.

If a person died in a car crash due to faulty mechanics, alcohol or any other preventable means...that needs to be addressed and dealt with.

Everyone does have a shot at that.

Shit happens it's the human condition and nothing you can do, no amount of mandating, confiscating or banning of any product or activity will change that fact.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can own what you want as long as you obey the law. If a law requires you to be licensed, get the license; if it requires each gun you own be insured, get insured. If it requires your guns be secured in a gun safe, buy one and lock them up (yes, when home you can hold them/have them readily accessable).

Sadly, some with "personal problems" burden others by murdering their loved ones.

Some do. But that is no reason to blame everyone else for it is it?

It's not always about you SP or even about all gun owners. Pointing fingers is worthless, solving problems is what the debate on new gun regulations is all about.

I'm not the one pointing fingers. It's the control freaks who are blaming all gun owners for the acts of a few.

Sending your six year old to school and having him or her shot and killed in class is a problem, no?

Never said it wasn't but those kids would have been safer if there were a couple sets of steel doors at the entrance creating a secure vestibule than they would have been from any weapons ban.

No one, Obama, Feinstein or me has advocated a ban on all firearms.

It's a slippery slope. Even as fucking stupid as most politicians are they will soon realize that a so called assault weapon is no different than any other semi auto rifle available to the public and sooner or later they will want to ban those too.

The response from the NRA and those who echo the NRA is for more firearms to be in the hands of more citizens and to blame government for not doing something about the mentally ill (demanding rights for gun owners, yet willing to restrict the rights of those who suffer from a mental illness; seeking less government and more government in the same breath).

I don't give a shit about the NRA as I am not nor have I ever been a member.

 

[g5000]

One of the worst strawman constructions I have seen EVAH!

 

[g5000]

There are many times and places where it is appropriate to argue adamantly for or against gun control. However, it is sick and disgusting that these gun advocates challenge the parent of one of the Sandy Hook victims.

The father made it political. He asked people to justify the exercising of their inalienable rights.

Do you NEED midget porn? No. Then we should be able to ban it, according to LeftLogic™.

That's the idiotic thinking behind the gun control nuts' questions.

 

[Wicked Jester]

There are many times and places where it is appropriate to argue adamantly for or against gun control. However, it is sick and disgusting that these gun advocates challenge the parent of one of the Sandy Hook victims.

So we are supposed to let some people trample our rights because of their loss?

Those who would choose safety over liberty deserve neither.

I neither want nor need any of you sheep looking out for me so please mind your own business.

Your lack of empathy for the victims of the Sandy Hook Massacre borders on mental illness.

While you whine about your right to own a gun, you obviously couldn't give a damn about young Jesse's right to life.

You and your ilk HAVE trampled on Jesse's right to life, so don't think we could give a shit about your right to won a gun - you don't deserve that right.

With all rights come responsibilities and those who do not live up to those responsibilties deserve to have those right taken away.

Your lack of respect for the Right o Life of these victims is atrocious.

Young Jesse's right to life was snuffed out by Adam Lanza, PERIOD!

You lib's are becoming comical, particularly when cackling on about "right to life".

 

[whitehall]

The trouble is that all the perpetrators of modern mass shootings have been democrat left wingers. The Sandy Hook shooter was a vegetarian tree hugger for God's sake who hated his mother and probably all women like the typical left wing sissie. Is anyone willing to argue that Major Hasan was a republican? The administration managed to call it an example of workplace violence when it was an example of an angry left wing maniac. Don't you think the administration would try to make a case about the "vast right wing conspiracy if they could? The Va. Tech shooter was registered democrat as well as the parents of the Columbine shooters.

 

[whitehall]

Anybody think that pink haired freakazoid who shot up the movie theater was a republican gun club member? How about the Tucson shooter who's target was a female congressperson? Don't you think the administration would make political point if he was a republican? He was a typical left wing hate filled radical who hates woman. You can find them in any OWS meeting or democrat convention.

 

[OriginalShroom]

There are many times and places where it is appropriate to argue adamantly for or against gun control. However, it is sick and disgusting that these gun advocates challenge the parent of one of the Sandy Hook victims.

So we are supposed to let some people trample our rights because of their loss?

Those who would choose safety over liberty deserve neither.

I neither want nor need any of you sheep looking out for me so please mind your own business.

Your lack of empathy for the victims of the Sandy Hook Massacre borders on mental illness.

While you whine about your right to own a gun, you obviously couldn't give a damn about young Jesse's right to life.

You and your ilk HAVE trampled on Jesse's right to life, so don't think we could give a shit about your right to won a gun - you don't deserve that right.

With all rights come responsibilities and those who do not live up to those responsibilties deserve to have those right taken away.

Your lack of respect for the Right o Life of these victims is atrocious.

You sure seem to make a lot of assumptions.

I haven't seen anyone not show any empathy for the victims and their families over the killings.

I haven't seen anyone not "give a damn" about anyone's life.

What I have seen are people who are protecting their rights, as outlined by the U.S. Constitution. Rights which you seem to want to curtail.

I doubt if you will find anyone who is supporter of gun ownership who doesn't agree that those who harm innocents should lose their right to carry a weapon of any kind.

I have a question for you.. Are you as adamant about the lives of 330,000 unborn children who were killed just last year?

I should hope that you are aware that more people were killed as a result of Drunk Driving last year than were killed with a gun. Nearly as many people with a blunt instrument or a knife were also killed.

Perhaps, before you go demanding that law abiding people lose rights you should consider the ramifications of what you are advocating if those same reasons were to be extended to other areas of life.

 

[OriginalShroom]

In a 1995 broadcast of CBS' 60 Minutes, Feinstein admitted she would love to have instituted an "outright ban" on all guns.

Feinstein was the driving force to the failed (and now lapsed) 1994 “assault weapons” ban, and it was upon her success at getting the law passed that she made her admission.

If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

 

[tjvh]

Mass shootings explained? Now if we could only explain the mass brainwashing of the loony left we'd all be better off.