Doesn't happen consistently if at all. That goes against your narrative, of course
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Will Trump win again???
Started by Planktonmd
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
Doesn't happen consistently if at all. That goes against your narrative, of course
That proves my point exactly, evil people will do whatever they can to commit acts of evil.Theory vs practice
Texas shooter bought gun in private sale, after ban due to mental illness: ABC
The gunman who killed seven people and wounded 23 others in a rampage across West Texas on Saturday obtained the assault-style rifle used through a private sale after he was banned from having a firearm because he was diagnosed with a mental illness, media reported.www.reuters.com
While the folks like you on the right debate theory and ignore solutions to address the problem, polls slowly turn against your position
The evil person you showed was already ineligible to own a firearm, yet he obtained it anyway because he decided to break the law.
Good thing we make it easy to obtain firearms as easily as possible. Keeps the nra membership up
They're breaking federal law then and should be prosecuted. It almost makes sense that the ATF would conduct a sting operation and catch all these flagrant law breakers...
He was actually ineligible to own a firearm.
Of course not, but banning semi-automatic rifles won't accomplish that. Lest we forget, the 3rd deadliest mass shooting in our history (Virginia Tech) was done with handguns.
So because one incident is the exception let's ignore where the vast majority of the problems are. Got it. Sound logic
The current broken system in this country still allowed him to procure one nonetheless.
The ostrich in sand approach will only work for so long as the body count continues to rise
Its not 1 incident, its roughly 35-40% of mass shootings: Mass shootings in the United States - Wikipedia
The point I was trying to make with the VTech shooter is that even if you could magically remove every semi-automatic rifle from the US tomorrow, there's no evidence to suggest you'd see a big difference in mass shootings.
The vast majority of gun homicide is by handgun, not by rifle. We've gone over this already.
You want to confiscate handguns instead?
Changing the narrative away from Mass shootings won't make your argument any more correct
It would for the vast majority, as you yourself just proved
The only way you could have prevented this guy from having a gun is by confiscating every single firearm in the entire country.
Which is impossible and not even worth trying, even if the second amendment was repealed.
Or regulating them better like so many other countries. But that doesn't fit the right wing narrative, despite the obvious data out of places like Japan, Australia etc
You can't argue with the facts. You focus on "mass shootings" because you think it's low hanging fruit, when in reality more people die from handgun mass shootings than rifle mass shootings.
You want to divert attention away from confiscating semiautomatic handguns because they're more common than semiautomatic rifles, but you'll come for those once you're done with the rifles.
Lots of strawman arguments there
We have a Constitutional right to bear arms.
We also have a Constitutional right to free speech unlike any other country in the world. Should we get rid of that too so we can stop "hate speech"?
You're scaring me. The Left has moved to totalitarianism so quickly within just the last 5 years.
You likely won't buy it regardless of what is found.
After all, he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still not lose a voter
Last edited:
You have no rebuttal. Your every argument has failed.
And the right has moved towards indifference. And you wonder why the GOP and nra base shrinks every year?
It's easy to say that when you move the goalposts. We were discussing mass shootings at public venues
I'm starting to think you're not actually interested in a discussion on this.
So you think all these mass shooters are going to say "well damn, I can't get an AR-15. I guess I won't go shoot up the school/church/movie theatre/whatever after all"?
They will switch to handguns since those work almost as well.
Handguns would have worked for the Vegas shooter? You think the average shooter is skilled enough to get a similar body count with a handgun? Statistically you've already proven they aren't.
Sounds like you're the one who doesn't want to be honest in this discussion
You're pro-confiscation of AR-15 rifles, despite the facts that
they are involved in the tiniest fraction of all homicide compared to handguns and every other means of homicide,
are involved in a fraction of "mass shootings" compared with handguns,
are no more deadly than any other semiautomatic guns because all guns shoot bullets regardless of cosmetic features,
are one tool among many others that mass murderers use to conduct evil acts.
He could have rented a truck instead and killed many more, see Nice attack.
Based on how you define Mass murders
But fine, keep pretending there aren't any solutions and watch what happens when things finally boil over.
Trump was selling populist snake oil, and he probably has only accelerated a real populist like Warren getting elected, unfortunately.
Ditto on the rights continued indifference on a lack of gun regulation which will eventually backfire on them as well
Nice had the geography that Vegas doesn't.
It's funny how you righties focus on the exception rather the rule every single time to avoid actually solving the problem
The right has been fighting for preservation of civil rights, like the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, the right to free association, the right to be free from unwanted search and seizure.
It's amazing, really, the Left is now campaigning to seize wealth, confiscate guns, and label all dissenting speech as "hate speech".
By embracing an authoritarian that calls the media the "enemy of the people" and slams well respected outlets like nyt wapo etc.
Keep drinking that MAGA koolaid.
We all know that the civil Rights haters turned from being Dixiecrats to modern day Republicans regardless of the revisionist history the right likes to propagate
The government/FBI defines it as four or more killed in a single event.
You define it as any event in which an AR-15 is used.
No wonder all you see is the big bad AR-15 around every corner. You're oblivious to reality.
The mainstream media functions largely as the messaging platform of the Democrat party, and have had a liberal bias for decades.
They're not objective, they have a political agenda.
You know what they say about opinions....
You probably don't think all those people died in parkland, Vegas or el paso either, right. Was on the "fake" media after all
You're wrong, the Republicans supported the civil rights movement, while Democrats opposed.
Joe Biden was proud to have worked with avowed racists and segregationists in the Democrat party in the 1970s.
When you decide to come back to reality you can read up on history
How the ‘Party of Lincoln’ Won Over the Once Democratic South | HISTORY
Democratic defectors, known as the “Dixiecrats,” started a switch to the Republican party in a movement that was late...
The only gun deaths you see are those that involve semiautomatic rifles, nothing else matters to you (at the moment), but you ignore 98% of all the other homicides.
You don't care about 100% of them. Even worse
When you decide to come back to reality you can read up on history
How the ‘Party of Lincoln’ Won Over the Once Democratic South | HISTORY
Democratic defectors, known as the “Dixiecrats,” started a switch to the Republican party in a movement that was late...www.history.com
You get your history lessons from a TV network? 😆
I tried to find a link you could understand. Guess not.
I guess you'll have to go back to info wars
I'm quite willing to discuss ideas that will make a difference. Banning semi-automatic rifles will most likely not.
The Vegas shooter is the outlier in all of this (the exception-type you keep harping on). And truthfully, while he couldn't do exactly as well as he did (bump stocks being outlawed now) he could still have caused significant loss of life with different weapons. And yes, I do think the average shooter could do just about as well with a handgun - there's not something magical about semi-automatic rifles, especially at not-long-ranges. I'm not sure how you think that statistically I've proven otherwise, but I'd be interested to see how you arrived at that conclusion.
It boils down to the idea of meaningful results. Semi-automatic rifles are used in a small fraction of firearm homicides. If you want to go after them, fine. As I've said I neither own nor intend to own one and don't really care about them one way or another but be honest about only caring about certain types of gun deaths. Beyond even that, there's a couple of problems with banning them. First, there are something like 10 million Ar-15 style firearms out there right now. I'm not sure its even possible to get them all barring a literal door to door search. Second, as I've stated there are plenty of other nearly as efficient ways of killing lots of people.
Its a more complex issue that most realize. Obviously we could do what many other countries have done and essentially ban all guns. I don't think that will fly in America in our lifetimes though so let's ignore that.
One of the problems that many pro-gun people have is that our current laws fail us quite frequently (the Sutherland Springs shooter shouldn't have been allowed to purchase a gun but the Air Force dropped the ball). Why do we think that new laws will be any better? But let's ignore that for now as well.
What I hear most often is about closing the gun show loop hole. On the surface that makes perfect sense, and I would have no objection to requiring any firearm sale of any kind requiring a background check. Adam Lanza stole his mother's guns. A universal background check wouldn't have stopped him (I am not opposed to the idea, just pointing out that it won't stop all mass shootings) Another issue, and a more common one than you'd think, is within families. Barring a universal registration of all firearms in America (which would be a hard sell), you'll have problems with that. For example, I have 3 generations of guns in my safe - my grandfathers', father's, and my own. The government knows about the 1 rifle that was bought in my name, the others it does not. If I choose to give them to other family down the road, there will be no record of that.
A really smart, crooked politician would have not made the same mistake as Trump. That said, a slick Willy type would have just asked The Ukrainian President in private (personally) the same exact thing which Trump did over the phone. I think they all engage in highly unethical behavior from Clinton to Obama to Biden and Trump. The only difference being Trump is an idiot and the Dems hate his guts.
Multiple things can be done and all may help in their own way. Thats the bottom line.
Republicans would rather just ignore the problem.
Delusional much? Trump's the only one who wouldnt release his tax returns or put his assets in a blind trust.
Not to mention all the swamp monsters and corporate insiders he filled his cabinet with.
MAGA folk really are quite gullible. It's sad honestly
The Obama administration did, you know, open a counter intelligence (spying) operation against his political opponent, using an unsubstantiated dossier, paid for by his political ally, gathered by a foreign national, who used his contacts in Russian intelligence as sources.
Trump did, you know, ask the Ukrainian government how Joe Biden was able to extort the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor that was looking into a company that Joe Biden's son was on the board of.
Trump did, you know, ask the Australian government details on how the Russian collusion hoax got started, especially since Australia was extremely important in the early days of that.
Obama and Biden did nothing wrong, but Trump is obviously the bad guy, because... Orange man bad?
How much of what you posted is actually true vs alternative facts. That's the real question you should be asking yourself
Hunter Biden 'did not violate anything,' former Ukrainian prosecutor says
Trump is facing allegations that he tried to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the former vice president's son.
www.nbcnews.com
And let's not get started with the number of convicted criminals in the Trump campaign who had connections to Russia.... Inconvenient truth for you MAGA folk
1. They are the enemy of the people. They routinely stoke division and create/widen societal divides to get clicks. See the Smolett, Covington, and Russia hoaxes for examples.
2. Well-respected by whom?
Sounds like the liar in chief's Twitter account
How much of what you posted is actually true vs alternative facts. That's the real question you should be asking yourself
Hunter Biden 'did not violate anything,' former Ukrainian prosecutor says
Trump is facing allegations that he tried to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the former vice president's son.
Joe Biden was the one who extorted the Ukrainian government, not his son.
Your first paragraph is true. But its then a matter of balancing the rights of law abiding gun owners with stopping criminals.
Your second paragraph is not: Lindsey Graham Is Writing A Bill To Take Guns Away From People Deemed Dangerous
Now you're really off into breitbart fantasy land
- Status
