Simply must have more guns

You are a few months behind and refuse to recognise that the tide is shifting. The kids in Florida will assure that gun control becomes a "single issue voting" for millions of millennial. . .and millions of their parents.

Several of those slides include up to October 2017. Additionally, we always hear the tide is shifting. Your own claim is that there have been hundreds of mass shootings since 2000. Why will this suddenly shift opinion like never before?

And the disgusting war that the GOP (with the help of the Russians trolls) are waging against those bright and courageous teenager will only make reasonable people more angry!

As I said previously, I hope they register and start voting as soon as they turn 18 - but again - we have seen this before - why does this suddenly shift the debate?

Even Trump had to already give a few crumbs to the cause. Have you heard about the new move on bump stocks? Not enough. . .but a real indication that the NRA and the politiciens with blood on their hands are running scared. They are trying to appease and take break the energy that has been unleashed. I sure hope they don't succeed!

There have been moves on those before. I don't fundamentally oppose bans on bump stocks or better background checks - but I don't see the argument that such a move would stop mass shootings...what am I missing?

By the way, your gallup polls trend stops at 2015. Maybe you should consider this latest gallup poll on how the majority feels about stricter gun control:

Support for Stricter Gun Laws Edges Up in US - Gallup News
news.gallup.com/poll/220595/support-stricter-gun-laws-edges.aspx

As I already responded to Old_Trapper - several slides I posted are through October of 2017. The trend lines are the trend lines. You can point to several times in the 25 year chart when support for stricter gun laws edged up etc - but that doesn't negate the overall trend at this time. That is simply a fact.
 
Werbung:
Overall, the trend lines show that overall the mood has shown that those in support of "more strict" laws are declining and those in support of maintaining the status quo has been going up.
As you say stats don't show everything... I was interested in the graphic you showed this is exactly the same one from the same pollster, Gallup...did you crop your graph?
gcu8nx14k0uh47zo8crp4g.png

This shows the continuation of your graph....odd huh? This was the one I was refering to earlier when I said the polls seem to show different.
 
As you say stats don't show everything... I was interested in the graphic you showed this is exactly the same one from the same pollster, Gallup...did you crop your graph?
gcu8nx14k0uh47zo8crp4g.png

This shows the continuation of your graph....odd huh? This was the one I was refering to earlier when I said the polls seem to show different.

Never, and I do mean never, expect a right winger to tell the truth. It just isn't in their genetic make up.
 
Trump directed the Justice Department to draft a ban on devices known as “bump stocks,” molded pieces of plastic or metal that can attach to a legal semiautomatic gun and allow it to fire up to 100 rounds in seven seconds, similar to an illegal machine gun.
washington post

The NRA did not respond Tuesday to a request for comment.
They're probably preparing the usual Wayne LaPierre paranoia rebuttle
 
Robbie needs to see this poll:

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 - 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 - 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 - 38 percent support among white men.

Today's result is up from a negative 47 - 50 percent measure of support in a December 23, 2015, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.

Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:
  • 67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;
  • 83 - 14 percent for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. It is too easy to buy a gun in the U.S. today, American voters say 67 - 3 percent. If more people carried guns, the U.S. would be less safe, voters say 59 - 33 percent. Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence, voters say 75 - 17 percent.

Scroll down to where it says which party should be in control.
 
As you say stats don't show everything... I was interested in the graphic you showed this is exactly the same one from the same pollster, Gallup...did you crop your graph?
gcu8nx14k0uh47zo8crp4g.png

This shows the continuation of your graph....odd huh? This was the one I was refering to earlier when I said the polls seem to show different.

I went back to the original site I pulled the screen shot from and it does show through 2017 - so it appears when pulling the screen shot I did drop 2017. The one I posted looks like it shows the line going back to 55, but doesn't have the number of the new 60. That doesn't change anything regarding the argument however one way or the other.

But let's look at the data. Mass shootings are not new. As OpenMind has previously stated there were "hundreds" from 2000 forward. There have been several high profile ones over this time as well - and the trend line has not really changed.

You can look at this chart and say look how outraged the public is! Support for more strict gun laws is up from 47% to 60% in (roughly) two years! You can also say this data shows that despite multiple high profile mass shootings and "hundreds" of other incidents, support for more strict gun laws has not budged since 1999 and remains 18 points off the 1991 level of support.

You also need to delve into the issue of what "more strict" laws actually means. That is going to mean different things to different people. Some people are going to want "more strict" laws to ban certain types of guns, some people are going to want that to have better background checks (which we likely need) only etc etc.

I was glad to see the Florida Legislature not cave to emotional arguments and pressure just yesterday. If you want to enact sound public policy, those things take time, and just doing something for the sake of doing something is not good government.
 
You also need to delve into the issue of what "more strict" laws actually means.
Its interesting how paranoia drives the US social and political thought process...irrespective of party.... guns will protect me from violence.... the state should protect me from muslim terrorists. If you follow the same logic then why is the US getting is panties in a bunch as you yanks put it about terroism and muslims when you manage to kill an order of magnitude more of your own people...and this graphic excludes injuries etc.
Terrorism%2BVs%2BGun%2BViolence%2BDeaths%2Bin%2BAmerica.png


Based on this piffling number the US government sanction by its citizens have demanded and fought wars and sanctioned countries and tried to impose bans on travel to name but a few. But governement attempting to lessen the risks from needless deaths of its own citizens by its own citizens just gets a shrug and moves on... I find this weird!!??

Just a slight edit... I was thinking that if you add to the numbers of people killed in wars instigated by the US because of this piffling 3,380 people dead it probably runs into millions! Anyway thats a thought for another day.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-2-21_16-38-54.png
    upload_2018-2-21_16-38-54.png
    44.3 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
You also need to delve into the issue of what "more strict" laws actually means. That is going to mean different things to different people. Some people are going to want "more strict" laws to ban certain types of guns, some people are going to want that to have better background checks (which we likely need) only etc etc.

And we need to delve into a definition of what "Is" is. Well, idiots do. Intelligent people already know.

I was glad to see the Florida Legislature not cave to emotional arguments and pressure just yesterday. If you want to enact sound public policy, those things take time, and just doing something for the sake of doing something is not good government.

Cooking a roast take time. Using common sense needs no time, just some will power. As we have seen in the past "taking time" means doing nothing. And that is what the NRA, and fools like you, want.
 
Its interesting how paranoia drives the US social and political thought process...irrespective of party.... guns will protect me from violence.... the state should protect me from muslim terrorists.

If you follow the same logic then why is the US getting is panties in a bunch as you yanks put it about terroism and muslims when you manage to kill an order of magnitude more of your own people...and this graphic excludes injuries etc.
Terrorism%2BVs%2BGun%2BViolence%2BDeaths%2Bin%2BAmerica.png


Based on this piffling number the US government sanction by its citizens have demanded and fought wars and sanctioned countries and tried to impose bans on travel to name but a few. But governement attempting to lessen the risks from needless deaths of its own citizens by its own citizens just gets a shrug and moves on... I find this weird!!??

Just a slight edit... I was thinking that if you add to the numbers of people killed in wars instigated by the US because of this piffling 3,380 people dead it probably runs into millions! Anyway thats a thought for another day.

I don't know why this is the case. On a personal level I do not feel like I am going to go out and die in a terror attack any more than I am going to go out and get murdered. Statistically speaking both are extremely unlikely scenarios.

In my opinion, suicide should be removed from the overall tally of gun deaths. I don't know what drives someone to that point, but at the end of the day I think most people shrug their shoulders at that because what are they supposed to do about it? If you decide you want to kill yourself, I don't know what I am supposed to do about it at the end of the day.

Removing those takes away roughly 55-60% of the total cited above. Of the remaining total, I've seen stats that indicated up to 80-85% of those were gang related murders. I cannot say that is true with certainty, the CDC has data on that, I'll see if I can find their report to confirm that or not.

But assume for a moment that is true, and I think that speaks to a large part of why a lot of people just shrug their shoulders. If you make the choice to join a gang, and all that involves, banning types of guns or bump stocks, or better background checks is completely irrelevant. People in those situations don't obtain those weapons legally to begin with. And if then the life you chose results in your death what is the average person supposed to do about it? If a criminal murders another criminal, I think it is natural that an ordinary person will just shrug their shoulders.

On a personal level, I once funded a jobs program at a shelter in a large city that often had gang members staying there. I literally watched first hand as some people were given a job and then could not be bothered to show up and do it. I watched excuse after excuse after excuse for why some people just could not change their ways despite alternatives being placed in front of them. I also watched as some homeless people took advantage of the program, got a job, kept the job, and ultimately moved out of the shelter on their own. My feeling from this was that some people just don't want to do anything differently, and resources should be focused on those that do - rather than wasted on those that don't.
 
Big Rob, I think you are hilarious in your desperate attempt to defend your stance on gun addiction.

Enough said. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. . .and you can't take a trumpeter and pull him out of his delusional bubble.
 
Big Rob, I think you are hilarious in your desperate attempt to defend your stance on gun addiction.

Enough said. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. . .and you can't take a trumpeter and pull him out of his delusional bubble.

You approach the whole conservation has been "you have blood on your hands" and yet somehow react in surprise when the people you want to reach essentially ignore you. Your general approach lately to anyone that disagrees with you is that they are stuck in a "delusional bubble." I don't think people who disagree with me are stupid...I'm not sure why you do....maybe its your "white privilege!" :ROFLMAO:

I don't have an "addiction" to guns - and I readily agree there are people that should not be able to obtain them - but I absolutely believe in protecting the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I understand that you don't like the 2nd Amendment, I don't begrudge you that, but the fact is that it doesn't go away because you don't like or some lunatic went nuts with a gun. I'm sorry that you apparently live in fear of what is statistically almost negligible. I imagine that gets exhausting.

If you want to change the 2nd Amendment there is a clear process to do that. If you want to work on some selective issues that have broad agreement and don't trample on the 2nd Amendment, I'd likely support it. If you want to make logically fallacious arguments based on nothing more than appeals to emotion and "think of the children" well I simply don't think that is a basis for good government.
 
Last edited:
You approach the whole conservation has been "you have blood on your hands" and yet somehow react in surprise when the people you want to reach essentially ignore you. Your general approach lately to anyone that disagrees with you is that they are stuck in a "delusional bubble." I don't think people who disagree with me are stupid...I'm not sure why you do....maybe its your "white privilege!"

This is why you are looked upon by others as "delusional". You try to portray others in a manner that is derogatory. No one is ignoring her, not even you. And basically why others see you as stupid is due to the reality that you are stupid. Not a delusion, just a fact, and it has been proven many times by all, not just her.

I don't have an "addiction" to guns - and I readily agree there are people that should not be able to obtain them - but I absolutely believe in protecting the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I understand that you don't like the 2nd Amendment, I don't begrudge you that, but the fact is that it doesn't go away because you don't like or some lunatic went nuts with a gun. I'm sorry that you apparently live in fear of what is statistically almost negligible. I imagine that gets exhausting.

If it is not an addiction it is a form of mental illness. One cannot look at the slaughter occurring in our time, and still support some outmoded idea that you have a Constitutional right to own a weapon capable of killing high numbers in a matter of minutes. Not hours, in minutes. And it is not a dislike for the Second that drives intelligent people, it is the interpretation by those who lack a rational thought process. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT for you to own any weapon you so desire. Even Scalia understood that simple reality, yet you seem to feel you need an exception in your case, or the AR-14 does. When th \e ban on full automatic weapons was instituted it was done under the auspices of "public safety". The same applies to dynamite, hand grenades, bazooka's, mines, and the list goes on. Rational people understand that the AR-15 is no more then a toy for the insecure, and paranoid. One can quite easily defend themselves with a home security shotgun loaded with buckshot, or a Glock with a 10 round mag., or numerous mags.. A pump .22 mag. works great, as does a flare gun (as long as you are outside). And if you feel the need for an AR-15 I would suggest you are the one living in fear.

If you want to change the 2nd Amendment there is a clear process to do that. If you want to work on some selective issues that have broad agreement and don't trample on the 2nd Amendment, I'd likely support it. If you want to make logically fallacious arguments based on nothing more than appeals to emotion and "think of the children" well I simply don't think that is a basis for good government.

It would take 15 years to change the Constitution while Constitutional law can be passed in 60 days. How many kids would be killed in that time? And your Repugnant ones bought out by the NRA will not allow sensible laws to be passed. But, like them, your concept of "trampling on the Second" bears little resemblance to intelligence, or even a moral decision.
 
This is why you are looked upon by others as "delusional". You try to portray others in a manner that is derogatory. No one is ignoring her, not even you. And basically why others see you as stupid is due to the reality that you are stupid. Not a delusion, just a fact, and it has been proven many times by all, not just her.

If it is not an addiction it is a form of mental illness. One cannot look at the slaughter occurring in our time, and still support some outmoded idea that you have a Constitutional right to own a weapon capable of killing high numbers in a matter of minutes. Not hours, in minutes. And it is not a dislike for the Second that drives intelligent people, it is the interpretation by those who lack a rational thought process. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT for you to own any weapon you so desire. Even Scalia understood that simple reality, yet you seem to feel you need an exception in your case, or the AR-14 does. When th \e ban on full automatic weapons was instituted it was done under the auspices of "public safety". The same applies to dynamite, hand grenades, bazooka's, mines, and the list goes on. Rational people understand that the AR-15 is no more then a toy for the insecure, and paranoid. One can quite easily defend themselves with a home security shotgun loaded with buckshot, or a Glock with a 10 round mag., or numerous mags.. A pump .22 mag. works great, as does a flare gun (as long as you are outside). And if you feel the need for an AR-15 I would suggest you are the one living in fear.

It would take 15 years to change the Constitution while Constitutional law can be passed in 60 days. How many kids would be killed in that time? And your Repugnant ones bought out by the NRA will not allow sensible laws to be passed. But, like them, your concept of "trampling on the Second" bears little resemblance to intelligence, or even a moral decision.

Got it..anyone who doesn't hold your opinion is stupid, delusional, and likely suffering from mental illness. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Maybe one of those "100 pound weights" got you on the head this time?
 
Got it..anyone who doesn't hold your opinion is stupid, delusional, and likely suffering from mental illness. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Maybe one of those "100 pound weights" got you on the head this time?


And then you resort to lies, and an alternative explanation of what I said. And you will still wonder why others think you are delusional.
 
Werbung:
I'm sorry that you apparently live in fear of what is statistically almost negligible.
You have to square the circle on that one based on the levels of antipathy being leveled at this supposed influx of Muslims and the threat of Islamic terrorists that the current administration is trying to convince the nation it is saving them from. Administrators are pounding the airwaves with cant and rhetoric about protecting the citizens from.....what....?? The CDC graphic posted shows the ridiculously small chance of being a victim of terrorism yet look at how the rhetoric is being ramped and perpetuated. Gun deaths in 2015 (excluding suicide) were 13,286 people were killed and 26,819 people were injured against terrorism deaths and injuries of 9.

If you make the choice to join a gang, and all that involves, banning types of guns or bump stocks, or better background checks is completely irrelevant. People in those situations don't obtain those weapons legally to begin with.
Gangs? There are gangs and gang culture in all cities in every country on the planet. We in the UK have all sorts of gangs dealing drugs, prostitution, human traffiking you name it we have it...just as you do in the states. Gun violence though....negligible...why do you think?

You have probably heard of the IRA, a terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland, and they were very good at what they did. There were linked to the likes of Bader Meinhoff/RAF, PLO etc..you know the usual groups. And yet, even at the height of their bombing and murder campaigns they had issues with getting their hands on guns and ammunition...dont forget...these were KGB trained and funded terrorists. They recieved funds from proxy countries via the KGB and were generally trained in North Africa and their source of weapons was generally the US. The point being that if you deny access to weapons... the means...then you can start to manage the motive and opportunity....as we did in the UK.

The US is a young country and probably going through growing pains and like having small children I guess you have to manage expectation and point out that maybe all toys are not suitable... they have age recommendation on toys...maybe US society is not yet ready to have all the toys it desires.
 
Back
Top