Well when you have an entire culture of gun owners who refuse to even acknowledge a problem, this is what happens.
Don’t be surprised that this happens if the pro-gun guys answer to everything is to either do nothing or give everyone MORE guns.
The pro-gun community had plenty of time, power, money, and influence to get some sort of proactive measures in place to prevent gun deaths. Not eliminate it all, but drop the overall rate of gun violence in this country.
But since the pro gun guys didn’t do anything, and continue to not do anything, here we are.
Seriously purp. All these guns, all this money, all this power and influence, all these resources, and for what? When it matters most, pro gun guys still won’t use any of it to help make the community safer.
Well, since they won’t use anything to protect anyone, why bother allowing this crap to continue?
Now all the Karen’s in this country went from CRT to gun control. Have fun with that.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Sorry you don't live in America. Because if you live in America your country has gangs. You just don't care enough to find out that their community leaders, religious leaders, many community groups as well as their elected politicians speak out and fight against those gangs and gun violence. You would rather spout rhetoric that makes you feel good.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Mass shootings are mass shootings no matter who is doing the shooting.
When you get down to it, shootings of one person outnumber the totals of people shot in mass shootings, no matter the definition.
I don't see the justification in hiding who is doing the shooting. It is what it is.
All true. But forgive me for not understanding how that helps protect the most innocent among us. Our children. Diverting the attention away from that seems to be trying to avoid that children should be able to go to school and feel safe. You see, mass shootings will not be solved. There isn't some magic bullet, pardon the pun, to make them all go away.
That however doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to focus on taking measures to protect the most innocent among us. It doesn't mean that just because you can't totally stop a problem, making it better doersn't actually means something.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I've never advocated to make AR-15's illegal. I am for raising the age to buy one, any semi auto in fact to the age of 21. Why? Because our society has determined that a person isn't even responsible enough to buy a beer until they're 21. Yet we think it's okay to put a weapon in their hands that can kill dozens of people in less than a minute? Many of these mass school shootings are done by people between the ages of 18-20. That doesn't make any sense. I'm for mandatory metal detectors at school entrances so that nobody can enter a school without passing through a metal detector. I'm for placing retired military and police in our schools for security. I'm for holding gun owners responsible for securing their weapons. I'll give you an example.......
‘It is shocking’: Metro police say more than 60% of stolen guns taken from vehicles
Most of these guns were stolen from UNLOCKED vehicles. Leaving a gun in an unlocked vehicle, leaving your guns unsecured in your home where your child can get to them easily is just plain stupid and irresponsible. Their stupidity is leading to more gun crimes. They are putting guns in the hands of criminals and people who are not stable. Until we address these issues we will accomplish nothing.
Not everyone who thinks common sense measures to help lessen the body count want to "take your guns". That's why you see right wingers do nothing to help. Because that's the agenda people such as yourself keep pushing. "That wanna take mah guns!"
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I've never advocated to make AR-15's illegal. I am for raising the age to buy one, any semi auto in fact to the age of 21. Why? Because our society has determined that a person isn't even responsible enough to buy a beer until they're 21. Yet we think it's okay to put a weapon in their hands that can kill dozens of people in less than a minute? Many of these mass school shootings are done by people between the ages of 18-20. That doesn't make any sense. I'm for mandatory metal detectors at school entrances so that nobody can enter a school without passing through a metal detector. I'm for placing retired military and police in our schools for security. I'm for holding gun owners responsible for securing their weapons. I'll give you an example.......
‘It is shocking’: Metro police say more than 60% of stolen guns taken from vehicles
Most of these guns were stolen from UNLOCKED vehicles. Leaving a gun in an unlocked vehicle, leaving your guns unsecured in your home where your child can get to them easily is just plain stupid and irresponsible. Their stupidity is leading to more gun crimes. They are putting guns in the hands of criminals and people who are not stable. Until we address these issues we will accomplish nothing.
Not everyone who thinks common sense measures to help lessen the body count want to "take your guns". That's why you see right wingers do nothing to help. Because that's the agenda people such as yourself keep pushing. "That wanna take mah guns!"
how many "school shootings" are the guns actually registered to the person who committed the crime?
to my point earlier... we would have an 80-90% reduction in "mass shootings" and theft significant reduction if we just make gangs illegal. Plus, they would stop stealing guns from cars.
Also, don't get me started on the BS "school shooting" data they have been floating around either. The information is so misleading it's disgusting.
last thought... there are 131,000 schools in the USA. It is highly unlikely that we do not have enough former military/police who would be either mentally competent, wouldn't interact with school kids in improper ways, or would be interested in that job.
Blocking those who argue to argue, eliminates the argument.
I don't know how that actually addresses my points other than some wild speculation on your part. You have local, state and county police in every part of our nation. We have veterans of all ages in our society. Your answer seems to be "do nothing" which is exactly what's gotten us to where we are now.
According to the 2018 census there are 17 million veterans in our nation. Sure some are too old to do this job. some have issues and criminal records which would preclude them.
Which shooters under 21 bought their guns legally? How many do you think it needs to take before it would help prevent some?
UVALDE, TEXAS: MAY 24, 2022. 21 DEAD.
Salvador Ramos legally purchased two guns in the days before the attack that killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School — an AR-style rifle from a federally licensed gun dealer in the Uvalde area on May 17 and a second rifle on May 20. Ramos made the purchases just days after turning 18, the minimum age under federal law for buying a rifle. He also purchased several hundred rounds of ammunition. At least one of the rifles was a DDM4, made by Daniel Defense and modeled after the U.S. military’s M4 carbine rifle, though without the M4′s ability to switch to fully automatic or fire a three-round burst. “The idea that an 18-year-old kid can walk into a gun store and buy two assault weapons is just wrong,” Biden said hours after the shooting Tuesday. “What in God’s name do you need an assault weapon for except to kill someone?” Ramos was killed at the school by a Border Patrol team.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK: MAY 14, 2022. 10 DEAD.
Payton Gendron legally purchased the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S used in the attack on Tops Friendly Market from a federally licensed gun dealer near his home in Conklin, New York, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Buffalo. In a personal, online diary that surfaced after the attack, Gendron said he bought the AR-15-style weapon in January, bought a shotgun in December and received a rifle as a Christmas present from his dad when he was 16. Last year, Gendron was taken to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation under a state mental health law after writing “murder-suicide” in response to a teacher’s question. New York is one of 19 states with red flag laws that allow courts to take guns from people posing immediate danger, but that didn’t happen with Gendron, who was 17 at the time. State police described his threat as “general in nature” and said it didn’t “specifically mention shooting or firearms.” After the shooting, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order underscoring the need for red flag interventions and said she would seek to bar people under 21 from buying some semi-automatic weapons in the state. A similar law in California was ruled unconstitutional. Gendron is charged with murder.
PARKLAND, FLORIDA: FEB. 14, 2018. 17 DEAD.
Nikolas Cruz legally purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle in February 2017 from a licensed dealer a few miles from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, authorities said. He’d been treated at a mental health clinic but hadn’t been there in more than a year. Federal law prohibits gun purchases if a court declares a person a “mental defective” or commits that person to an institution, but not if the person seeks treatment voluntarily. Cruz was 19 at the time of the shooting. He pleaded guilty in October. A four-month penalty trial is scheduled to begin this summer that will determine if he is sentenced to death or life without parole. ___
I mean it's fine just to throw out opinions that the facts do not support. But that won't help the problem. There are a lot more. But maybe if you looked for the answers at how we can at least slow doen these MASS CASUALTY school shootings rather than make up excuses why we can't do anything about them you may understand this.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
Michael J. Klein, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center Wed, June 8, 2022, 3:31 PM·5 min read
The Clinton-era ban on assault weapons ushered in a period of fewer mass shooting deaths. AP Photo/Dennis Cook A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows: Before the 1994 ban:
From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.
Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun. During the 1994-2004 ban:
In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception. From 2004 onward:
The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.
Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2005 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.
Saving hundreds of lives
We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.
Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.
And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of our selected data sources: the Los Angeles Times, Stanford University, and Mother Jones magazine.
Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons. Cause or correlation?
It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.
Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.
Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s claim that the rate of mass shootings during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 holds true.
As the U.S. looks toward a solution to the country’s epidemic of mass shootings, it is difficult to say conclusively that reinstating the assault weapons ban would have a profound impact, especially given the growth in sales in the 18 years in which Americans have been allowed to purchase and stockpile such weapons. But given that many of the high-profile mass shooters in recent years purchased their weapons less than one year before committing their acts, the evidence suggests that it might.
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
Michael J. Klein, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center Wed, June 8, 2022, 3:31 PM·5 min read
The Clinton-era ban on assault weapons ushered in a period of fewer mass shooting deaths. AP Photo/Dennis Cook A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows: Before the 1994 ban:
From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.
Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun. During the 1994-2004 ban:
In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception. From 2004 onward:
The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.
Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2005 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.
Saving hundreds of lives
We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.
Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.
And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of our selected data sources: the Los Angeles Times, Stanford University, and Mother Jones magazine.
Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons. Cause or correlation?
It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.
Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.
Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s claim that the rate of mass shootings during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 holds true.
As the U.S. looks toward a solution to the country’s epidemic of mass shootings, it is difficult to say conclusively that reinstating the assault weapons ban would have a profound impact, especially given the growth in sales in the 18 years in which Americans have been allowed to purchase and stockpile such weapons. But given that many of the high-profile mass shooters in recent years purchased their weapons less than one year before committing their acts, the evidence suggests that it might.
It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.
Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.
Personally, I am leaning towards a 3-day waiting period enacted on all semi-automatic weapons.
Blocking those who argue to argue, eliminates the argument.
so heartbreaking. just like arguing with pro gun guys here. they showed more aggression toward the people wanting their kids safe than actually saving the kids.
and just like some people on this board: more aggression toward defending their right to any kind of weapon than actually keeping our kids safe and healthy.
but they'll tell us they're pro-life. and they us all their about christian/family values.
all these people with all these types of guns. and do they use them to actually protect children?
nope. they buy them to make themselves feel like a badass. too bad few of these pro gun nuts are ACTUALLY bad ass. just a bunch of frauds like their lord and savior Trump.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
when you die, and god ask you "what did you do to save my children?"
since the answer will be an obvious "nothing", what makes yall think you're going to heaven? cause you prayed really hard? lmao, pathetic.
imagine having to explain to jesus and god that you loved all these big ass guns but did nothing useful to protect god's children.
if god is real, i'm going to hell. at least i can own it. so many "conservatives" will already be there, and won't admit it. make sure to save me a seat in the front.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
This isn't a right vs. left problem, this is an American problem. Screw anybody who denies or tries to slide shuffle dance around that. I don't want guns taken away, I want the killings to stop. The government is not going to do a damn thing, and if they somehow manage to pass anything under the gun-toting Yaliban NRA, it will most certainly be insufficient. If people want this to stop, they are going to have to look in the mirror for the person that is going to have to make it happen. Nobody is coming to your rescue. Hell Kristen Senima is too worried about crypto not getting taxed properly to be worried about your babies. smh, we are so freaking broken as a country, it's just unbelievable. If this had happened when I was a child, Ds&Rs alike would have come out to drive this crap back into the darkness.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 06/08/2206:55 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
RICO has effectively made street gang activity illegal.
Interesting.
So... why does illegal gang actiiity still exist in every major city in America?
The same reason drugs do. We've spent decades with a war on drugs and they're still everywhere. Why is that?
We keep asking that "Why is that?" question on many fronts. The answer is simple: We have a county full of law breakers who don't care, just to boil it down in to a nutshell.
Passing laws doesn't do a damn thing to stop people intent on breaking the law.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
This isn't a right vs. left problem, this is an American problem. Screw anybody who denies or tries to slide shuffle dance around that. I don't want guns taken away, I want the killings to stop. The government is not going to do a damn thing, and if they somehow manage to pass anything under the gun-toting Yaliban NRA, it will most certainly be insufficient. If people want this to stop, they are going to have to look in the mirror for the person that is going to have to make it happen. Nobody is coming to your rescue. Hell Kristen Senima is too worried about crypto not getting taxed properly to be worried about your babies. smh, we are so freaking broken as a country, it's just unbelievable. If this had happened when I was a child, Ds&Rs alike would have come out to drive this crap back into the darkness.
yea but only one party doesn't want to lift a finger to do anything to prevent this crap from happening.
you have to remember, back in your day, the Republican party actually had the balls to impeach a president and force him to resign from office. that level of character does not exist in that party anymore.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Partially true, just as with Trump and Company, but in the case of these young shooters, they are either traumatized or they are just broken. They are not born criminals who do not care.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 06/08/2206:59 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
This isn't a right vs. left problem, this is an American problem. Screw anybody who denies or tries to slide shuffle dance around that. I don't want guns taken away, I want the killings to stop. The government is not going to do a damn thing, and if they somehow manage to pass anything under the gun-toting Yaliban NRA, it will most certainly be insufficient. If people want this to stop, they are going to have to look in the mirror for the person that is going to have to make it happen. Nobody is coming to your rescue. Hell Kristen Senima is too worried about crypto not getting taxed properly to be worried about your babies. smh, we are so freaking broken as a country, it's just unbelievable. If this had happened when I was a child, Ds&Rs alike would have come out to drive this crap back into the darkness.
yea but only one party doesn't want to lift a finger to do anything to prevent this crap from happening.
you have to remember, back in your day, the Republican party actually had the balls to impeach a president and force him to resign from office. that level of character does not exist in that party anymore.
I think a lot of republican 'people' want something done. It's their leadership and media getting paid by the gun lobby fighting tooth and nail to create "OTHERS" as the boogeyman.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
I don't know how that actually addresses my points other than some wild speculation on your part.
You have local, state and county police in every part of our nation. We have veterans of all ages in our society. Your answer seems to be "do nothing" which is exactly what's gotten us to where we are now.
According to the 2018 census there are 17 million veterans in our nation. Sure some are too old to do this job. some have issues and criminal records which would preclude them.
I mean it's fine just to throw out opinions that the facts do not support. But that won't help the problem. There are a lot more. But maybe if you looked for the answers at how we can at least slow doen these MASS CASUALTY school shootings rather than make up excuses why we can't do anything about them you may understand this.
Actually, I can back up everything I am saying with actual data.
There are about 4-5 million vets who would be between 18-54 and of those... 1 million would not be "mentally fit" to guard a school. So, personally, I wouldn't want a vet watching my child's school unless they went through rigorous mental exams.This is why I said I don't think there are enough vets who are fit or would want to do it as a job that would pay around 18/hr to 20/hour and risk their life.
It looks like you found 3 instances (not sure if you can find or if that was all you could find) where they purchased their guns legally and 2 of those had severe mental issues (who probably shouldn't be allowed to have a gun in the first place).
I personally went through and found the info on school shootings and the far majority were either gang-related or after school hours when school was not actually in session.
plus.... (see the tweet on the last page) 75% of all mass shootings are gang-related shootings (and the data below thanks to snopes).
Here is more factual data that is not skewed by the media
Education Week (EW) had recorded 27 school shootings in 2022
what people are conveniently leaving out The criteria for the shootings was incidents:
where a firearm was discharged where any individual, other than the suspect or perpetrator, has a bullet wound resulting from the incident that happen on K-12 school property or on a school bus that occur while school is in session or during a school-sponsored event
Everytown noted that mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook (and more recently at Robb Elementary in Texas), represent less than 1% of overall school gun-violence incidents
They added that common incidents of gun violence involved “specific individuals, arguments that escalated, acts of domestic violence, parking lot altercations, and robberies where the school was an unfortunate backdrop .”
In 2022, the center tracked two instances of an active-shooter situation, and 136 instances with a non-active shooter. We should note that an “active shooter,” according to the FBI, is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.”
Blocking those who argue to argue, eliminates the argument.
This isn't a right vs. left problem, this is an American problem. Screw anybody who denies or tries to slide shuffle dance around that. I don't want guns taken away, I want the killings to stop. The government is not going to do a damn thing, and if they somehow manage to pass anything under the gun-toting Yaliban NRA, it will most certainly be insufficient. If people want this to stop, they are going to have to look in the mirror for the person that is going to have to make it happen. Nobody is coming to your rescue. Hell Kristen Senima is too worried about crypto not getting taxed properly to be worried about your babies. smh, we are so freaking broken as a country, it's just unbelievable. If this had happened when I was a child, Ds&Rs alike would have come out to drive this crap back into the darkness.
yea but only one party doesn't want to lift a finger to do anything to prevent this crap from happening.
you have to remember, back in your day, the Republican party actually had the balls to impeach a president and force him to resign from office. that level of character does not exist in that party anymore.
I think a lot of republican 'people' want something done. It's their leadership and media getting paid by the gun lobby fighting tooth and nail to create "OTHERS" as the boogeyman. "It's the dem lies and their agenda", I heard today from a sitting Republican Rep. Also heard other GOPer leaders pleading for some sort of action this week. This time, it's not a one-size-fits-all moment, and that's the only difference from all the other 'Thoughts and Prayers' moments.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)