Texas Mass Shooting part 30

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2019, 09:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: Mr. Crenshaw has responded!

It's the fault of the far-left who live in a bubble!

He isn't assigning any blame for anything in that tweet.

Quote:Aside from that he is still saying that if we had universal background checks he couldn't just give a gun to anyone without them getting a background check.

As those proposed laws have been written that's precisely correct.

Quote:All seriousness aside:  What would happen to someone if they loaned a gun to someone for a long trip and they were stopped and police found said gun in their vehicle?  Honest question as I do not know the answer.

Completely depends on the state and their gun laws.  In most states absolutely nothing would happen, unless of course the gun was being used in an unlawful way.  In CA, as Bel had previously reported, you could be in a lot of trouble.  CA has an approved handgun roster, which in reality is a backdoor banning of many handguns.  As a peace officer I am exempt from this roster.  If I loaned a non-roster pistol to a friend I would be breaking the law and they would be charged as well with possession of an illegal handgun (illegal for them anyways).

[GMDino]

(09-05-2019, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He isn't assigning any blame for anything in that tweet.

Sure he has. he blames the far-left bubble liver for not knowing you can just loan a gun to anyone and that there should be no problem with that.

(09-05-2019, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As those proposed laws have been written that's precisely correct.

All of them? Citation?

(09-05-2019, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Completely depends on the state and their gun laws.  In most states absolutely nothing would happen, unless of course the gun was being used in an unlawful way.  In CA, as Bel had previously reported, you could be in a lot of trouble.  CA has an approved handgun roster, which in reality is a backdoor banning of many handguns.  As a peace officer I am exempt from this roster.  If I loaned a non-roster pistol to a friend I would be breaking the law and they would be charged as well with possession of an illegal handgun (illegal for them anyways).

Thanks.

I assume you are exempt due to the training for your job? So if others have a job that require handling a gun and theyhave the proper training are they also exempt?

[GMDino]

(09-05-2019, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate you acknowledging the historic racism inherent in gun control laws.  Seeing as how I am for any law abiding citizen owning the firearm of their choice this does not apply to me.  It does apply to today's gun control crowd who are now pushing the laughably absurd dangerous white man/racist trope.  The irony of the left's own definition of what constitutes a "mass shooting" actually showing that young black men are the primary perpetrators of such acts, as defined, by far has to be pointed out.

Interesting.

Not sure who is this "left" that has their own special definition, so I looked it up.

I found that the FBI considers a mass shooting:

Quote:There is no widely accepted definition of the term "mass shooting" but the FBI defines a "mass murder" as "four or more murdered during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders."

Since wikipedia can be wonky when it comes to updates I did a little further research and found the government has a firm definition signed into law in 2013:

Quote:First, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law by the president in January 2013, permits the U.S. attorney general—at the request of appropriate state or local law enforcement personnel—to provide federal assistance during active shooter incidents and mass killings (defined by the law as three or more people) in public places. The attorney general delegated this responsibility to the FBI.

So how many "mass shootings" fall into different race categories?

One site says:

Quote:Of 114 mass shootings - using the Congress definition - between 1982 and May 2019, 110 were carried out by men.


The final four are made up of three women, and one case of one man and a woman working together in the San Bernardino attack in December 2015.


According to Statista analysis, in the same time-frame 64 of the perpetrators were white, while 19 were black, 10 Latino and eight Asian.

About 60% of America is white-only, while current stats show white people carry out about 58% of shootings. But as a proportion of all races and shootings, white people far outstrip others.

Here is the Statista report:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

So, using the government's definition (not the "left's"...whatever that is) almost 60% of mass shootings are committed by whites.  96% or so by men.

That seems like "primary" to me.  

But I'm just going by the numbers with no hidden motives, so what do I know.

[*Nately120*]

(09-05-2019, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate you acknowledging the historic racism inherent in gun control laws.  Seeing as how I am for any law abiding citizen owning the firearm of their choice this does not apply to me.  It does apply to today's gun control crowd who are now pushing the laughably absurd dangerous white man/racist trope.  The irony of the left's own definition of what constitutes a "mass shooting" actually showing that young black men are the primary perpetrators of such acts, as defined, by far has to be pointed out.

Well i think we can agree the concept of mass shooting is taken more to be about innocent people just being at the wrong place at the wrong time more than a specific number killed. 

Most people can picture themselves at wal Mart when a gunman goes on a shooting spree more than they can imagine joining the bloods and engaging in gang warfare. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2019, 11:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure he has.  he blames the far-left bubble liver for not knowing you can just loan a gun to anyone and that there should be no problem with that.

You're using the word incorrectly.  He's stating she's wrong, this is not assigning blame.

Quote:All of them? Citation?

Universal backgrounds check laws state that ownership cannot be transferred without a NICS check.  Ownership equals possession.  There is not universal background check in effect so I should have used the term "as proposed" instead of "as written.  However, if you want to use CA as an example, you cannot loan ammunition to your buddy at the range under CA's new background check to buy ammunition horseshit law.

http://downloads.capta.org/leg/BallotMeasures/Prop63_FullText.pdf

Quote:Thanks.

I assume you are exempt due to the training for your job?  So if others have a job that require handling a gun and theyhave the proper training are they also exempt?

You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.  CA always does a LEO exemption for these types of laws 9see Prop 63 above) to prevent them from fighting them tooth and nail.  Also, you can take any amount of training you want, you can be an ex-Navy SEAL, and if you're not a sworn peace officer you cannot buy a single roster exempt pistol.

(09-05-2019, 12:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Interesting.

Not sure who is this "left" that has their own special definition, so I looked it up.

I found that the FBI considers a mass shooting:

Yes, now use that definition and look up "mass shootings".

Quote:Since wikipedia can be wonky when it comes to updates I did a little further research and found the government has a firm definition signed into law in 2013:

[/url]
What is that law, your link does not say?  Also, is it different than the one you cited above?  I have to think it is otherwise your later numbers would be wildly different.

Quote:So how many "mass shootings" fall into different race categories?

[url=https://news.sky.com/story/why-are-white-men-more-likely-to-carry-out-mass-shootings-11252808]One site says:

Thank you for posting this as it helps prove my point.  From your article;

However, organisations such as the Gun Violence Archive categorise a mass shooting as an incident where four people are shot, either wounded or killed, and put the figure at 251 shootings this year.

As I said earlier, using the definition used by the anti-gun side, to artificially inflate numbers and make people afraid, the vast majority of "mass shootings" are committed by young black men.  It's a bit of a catch 22 for them.  One one hand they can stick to a definition that limits the number of mass shootings to, per your own source, 114 such incidents since 1982, or 3.08 a year.  Then they can demonize violent, and don't forget racist, white men.   Or they can use their own definition, which allows them to say, and Dem candidates for POTUS have parroted, that there have already been 251 "mass shootings" in this year alone (again per your own source), but then they must blame mostly young black men for these "mass shootings".  Quite the quandary for them.

Quote:Here is the Statista report:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

So, using the government's definition (not the "left's"...whatever that is) almost 60% of mass shootings are committed by whites.  96% or so by men.

That seems like "primary" to me.  

But I'm just going by the numbers with no hidden motives, so what do I know.

I think I've already addressed this above so I will simply add that by the definition you are using there are 3.08 mass shootings per year in the US, with it being defined as four or more people killed in a single event with no cooling off period.  So kindly correct your friends when they claim there has already been 250+ mass shootings in the US in this year alone!!!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2019, 12:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well i think we can agree the concept of mass shooting is taken more to be about innocent people just being at the wrong place at the wrong time more than a specific number killed.

We can agree, absolutely.  Sadly the anti-gun side cannot.  As stated above in my response to Dino, they are artificially inflating the number of mass shootings, i.e. lying, in order to invoke fear.  By doing so they have actually themselves labeled young black men as the mass shooter in the vast majority of cases.

Quote:Most people can picture themselves at wal Mart when a gunman goes on a shooting spree more than they can imagine joining the bloods and engaging in gang warfare. 

Again, you and I agree.  Now if we could only get the Dem POTUS candidates, Moms Demand Action, Gun Violence Archive and all these other astroturfed organizations to agree as well.

[GMDino]

(09-05-2019, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're using the word incorrectly.  He's stating she's wrong, this is not assigning blame.





Universal backgrounds check laws state that ownership cannot be transferred without a NICS check.  Ownership equals possession.  There is not universal background check in effect so I should have used the term "as proposed" instead of "as written.  However, if you want to use CA as an example, you cannot loan ammunition to your buddy at the range under CA's new background check to buy ammunition horseshit law.

http://downloads.capta.org/leg/BallotMeasures/Prop63_FullText.pdf






You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.  CA always does a LEO exemption for these types of laws 9see Prop 63 above) to prevent them from fighting them tooth and nail.  Also, you can take any amount of training you want, you can be an ex-Navy SEAL, and if you're not a sworn peace officer you cannot buy a single roster exempt pistol.


Yes, now use that definition and look up "mass shootings".






[url=https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-resources][/url]
What is that law, your link does not say?  Also, is it different than the one you cited above?  I have to think it is otherwise your later numbers would be wildly different.







Thank you for posting this as it helps prove my point.  From your article;

However, organisations such as the Gun Violence Archive categorise a mass shooting as an incident where four people are shot, either wounded or killed, and put the figure at 251 shootings this year.

As I said earlier, using the definition used by the anti-gun side, to artificially inflate numbers and make people afraid, the vast majority of "mass shootings" are committed by young black men.  It's a bit of a catch 22 for them.  One one hand they can stick to a definition that limits the number of mass shootings to, per your own source, 114 such incidents since 1982, or 3.08 a year.  Then they can demonize violent, and don't forget racist, white men.   Or they can use their own definition, which allows them to say, and Dem candidates for POTUS have parroted, that there have already been 251 "mass shootings" in this year alone (again per your own source), but then they must blame mostly young black men for these "mass shootings".  Quite the quandary for them.



I think I've already addressed this above so I will simply add that by the definition you are using there are 3.08 mass shootings per year in the US, with it being defined as four or more people killed in a single event with no cooling off period.  So kindly correct your friends when they claim there has already been 250+ mass shootings in the US in this year alone!!!

Not sure how the undefined "left" is my "friend".  But the real numbers, used by the government and FBI says white men are the "primary" attackers.

That's all that's important.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2019, 01:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not sure how the undefined "left" is my "friend".  But the real numbers, used by the government and FBI says white men are the "primary" attackers.

That's all that's important.

Not even an impressive attempt at dodging my points.  Despite our obvious differences I'd actually have some respect for you if you didn't routinely ignore points that refute your arguments.  As always, I'll have to stick to refuting them for other people to see and learn.

EDIT: I'd also add that in a majority white country, wouldn't one expect the majority of mass shootings to be carried out by whites? This adds a further layer of quandary to the artificial attempt to inflate these numbers employed by the anti-gun side.

[*Nately120*]

(09-05-2019, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We can agree, absolutely.  Sadly the anti-gun side cannot.  As stated above in my response to Dino, they are artificially inflating the number of mass shootings, i.e. lying, in order to invoke fear.  By doing so they have actually themselves labeled young black men as the mass shooter in the vast majority of cases.


Again, you and I agree.  Now if we could only get the Dem POTUS candidates, Moms Demand Action, Gun Violence Archive and all these other astroturfed organizations to agree as well.

Ehh, maybe it all cancels out since many of the pro-gun types are all about opposing gun control because they are told the young black men the left won't talk about are going to harm them with their illegal guns.  Where I live now there are 0.0 black people but everyone here is waiting for "a black guy with a gun" to break into their house, so the notion that black guys with guns are causing havoc is certainly out there.

Any any rate, I bring this up every time there is a mass shooting...we need to start treating people who are killed in such things as heroes who died defending our freedoms. Much like dying in combat, dying via a shooting from a stranger on American soil isn't a desirable thing, but we can easily make it into an honorable thing. Erect a monument in DC and engrave names on it, send the families a flag and some sort of medal, stuff like that. Just change the narrative and change people's minds on this stuff.

[jj22]

(09-05-2019, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: EDIT:  I'd also add that in a majority white country, wouldn't one expect the majority of mass shootings to be carried out by whites?  This adds a further layer of quandary to the artificial attempt to inflate these numbers employed by the anti-gun side.

How do you feel about the majority of people in prison being black given Blacks only make up 11% of the population with only 9% of us not incarcerated? I'm glad you brought this up.

It's always been a head scratcher for the Black community.

Your right. Most crimes are committed by whites and it makes sense because they make up the majority race, however, they somehow avoid the focus of our law enforcement and don't get the Thug/Terrorist label as the minorities do. Matter of fact, bring up mass shootings to pro gun people and they are quick shift the focus to blacks in Chicago!

No need to lock your cars when you see a black man walk past, you are more likely to get attacked by a white man.

But nobody clutches their purse in an elevator when a white man walks in.....

Fun fact, the only time the NRA supported gun control is when they wanted to keep blacks from being able to purchase guns.

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

The NRA also has been quiet when innocent black men get slaughtered while they are quick to defend the rights of these terrorist to own guns.

https://thinkprogress.org/nra-quiet-police-shoot-black-armed-good-guy-with-a-gun-alabama-ca37e7e5475a/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dana-loesch-explains-why-the-nra-didnt-defend-philando-castile

The NRA funds more terrorist than Iran.

[GMDino]

(09-05-2019, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not even an impressive attempt at dodging my points.  Despite our obvious differences I'd actually have some respect for you if you didn't routinely ignore points that refute your arguments.  As always, I'll have to stick to refuting them for other people to see and learn.

EDIT:  I'd also add that in a majority white country, wouldn't one expect the majority of mass shootings to be carried out by whites?  This adds a further layer of quandary to the artificial attempt to inflate these numbers employed by the anti-gun side.

There is nothing to argue.  You want to use some "left" number that you didn't cite.  I used the government's numbers.  Whites are the "primary" actors in mass killings.

That you keep trying to prove otherwise is strange.  I mean I'm sure you want to make sure people are aware of all the non-white crimes for some reason.  As if no one knows about that.  You want to talk about anything OTHER than white men shooting up places the majority of the time.  For some reason. 

In a majority white country wouldn't one expect whites to commit more crimes?  But we that have a disproportionately black prison population.  This adds a further layer of quandry to the artificial attempt to push the blame to non-whites despite the real numbers.

[Millhouse]

(09-05-2019, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate you acknowledging the historic racism inherent in gun control laws.  Seeing as how I am for any law abiding citizen owning the firearm of their choice this does not apply to me.  It does apply to today's gun control crowd who are now pushing the laughably absurd dangerous white man/racist trope.  The irony of the left's own definition of what constitutes a "mass shooting" actually showing that young black men are the primary perpetrators of such acts, as defined, by far has to be pointed out.

The lib politicians love to grandstand about 'mass shootings' while keeping as quiet as possible about the daily and weekly gun violence in their city strongholds. Now I think gun laws can be better in preventing guns getting in the hands of the wrong person. But this would be putting a small circle band-aid on a gaping wound. They will prevent a few acts of violence perhaps, but that is it.

There is something much deeper in our American society that attributes to these needless acts of violence, and no one on the left or the right is wanting to talk about, because they know they are to blame to some extent as they are part of the baby boomer generation. The generation that was so eager to change and be more progressive from the WW2 generation, that core values were lost along the way trickling itself downward to today.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2019, 03:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: How do you feel about the majority of people in prison being black given Blacks only make up 11% of the population with only 9% of us not incarcerated? I'm glad you brought this up.

It's always been a head scratcher for the Black community.

The 9% not being incarcerated is wildly inaccurate.  You can try and source it but it's flat out wrong.  As for the rest, unfortunately black males commit a largely disproportionate amount of violent crime and violent crime is the reason the vast majority of the prison population is in prison.  The numbers are rather depressing, with the FBI  uniform crime report showing that black males make commit over 505 of the nations murders despite being around 6-7% of the population.  Now, the reasons for this are many and varied, but they're not all inherent racism in the system.

Quote:Your right. Most crimes are committed by whites and it makes sense because they make up the majority race, however, they somehow avoid the focus of our law enforcement and don't get the Thug/Terrorist label as the minorities do. Matter of fact, bring up mass shootings to pro gun people and they are quick shift the focus to blacks in Chicago!

The reason for this is likely delineated above.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/expanded-homicide

When the race of the offender was known, 53.5 percent were Black or African American, 43.9 percent were White, and 2.6 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 5,574 offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2.)

It's certainly not fair to label all black men as thugs or criminals.  The facts show that they commit a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime.  This may be the main reason for this perception by those who hold it.  Not being one of those people I can't say definitively.

Quote:No need to lock your cars when you see a black man walk past, you are more likely to get attacked by a white man.

Unfortunately, the numbers do not support this statement. 

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43

Per capita you are far more likely to be "attacked" as you put it, by a black man.

Quote:But nobody clutches their purse in an elevator when a white man walks in.....

I don't think that's true at all.  A white guy dressed like a street thug would likely provoke just this reaction.

Quote:Fun fact, the only time the NRA supported gun control is when they wanted to keep blacks from being able to purchase guns.

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

Well then, you should be glad they learned from that mistake are no longer on board.

Quote:The NRA also has been quiet when innocent black men get slaughtered while they are quick to defend the rights of these terrorist to own guns.

https://thinkprogress.org/nra-quiet-police-shoot-black-armed-good-guy-with-a-gun-alabama-ca37e7e5475a/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dana-loesch-explains-why-the-nra-didnt-defend-philando-castile

Yes, I thought they made a mistake not commenting on the Castile case as well.

Quote:The NRA funds more terrorist than Iran.

This statement is so stupid you should literally be ashamed that you wrote it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2019, 03:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: There is nothing to argue.  You want to use some "left" number that you didn't cite.  I used the government's numbers.  Whites are the "primary" actors in mass killings.

No, I used the number from your own source and the ones frequently used in the media when the topic comes up.  I didn't choose these numbers, your side of the aisle did.

Quote:That you keep trying to prove otherwise is strange.  I mean I'm sure you want to make sure people are aware of all the non-white crimes for some reason.  As if no one knows about that.  You want to talk about anything OTHER than white men shooting up places the majority of the time.  For some reason. 

I didn't try and prove anything.  I posted facts from your own source.  We can talk about white men shooting things all day, just don't lie when you do it.  You are correct though, "for some reason" I want to discuss the truth, not lies peddled to increase fear and panic.

Quote:In a majority white country wouldn't one expect whites to commit more crimes?  But we that have a disproportionately black prison population.  This adds a further layer of quandry to the artificial attempt to push the blame to non-whites despite the real numbers.

This has been discussed before, but see my response to JJ above for more edification.  Black men commit more murders in this country than white men, despite being only 6-7% of the population.  This is a statistical fact, not a quandary.  Why this is is certainly a quandary, but the fact that it is, is not.

[jj22]

(09-05-2019, 04:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement is so stupid you should literally be ashamed that you wrote it.

Why? Are you saying fighting for the rights of these home grown terrorist to have and be sold guns is different then selling them guns directly?

Conservatives like to say Iran sponsors terrorist (the biggest sponsor of terrorist in the world!), but no terrorist that have attacked us came from IRAN. Unlike Saudi Arabia, etc.

This statement is truer than you want to believe. As far more of these home grown terrorist are NRA members and supported by the group (which is why you see their quick defense of their rights).

I appreciate your legit responses tho (no sarcasm).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2019, 04:35 PM)jj22 Wrote: Why? Are you saying fighting for the rights of these home grown terrorist to have and be sold guns is different then selling them guns directly?

100% without a doubt.  By your inane declaration every defense attorney in the country is a terrorist or a criminal as they do their utmost to ensure that terrorists and criminals are acquitted.  Additionally, the NRA fights for the rights of all citizens, some of those will turn out to be criminals.  I'm sorry that the constitutional rights of others bothers you, but we don't lose them in this country without due process.

Quote:Conservatives like to say Iran sponsors terrorist (the biggest sponsor of terrorist in the world!), but no terrorist that have attacked us came from IRAN. Unlike Saudi Arabia, etc.

Iran unequivocally does fund international terrorism, this is an objective fact.  They have attacked US citizens, just not on US soil.  Also, a person's actions do not automatically tar the state of their citizenship.  Not sure what Iran or Saudi Arabia have to do with your statement though.

Quote:This statement is truer than you want to believe. As far more of these home grown terrorist are NRA members and supported by the group (which is why you see their quick defense of their rights).

It's not true in any way shape or form.  By your logic the NAACP is a terrorist organization because they ostensibly had the same objective as the Black Panther Party or the Black Liberation Army.  Point being, methods rather matter.

Quote:I appreciate your legit responses tho (no sarcasm).

Since you're eager to prove your point, why don't you list at least five home grown terrorists aided, trained and abetted by the NRA.  It should be
enlightening.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2019, 03:52 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The lib politicians love to grandstand about 'mass shootings' while keeping as quiet as possible about the daily and weekly gun violence in their city strongholds. Now I think gun laws can be better in preventing guns getting in the hands of the wrong person. But this would be putting a small circle band-aid on a gaping wound. They will prevent a few acts of violence perhaps, but that is it.

You get the point that Dino is plugging his ears and saying, nah, nah, nah not to hear.  You can't inflate the numbers of "mass shootings" while subsequently ignoring that the inflated number comes from criminal street violence, which also account for the lion's share of homicides in this country.

Quote:There is something much deeper in our American society that attributes to these needless acts of violence, and no one on the left or the right is wanting to talk about, because they know they are to blame to some extent as they are part of the baby boomer generation. The generation that was so eager to change and be more progressive from the WW2 generation, that core values were lost along the way trickling itself downward to today.

Actually, it's not that simple or complex.  Violent crime has been steadily dropping since 1992.  You are safer now then you were in any year of the 70's or 80's.  Why this change in perception?  It's because the media is pumping this story up and the Dems are cynically taking it up to paint their opponents as supporters of murder.  One need look no further than JJ or the SF city council to see this tactic at work.

[*Nately120*]

(09-05-2019, 05:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, it's not that simple or complex.  Violent crime has been steadily dropping since 1992.  You are safer now then you were in any year of the 70's or 80's.  Why this change in perception?  It's because the media is pumping this story up and the Dems are cynically taking it up to paint their opponents as supporters of murder.  One need look no further than JJ or the SF city council to see this tactic at work.

Politicians are like infomercial pitchmen, they convince you that you have a problem you had no idea you had and then conveniently offer to sell you the remedy for the problem they just convinced you that you have.  I wish people didn't fall for this crap, but I'm sure I'm too hopped-up on nihilistic libertarian bs to keep myself out of the racket. 

[jj22]

(09-05-2019, 05:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, it's not that simple or complex.  Violent crime has been steadily dropping since 1992.  You are safer now then you were in any year of the 70's or 80's.  Why this change in perception?  It's because the media is pumping this story up and the Dems are cynically taking it up to paint their opponents as supporters of murder.  One need look no further than JJ or the SF city council to see this tactic at work.

Or you can just google how the NRA has responded to mass shooters in America and end the discussion on rather or not they support and defend the shooters rights, or join in the disgust of them even having guns under this 'Mental illness" excuse.

But that would be too easy, so carry on being in denial. In the mean time, the NRA will continue to collect money and disburse these guns to these home grown terrorist. Just like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Far more Americans have been killed by members of the NRA then Iran in the last 20 years. How about you prove how many Americans Iran has killed (since you believe in this modern day IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction spin), and I'll show you the number of victim of home grown terrorist attacks here in America for this time period.

Deal? I got my numbers ready.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-06-2019, 09:34 AM)jj22 Wrote: Or you can just google how the NRA has responded to mass shooters in America and end the discussion on rather or not they support and defend the shooters rights, or join in the disgust of them even having guns under this 'Mental illness" excuse.

Every law abiding citizen has a constitutional right to own a firearm in this country.  The NRA fights to protect this right.  Just because you oppose this right doesn't make the NRA a terrorist organization and your argument is flat out stupid.

Quote:But that would be too easy, so carry on being in denial. In the mean time, the NRA will continue to collect money and disburse these guns to these home grown terrorist. Just like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I'm almost at the point were I think you're trolling.  Regardless, I'm getting a good laugh out of these posts.

Quote:Far more Americans have been killed by members of the NRA then Iran in the last 20 years.

Source?

Quote:How about you prove how many Americans Iran has killed (since you believe in this modern day IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction spin), and I'll show you the number of victim of home grown terrorist attacks here in America for this time period.

I made no claim in this regard, you did.  Iran is internationally recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism.  This is not up for dispute.

Quote:Deal? I got my numbers ready.

LOL, no you don't.  But feel free to prove otherwise.