Nearly half of Republicans think US has to live with mass shootings, poll finds

Look at the BLM website. They state it as one of their mission goals

All you have to do is look at public schools. The Department of Education is trying to replace the parents.

 

My question was why do YOU think the Left is trying to destroy the nuclear family?

What do you think they are doing that supports that statement?

 

I've already told you why I think the Left is trying to destroy the nuclear family.

Do you believe it takes a village to raise a child?

 

No. You referred me to a BLM site to read their mission.

Yes, with a caveat. Loving, nurturing parents are the first step in that process.

Do you believe it takes a village to raise a child?

 

Oh, RAISE a child, not RAZE a child..

Never mind.

 

This is part of the problem. One issue we can all agree on and you attack Republicans and the second amendment. Reps and gun owners have to defend themselves and their rights. While good people fight among each other, killers enjoy an advantage. This TX killers had a history that should have prevented the purchase. The government you want in charge of our rights let us down and now you want to take gun rights from those with no violent history.

To top it off, you compare the cost to healthcare when doctors and pharma products kill more people than murderers with guns.

 

Half of 30% of voters think they can hold everyone else hostage? What a shock!

 

In the words of Terry McAuliffe: "The parents don't have a say in what's taught at school". Do you agree?

 

Hostage? It's the Constitution you have to get past.

 

That's because none of the possible proposals that are anywhere even distantly close to being reasonable would end them.

You're welcome to try to describe to us a proposal that you think would completely end them.


Brazil and Mexico are two countries that have more mass shootings than the US.

People like you only want to compare the US to other "rich" countries. But the thing is, none of those other rich countries have as much diversity as the US.

If you were to take a country like, oh, totally random, say Nigeria, and combine it together in the calculations with Australia, those statistics would start looking a whole lot more like how they do in the US.

 

What if we allowed a compromise and had public government funding for medical costs specifically caused by all bullet injuries?

 

I often laugh a bit that those that think they can legislate away guns in the United States and think they will eliminate gun violence or stop mass shooting. I was raised in Belfast Ireland, on of the most gun restricted countries in the world, yet by the age of 10 I had a rifle and carried a p Walt her PPK daily. It wasn’t that difficult getting a gun, even a full auto. But then, we, as children knew how to pilfer what was needed to make zip guns and slamfire guns and even how to make contact fragmentation bombing grenades. While there weren’t mass shootings there were plenty of bombings. There were at least 10,000 bomb attacks 1968–1998 Cain. Bomb are surprisingly easy to make, bot then of course, some idiot interested i causing mass misery just needs a petrol can. Even to day were I to land in Belfast if I wanted one, I could have a gun within 24 hrs. For that matter, I know of a fun cache that has pistols, rifles and full auto sub guns along with the ammo to feed them.
There are nearly 500 million guns in the US, does anyone really believe tor can stop access to guns? So to stop a handful of idiots The US Government is going to enact some panacea of gun laws that will eliminate guns from the equation?
Silliness and naivety.
Given the drug trafficking in the US and the fact guns flow with the drugs… well then….

if wishes were fishes.

 

I find it rather peculiar that there has been times that I've been chastised for pointing out that you are not an American and therefore your opinion does not matter to Americans.

But yet you are free to speak on issues that only affect us Americans. don't you think that's a rather peculiar thing?

 

Yes two family/ suicides and one twit who shot four people in Darwin - SINCE 1996, a

I had to look up the Melbourne incident because it does not fit the FBI definition of a mass shooting since only one person died

But thanks for underscoring for me how few mass shootings there has been in the 26 years since 1996
https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/defaul...he_united_states_submitted_to_peer_review.pdf

 

Who said anything about legislation?

The question is - are you willing to accept the death of little children as the “price for freedom”?

 

Nope! Because you are similarly free to speak on issues Australian, European, African Chinese eyptc etc etc

Isn’t free speech a wonderful thing?

 

Does Oz still allow knoves and hammers?

 

You are dodging

Are you willing to accept the death of children as the price for “gun freedoms”?

Oh! And the sad bit is that you are using tired and debunked NRA memes to do the dodging

 

Death Cult at work.

 

Are you asking me and the rest of the US to accept more and more restrictions, including confiscations, until there are no more deaths of children from the illegal use of firearms?

I don't use memes at all. Eight children were killed by someone with a knife in Cairns in 2014. What steps has Australia taken to lessen the chances of this happening in the future, and were new restrictions on knives imposed?

 

I understand the attraction of the emotional appeal of the idea of protecting ‘innocent’ children from death; couple that thought with photos of young children with particularly large appearing eyes and you have a great manipulative marketing (in the sense of selling gun control), it sets the stage for making the equivalence you are making that to support gun ownership in The US is tantamount to endorsing the murder of innocent children. But as far as cost of freedom, how many lives have been lost in the US and even AU fighting for the cause of Liberty?
I am licensed to carry in 40 states and have for decades, while observing the law, for instance, not carrying when consuming alcohol, or in restricted zones.but even before coming to the US when I was young back in BelfastI carried a gun despite the severity of the laws if I was caught with a gun. Back home I might face a lengthy mandatory prison sentence if caught with a gun, but I weight the probability of getting aught against the higher probability of death or great bodily harm if I didn’t carry, and that was just going to and from school. More than once my carrying was responsible for defending my life and that of others, most recently stopping a kidnapping snatch of a woman off the street in broad daylight. Focusing on gun control as a means stopping the murder of innocence, as appealing as it might sound plays to those dedicated to removing guns from society, but doesn’t address the underlying causes where someone w mad intent sees the slaughter of innocents as an option to begin with, because if that part of the equation isn’t addressed, whackos will simple substitute other means (bombs, poison,arson) to carry out their ends. I know lots of gun owners that abhor the idea of innocence being snuffed, but virtually all those I know wouldn’t consider using a gun for anything but protecting innocence should the opportunity present. While whackos certainly exist and their notorious exploits generate both headlines and emotion, less well publicized are the millions of times fire arm are used by citizens to save live, often without firing a shot. As they often say, in media circles, blood leads, and certainly generates the emotional response you often express in your post; then for you, in your profession see the results of violence of all types making the senseless of it all even more personally disturbing. I am there with you, but I approach the problem differently. I have a immutable sense of responsibility to protecting others, and am willing to bothaccep that responsibility, as I have many times and accept accountability for my actions.
I do believe in protecting the innocent, but I don’t see doing that to the exclusion of the Liberty of individuals, there are ways to protect the innocent far more effectively than the idea of a magic wand to remove guns from the equation in a country with double the number of guns to people. That ain’t happening, so what’s more likely to be effective and doable?

 

Soooooo- I gather you are OK with the high rate of child deaths as the price for “freedom?”

What price would you pay to reduce that number of child deaths?

 

Hmmmmm - how often has this occurred? Once.

How many mass shootings per day do you have over there?




I think our last child who died from an accident with a gun was a couple of years back but I can’t find the report
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths

 

Is the price being asked the relinquishing of rights protected by two amendments and the confiscation of any and all firearms that I own?

 

Yet it could happen again at any time. Evidently those lost children and the risk of potential future loss isn't an issue for you.

What is the ask? To accept laws like those of Australia, the UK, NZ and Japan?