Democrats still desperately pushing the fallacy that govt can do something about mass shootings

[Little-Acorn]

At most of the mass shootings in recent memory, the laws Democrat insist will help, have already been in effect. At the Oregon community college, the campus was a gun-free zone - guns were completely banned there, except for licensed conceal carry holders who still couldn't bring them inside buildings (which this shooter wasn't). And yet that's where the shootings keep happening.

It's clear that Democrat proposals don't work. The very idea that nutcases who don't mind committing multiple murders on innocent people, might stop because some Democrat made a law forbidding them from having a gun, is ludicrous.

And yet the Democrats STILL keep reacting to such shootings, by insisting we just have to make more laws.

Democrats know their laws don't work. The only possible way to prevent (most) mass shootings, is to create a complete police state where all guns are banned from everyone, and police squads go door to door regularly checking for guns, stopping people on the street to search them, etc., to make sure ALL guns are gone.

Anything short of that, will still enable criminals to get guns - they will only disarm the law-abiding.

So when Democrats keep insisting on more laws as a solution, what could they possibly have in mind besides total confiscation and police-state enforcement? We already know (and Democrats also know) that nothing else works.

The Democrats' real agenda is becoming more and more clear, every time they call for "more laws" in the face of clear proof that nothing gets guns out of criminals' hands except total confiscation.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the liberals don't want to touch this subject with a ten-foot pole.

Not hard to figure out why. They know the usual laws they propose, won't work. And so when they propose them anyway, they are horrified that people might find out the only reason they keep doing it, is to arrive at the only scheme that will work: Complete confiscation of all guns, plus a draconian, Soviet-style police state to make sure no one gets one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Democrats still desperately pushing the fallacy that govt can do something about mass shootings"

Wrong.

Conservatives are still desperately pushing the fallacy – a straw man fallacy, in essence a lie – that democrats believe government can ‘do something’ about mass shootings.

This is typical of the ignorance common to most on the right, the consequence of conservatives being for the most part ideologues hostile to pragmatism and pursuing solutions that don’t conform to rightist dogma.

Democrats correctly understand that the successful solution to the problem of mass shootings will be multifaceted, a blend of public and private sector contributions to the problem, where government has a role to play but neither the sole nor dominant role.

And among the more significant barriers to finding solutions to the problem of mass shootings is conservative ideologues who refuse to explore in good faith potential solutions to the problem, where most on the right are interested only on playing partisan politics, the premise of this thread being one of many examples of that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Democrats still desperately pushing the fallacy that govt can do something about mass shootings"

Wrong.

Not wrong.

Obama and his cohorts still keep proposing laws already proven to not work. And they know it.

So why do you suppose they continue to push them?

(hint: See the OP)

 

[kaz]

"Democrats still desperately pushing the fallacy that govt can do something about mass shootings"

Wrong.

Conservatives are still desperately pushing the fallacy – a straw man fallacy, in essence a lie – that democrats believe government can ‘do something’ about mass shootings.

This is typical of the ignorance common to most on the right, the consequence of conservatives being for the most part ideologues hostile to pragmatism and pursuing solutions that don’t conform to rightist dogma.

Democrats correctly understand that the successful solution to the problem of mass shootings will be multifaceted, a blend of public and private sector contributions to the problem, where government has a role to play but neither the sole nor dominant role.

And among the more significant barriers to finding solutions to the problem of mass shootings is conservative ideologues who refuse to explore in good faith potential solutions to the problem, where most on the right are interested only on playing partisan politics, the premise of this thread being one of many examples of that.

Note you don't list any of those "potential solutions to the problem," that's because you have none. the solution is the one thing you won't consider, let people defend themselves

 

[Little-Acorn]

We've found out the hard way that Democrat solutions to mass shootings, don't work. They've all been in place at various mass shooting sites, and the shootings happened anyway.

The only solution that would work, is total confiscation of guns from the entire populace, and an all-powerful police state to regularly go through people's houses looking for guns to make sure NOBODY has any.

Obviously, Democrats who know their laws fail, but keep pushing for them anyway, can have only one goal in mind.

And they don't dare talk about it.

They can only keep trying to fool people into thinking their long-debunked suggestions will work, so people will accept them, a little at a time.

 

[Alystyr]

They can only keep trying to fool people into thinking their long-debunked suggestions will work, so people will accept them, a little at a time.

Exactly.
I think that you're alluding to a saying that goes something like this:

People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

At most of the mass shootings in recent memory, the laws Democrat insist will help, have already been in effect. At the Oregon community college, the campus was a gun-free zone - guns were completely banned there, except for licensed conceal carry holders who still couldn't bring them inside buildings (which this shooter wasn't). And yet that's where the shootings keep happening.

It's clear that Democrat proposals don't work. The very idea that nutcases who don't mind committing multiple murders on innocent people, might stop because some Democrat made a law forbidding them from having a gun, is ludicrous.

And yet the Democrats STILL keep reacting to such shootings, by insisting we just have to make more laws.

Democrats know their laws don't work. The only possible way to prevent (most) mass shootings, is to create a complete police state where all guns are banned from everyone, and police squads go door to door regularly checking for guns, stopping people on the street to search them, etc., to make sure ALL guns are gone.

Anything short of that, will still enable criminals to get guns - they will only disarm the law-abiding.

So when Democrats keep insisting on more laws as a solution, what could they possibly have in mind besides total confiscation and police-state enforcement? We already know (and Democrats also know) that nothing else works.

The Democrats' real agenda is becoming more and more clear, every time they call for "more laws" in the face of clear proof that nothing gets guns out of criminals' hands except total confiscation.

China's train station attack had over 40 dead and over 150 injured by people armed with only knives.

Gun-free society is not automatically a safe society. They'll just use a knife or hammer or whatever's available.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stop pretending someone's going to take all your guns.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Note you don't list any of those "potential solutions to the problem," that's because you have none. the solution is the one thing you won't consider, let people defend themselves

He's a liberal.

Citizens can't be sovereign. They must be subservient to government.

 

[2aguy]

At most of the mass shootings in recent memory, the laws Democrat insist will help, have already been in effect. At the Oregon community college, the campus was a gun-free zone - guns were completely banned there, except for licensed conceal carry holders who still couldn't bring them inside buildings (which this shooter wasn't). And yet that's where the shootings keep happening.

It's clear that Democrat proposals don't work. The very idea that nutcases who don't mind committing multiple murders on innocent people, might stop because some Democrat made a law forbidding them from having a gun, is ludicrous.

And yet the Democrats STILL keep reacting to such shootings, by insisting we just have to make more laws.

Democrats know their laws don't work. The only possible way to prevent (most) mass shootings, is to create a complete police state where all guns are banned from everyone, and police squads go door to door regularly checking for guns, stopping people on the street to search them, etc., to make sure ALL guns are gone.

Anything short of that, will still enable criminals to get guns - they will only disarm the law-abiding.

So when Democrats keep insisting on more laws as a solution, what could they possibly have in mind besides total confiscation and police-state enforcement? We already know (and Democrats also know) that nothing else works.

The Democrats' real agenda is becoming more and more clear, every time they call for "more laws" in the face of clear proof that nothing gets guns out of criminals' hands except total confiscation.

China's train station attack had over 40 dead and over 150 injured by people armed with only knives.

Gun-free society is not automatically a safe society. They'll just use a knife or hammer or whatever's available.

Gasoline…Australian nuts like to use gasoline to murder people…….

 

[2aguy]

Stop pretending someone's going to take all your guns.

We aren't pretending…we know that if democrats had the political ability they would have banned and confiscated guns a long time ago….and if they ever get the power to do it, they will.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Americans just need to accept periodic and frequent Mass murder events...its signifies we have Freedom..........we should rejoice at every mass killing because it means we are Free...other countries are jealous of our mass killings ...

No one should be doing a thing to prevent mass killings no one !!!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Americans just need to accept periodic and frequent Mass murder events...its signifies we have Freedom..........we should rejoice at every mass killing because it means we are Free...other countries are jealous of our mass killings ...

When liberals can't refute the subject of the thread, they often lapse into hysterical ranting like this.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I think that you're alluding to a saying that goes something like this:

People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

I'm more alluding to the saying that, if the liberal fanatics keep at it long enough, people will start believing the little lies too.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Americans just need to accept periodic and frequent Mass murder events...its signifies we have Freedom..........we should rejoice at every mass killing because it means we are Free...other countries are jealous of our mass killings ...

LOL. Good one...

 

[Old Rocks]

At most of the mass shootings in recent memory, the laws Democrat insist will help, have already been in effect. At the Oregon community college, the campus was a gun-free zone - guns were completely banned there, except for licensed conceal carry holders who still couldn't bring them inside buildings (which this shooter wasn't). And yet that's where the shootings keep happening.

It's clear that Democrat proposals don't work. The very idea that nutcases who don't mind committing multiple murders on innocent people, might stop because some Democrat made a law forbidding them from having a gun, is ludicrous.

And yet the Democrats STILL keep reacting to such shootings, by insisting we just have to make more laws.

Democrats know their laws don't work. The only possible way to prevent (most) mass shootings, is to create a complete police state where all guns are banned from everyone, and police squads go door to door regularly checking for guns, stopping people on the street to search them, etc., to make sure ALL guns are gone.

Anything short of that, will still enable criminals to get guns - they will only disarm the law-abiding.

So when Democrats keep insisting on more laws as a solution, what could they possibly have in mind besides total confiscation and police-state enforcement? We already know (and Democrats also know) that nothing else works.

The Democrats' real agenda is becoming more and more clear, every time they call for "more laws" in the face of clear proof that nothing gets guns out of criminals' hands except total confiscation.

Now that is real stupid. Of course the government can do something about the shootings. Look at what the Australian government did in 1996. In the decade prior to 1996, there were 11 mass shootings in Australia. Since 1996, there has not been a single one. So that method works.

Now do we want that here? Well now, that is up to the NRA and people like you. Because if this continues, the disgust will finally reach a critical mass, and that is what we will get. And nice and legal, and approved by the Supreme Court. So, if you and the NRA continue to oppose any kind of sane action to keep guns, especially the rapid fire high capacity type, out of the hands of the crazies, then the rest of the citizens will conclude that the Australian method works, and that is what they want. The ball is most definately in your court, and failure to play it right will lead to results you won't like. And forget the threats about 2nd amendment solutions. The rest of us will just hang a few of you screwballs nice and legal, and the rest will play nice after that example.

 

[Old Rocks]

At most of the mass shootings in recent memory, the laws Democrat insist will help, have already been in effect. At the Oregon community college, the campus was a gun-free zone - guns were completely banned there, except for licensed conceal carry holders who still couldn't bring them inside buildings (which this shooter wasn't). And yet that's where the shootings keep happening.

It's clear that Democrat proposals don't work. The very idea that nutcases who don't mind committing multiple murders on innocent people, might stop because some Democrat made a law forbidding them from having a gun, is ludicrous.

And yet the Democrats STILL keep reacting to such shootings, by insisting we just have to make more laws.

Democrats know their laws don't work. The only possible way to prevent (most) mass shootings, is to create a complete police state where all guns are banned from everyone, and police squads go door to door regularly checking for guns, stopping people on the street to search them, etc., to make sure ALL guns are gone.

Anything short of that, will still enable criminals to get guns - they will only disarm the law-abiding.

So when Democrats keep insisting on more laws as a solution, what could they possibly have in mind besides total confiscation and police-state enforcement? We already know (and Democrats also know) that nothing else works.

The Democrats' real agenda is becoming more and more clear, every time they call for "more laws" in the face of clear proof that nothing gets guns out of criminals' hands except total confiscation.

China's train station attack had over 40 dead and over 150 injured by people armed with only knives.

Gun-free society is not automatically a safe society. They'll just use a knife or hammer or whatever's available.

True, but head on, I have a chance taking on a person with a knife. Someone with an AR-15 and 30 magazine. Not much of a chance at all.

 

[Rozman]

I love how Libs act like they could fix the problem but are blocked by the NRA and Republicans.

 

[Old Rocks]

Note you don't list any of those "potential solutions to the problem," that's because you have none. the solution is the one thing you won't consider, let people defend themselves

He's a liberal.

Citizens can't be sovereign. They must be subservient to government.

Tell me, do you have water piped into your home by a utility? Electricity by the same? How about medicine? Insurance? Do you drive on roads? Then you are not this 'sovereign' citizen you blabber about. In fact, in a real survival situation, I would be willing to bet that you would not survive.