Guns and Sandy Hook: Fact and Reason vs. Emotion and Spin

[mikegriffith1]

As they always do, liberals are trying to use another shooting tragedy--the recent horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in CT--to justify disarming law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a very, very tiny minority of sick, immoral people. Their arguments are based on emotion and demagoguery, not fact and reason.

Gun control has never, ever, ever succeeded in keeping guns away from criminals; rather, it merely disarms law-abiding citizens.

Mexico has draconian gun laws, including a ban on assault rifles. I trust everyone is aware that Mexican criminals have no trouble obtaining assault rifles, machine guns, etc., etc. The Soviet Union, with one of the most massive police states in history, could not keep Russian criminal gangs from getting guns (I'm assuming everyone's aware of this well-known fact--remember the repeated shoot-outs between the Russian mafia and Soviet police and army troops, and the numerous Russians who were shot by Russian criminals?). And since England banned virtually all guns in 1997, gun violence in the UK has gone up, not down.

The recent shooting at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon ended with only two deaths. How did it happen that the guy only managed to kill two people in a crowded mall? He cut short his shooting spree and then shot himself when he saw a mall customer aim a gun at him. Thank goodness that customer was carrying a firearm or else that lunatic would have killed many more people. There are many other examples of armed citizens who have thwarted would-be robbers and killers, contrary to the ridiculous Mother Jones article that claimed armed citizens have never stopped or prevented a large-scale shooting.

The founding fathers were as clear as language can be that the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the means to resist government tyranny if the government ever tried to oppress them. They said another vital reason for the 2nd Amendment was self-defense (and each year there are dozens of cases where people use guns to prevent criminals from robbing or harming them).

Senate Committee Report on the 2nd Amendment

Second Amendment Foundation Online

Liberals don't seem too interested in the fact that the Sandy Hook shooter spent many hours a day playing very violent video games. Gosh, could spending hours and hours killing people in very realistic video games have anything to do with that same person killing people in real life?

 

[healthmyths]

As they always do, liberals are trying to use another shooting tragedy--the recent horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in CT--to justify disarming law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a very, very tiny minority of sick, immoral people. Their arguments are based on emotion and demagoguery, not fact and reason.

Gun control has never, ever, ever succeeded in keeping guns away from criminals; rather, it merely disarms law-abiding citizens.

Mexico has draconian gun laws, including a ban on assault rifles. I trust everyone is aware that Mexican criminals have no trouble obtaining assault rifles, machine guns, etc., etc. The Soviet Union, with one of the most massive police states in history, could not keep Russian criminal gangs from getting guns (I'm assuming everyone's aware of this well-known fact--remember the repeated shoot-outs between the Russian mafia and Soviet police and army troops, and the numerous Russians who were shot by Russian criminals?). And since England banned virtually all guns in 1997, gun violence in the UK has gone up, not down.

The recent shooting at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon ended with only two deaths. How did it happen that the guy only managed to kill two people in a crowded mall? He cut short his shooting spree and then shot himself when he saw a mall customer aim a gun at him. Thank goodness that customer was carrying a firearm or else that lunatic would have killed many more people. There are many other examples of armed citizens who have thwarted would-be robbers and killers, contrary to the ridiculous Mother Jones article that claimed armed citizens have never stopped or prevented a large-scale shooting.

The founding fathers were as clear as language can be that the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the means to resist government tyranny if the government ever tried to oppress them. They said another vital reason for the 2nd Amendment was self-defense (and each year there are dozens of cases where people use guns to prevent criminals from robbing or harming them).

Senate Committee Report on the 2nd Amendment

Second Amendment Foundation Online

Liberals don't seem too interested in the fact that the Sandy Hook shooter spent many hours a day playing very violent video games. Gosh, could spending hours and hours killing people in very realistic video games have anything to do with that same person killing people in real life?

The "ban the gun" crowd totally ignore the SHEAR FACT that the same techniques used by advertisers to encourage buying their goods/services are used to "buy" into violence and killing by the very few that turn fantasy into reality, i.e. Adam Lanza, et.al. and the prove is the hard dollars spent on advertising.
With major companies budgeting 3 to 5% of gross annual sales for advertising and based on GDP of $15 trillion.. that's over $600 billion a year!
If companies spend that much to convince buyers they must think advertising is effective!

If advertising is effective then think how effective the violent content of movies and video games are especially on fertile young impressionable minds, i.e. Lanzas of the world!

 

[mikegriffith1]

As they always do, liberals are trying to use another shooting tragedy--the recent horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in CT--to justify disarming law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a very, very tiny minority of sick, immoral people. Their arguments are based on emotion and demagoguery, not fact and reason.

Gun control has never, ever, ever succeeded in keeping guns away from criminals; rather, it merely disarms law-abiding citizens.

Mexico has draconian gun laws, including a ban on assault rifles. I trust everyone is aware that Mexican criminals have no trouble obtaining assault rifles, machine guns, etc., etc. The Soviet Union, with one of the most massive police states in history, could not keep Russian criminal gangs from getting guns (I'm assuming everyone's aware of this well-known fact--remember the repeated shoot-outs between the Russian mafia and Soviet police and army troops, and the numerous Russians who were shot by Russian criminals?). And since England banned virtually all guns in 1997, gun violence in the UK has gone up, not down.

The recent shooting at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon ended with only two deaths. How did it happen that the guy only managed to kill two people in a crowded mall? He cut short his shooting spree and then shot himself when he saw a mall customer aim a gun at him. Thank goodness that customer was carrying a firearm or else that lunatic would have killed many more people. There are many other examples of armed citizens who have thwarted would-be robbers and killers, contrary to the ridiculous Mother Jones article that claimed armed citizens have never stopped or prevented a large-scale shooting.

The founding fathers were as clear as language can be that the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the means to resist government tyranny if the government ever tried to oppress them. They said another vital reason for the 2nd Amendment was self-defense (and each year there are dozens of cases where people use guns to prevent criminals from robbing or harming them).

Senate Committee Report on the 2nd Amendment

Second Amendment Foundation Online

Liberals don't seem too interested in the fact that the Sandy Hook shooter spent many hours a day playing very violent video games. Gosh, could spending hours and hours killing people in very realistic video games have anything to do with that same person killing people in real life?

The "ban the gun" crowd totally ignore the SHEAR FACT that the same techniques used by advertisers to encourage buying their goods/services are used to "buy" into violence and killing by the very few that turn fantasy into reality, i.e. Adam Lanza, et.al. and the prove is the hard dollars spent on advertising.
With major companies budgeting 3 to 5% of gross annual sales for advertising and based on GDP of $15 trillion.. that's over $600 billion a year!
If companies spend that much to convince buyers they must think advertising is effective!

If advertising is effective then think how effective the violent content of movies and video games are especially on fertile young impressionable minds, i.e. Lanzas of the world!

Another effect of spending hours a day playing video games is that it dulls your ability to think and reason. My wife and I saw this with our own eyes with our teenaged foster son. Before he came to us, he had spent several hours a day, five or six days a week, playing violent video games for the previous 4 years. Literally, he could not follow the plot of most movies. Many times he would fail to get jokes because he failed to comprehend the reasoning behind the joke. He had a hard time reading because he could not follow story lines and arguments. It was amazing, incredible, and very disturbing to see.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutters love to discuss how strict gun laws are ineffective in countries like Mexico and Colombia. You know, those countries known for having a "rule of law" culture with well resourced and accountable police forces.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Nutters love to discuss how strict gun laws are ineffective in countries like Mexico and Colombia. You know, those countries known for having a "rule of law" culture with well resourced and accountable police forces.

...and who does the attorney general of the United States hold accountable in this country.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As they always do, liberals are trying to use another shooting tragedy--the recent horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in CT--to justify disarming law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a very, very tiny minority of sick, immoral people. Their arguments are based on emotion and demagoguery, not fact and reason.

Gun control has never, ever, ever succeeded in keeping guns away from criminals; rather, it merely disarms law-abiding citizens.

Mexico has draconian gun laws, including a ban on assault rifles. I trust everyone is aware that Mexican criminals have no trouble obtaining assault rifles, machine guns, etc., etc. The Soviet Union, with one of the most massive police states in history, could not keep Russian criminal gangs from getting guns (I'm assuming everyone's aware of this well-known fact--remember the repeated shoot-outs between the Russian mafia and Soviet police and army troops, and the numerous Russians who were shot by Russian criminals?). And since England banned virtually all guns in 1997, gun violence in the UK has gone up, not down.

The recent shooting at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon ended with only two deaths. How did it happen that the guy only managed to kill two people in a crowded mall? He cut short his shooting spree and then shot himself when he saw a mall customer aim a gun at him. Thank goodness that customer was carrying a firearm or else that lunatic would have killed many more people. There are many other examples of armed citizens who have thwarted would-be robbers and killers, contrary to the ridiculous Mother Jones article that claimed armed citizens have never stopped or prevented a large-scale shooting.

The founding fathers were as clear as language can be that the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the means to resist government tyranny if the government ever tried to oppress them. They said another vital reason for the 2nd Amendment was self-defense (and each year there are dozens of cases where people use guns to prevent criminals from robbing or harming them).

Senate Committee Report on the 2nd Amendment

Second Amendment Foundation Online

Liberals don't seem too interested in the fact that the Sandy Hook shooter spent many hours a day playing very violent video games. Gosh, could spending hours and hours killing people in very realistic video games have anything to do with that same person killing people in real life?

I suggest a heavier duty tin foil hat, some anti psychotic medication and a new hobby. Trolling takes skill, good bait and knowledge of the tides, charts and weather. Trolling using all superlatives all the time is so pitiful the international society of trolls will never accept you into their membership.

Hours spent killing 'video' people or hours spent watching Faux News and listening to Rush Limbaugh are equally damaging - fantasy blends into reality and some are moved to kill people and others to kill the truth.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh look! He wants to discuss one of his fantasies again. An ill conceived plan to thwart illegal arms trading results in a few specific weapons getting into the hands of bad guys.....and the nutter see an opportunity.

Nevermind that the platform for this fuck up was pre-Obama. It makes perfect sense to idiots.....it was his plan to institute gun control in America.

Fun topic.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And...what kind of idiot says that the founding fathers were "as clear as language can be"?

 

[zeke]

Yes sir the arm EVERYBODY crowd fails to realize that their are mothers in this world who have no business buying high power weapons and ammo for her and her son to bond over at the shooting range. Knowing that her son had "issues" she (the mom) was to fuking stupid to remove either the guns or the ammo or even put her shit in a gun safe.

So the son freaks out and kills 28.

But the gun nuts can find no fault in the law that allowed this woman to buy this weapon and provide for her son the means to a massacre.

And the gun nuts cry that others want to stop shit like this from happening.

And the parents of these dead kids will never stop crying.