CDZ Why Americans don't give a damn about mass shootings

[OnePercenter]

Very interesting article Why Americans don't give a damn about mass shootings - CNN

One month ago, the worst mass shooting in US history took place at a country music concert in Las Vegas. Fifty-eight people were killed and more than 500 people injured. Bill O'Reilly boiled the massacre down to six words: "This is the price of freedom."
I hate to say it, but he is right. Sunday, just 34 days after Vegas, 26 people were gunned down and about 20 others were wounded during a church service in Texas. And here's what is really sick -- we won't be surprised when there's another mass shooting next month. Maybe it'll be your church, your mall, your concert or your movie theater. That's the price of freedom.
In America, we are free to stockpile weapons. We are free to order ammo online. We are free to outfit our guns with bump stocks, like the Vegas shooter did. This is the price we pay for freedom, alright. The freedom to not give a damn.
Tweeting "prayers for the victims" does not equal giving a damn. Feeling bad for a day or two does not equal giving a damn. Changing your Facebook profile photo to support the victims does not equal giving a damn.

This hit home for me:

Why the apathy?
Until gun violence impacts your family directly, you won't care enough to do something about it. There's a ton of research to explain this apathy.
After World War II, the famous Cambridge psychologist J.T. MacCurdy studied an interesting phenomenon about the bombings in London in 1940 and 1941.
He found that people affected by the bombings fell into three categories: those who died, those who were a "near miss" (who closely witnessed the horror of the bombings but lived), and those who had a "remote miss" (people who may have heard the sirens, but were removed from the direct scene of the bombing).
Here's what's interesting. MacCurdy found the people who witnessed a "near miss" were deeply affected by the bombing -- while the "remote miss" group felt invincible and even excited.

I was 800 yards +/- from the shooter at Mandalay Bay, well within range. I was armed with a Glock. Nothing I could have done with that, I was out armed and nowhere near effective range.

IMO: ALL automatic and semi-automatic rifles should be banned.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Will you be utilizing the argument that you were armed with only a knife and not in effective range to stop the guy with the handgun if the next incident involves only a handgun?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Very interesting article Why Americans don't give a damn about mass shootings - CNN

One month ago, the worst mass shooting in US history took place at a country music concert in Las Vegas. Fifty-eight people were killed and more than 500 people injured. Bill O'Reilly boiled the massacre down to six words: "This is the price of freedom."
I hate to say it, but he is right. Sunday, just 34 days after Vegas, 26 people were gunned down and about 20 others were wounded during a church service in Texas. And here's what is really sick -- we won't be surprised when there's another mass shooting next month. Maybe it'll be your church, your mall, your concert or your movie theater. That's the price of freedom.
In America, we are free to stockpile weapons. We are free to order ammo online. We are free to outfit our guns with bump stocks, like the Vegas shooter did. This is the price we pay for freedom, alright. The freedom to not give a damn.
Tweeting "prayers for the victims" does not equal giving a damn. Feeling bad for a day or two does not equal giving a damn. Changing your Facebook profile photo to support the victims does not equal giving a damn.

This hit home for me:

Why the apathy?
Until gun violence impacts your family directly, you won't care enough to do something about it. There's a ton of research to explain this apathy.
After World War II, the famous Cambridge psychologist J.T. MacCurdy studied an interesting phenomenon about the bombings in London in 1940 and 1941.
He found that people affected by the bombings fell into three categories: those who died, those who were a "near miss" (who closely witnessed the horror of the bombings but lived), and those who had a "remote miss" (people who may have heard the sirens, but were removed from the direct scene of the bombing).
Here's what's interesting. MacCurdy found the people who witnessed a "near miss" were deeply affected by the bombing -- while the "remote miss" group felt invincible and even excited.

I was 800 yards +/- from the shooter at Mandalay Bay, well within range. I was armed with a Glock. Nothing I could have done with that, I was out armed and nowhere near effective range.

IMO: ALL automatic and semi-automatic rifles should be banned.

Can not outlaw semi automatic weapons the Courts already ruled that in order to be protected by the 2nd Amendment a weapon must be of use to the military.

 

[Papageorgio]

Another one of a fool’s stories based on his rampant imagination. Lol!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

View attachment 159041

Will you be utilizing the argument that you were armed with only a knife and not in effective range to stop the guy with the handgun if the next incident involves only a handgun?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Time to pull out the old YES albums.

I have several Roger Dean prints around the house.

 

[Nosmo King]

We have sown the seeds of gun violence by our apathy. We have cultivated the fields with political intimidation through the powerful gun lobbies. We have watered the fields with the blood of the innocent. And now we must reap the whirlwind.

Gun advocates will argue that as no law could prevent gun violence, no laws need be written. The argument of the unimaginative and truly uncompassionate. But those gun advocates insist on using the second amendment as a national suicide note. They see powerful weapons used on the battlefield as their uninfringible right to bear. I ask them: what is the virtue of high capacity magazines and semi-automatic (or modified semi-automatic firing systems). They argue that such weaponry is absolutely necessary to defend themselves from the hordes of gun toting criminals at their door. They live in a make believe world of Rambo and Dirty Harry where they can be the hero gunslinger saving the day.

Gun advocates won't take responsibility for the havoc brought by those weapons. Those of us who want to act are thwarted by their intimidation. And the bodies keep piling up.

If Charleston, Newtown, and Las Vegas couldn't move the needle, no tragedy will.

To quote Sonny & Cher, and the beat goes on.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We have sown the seeds of gun violence by our apathy. We have cultivated the fields with political intimidation through the powerful gun lobbies. We have watered the fields with the blood of the innocent. And now we must reap the whirlwind.

Gun advocates will argue that as no law could prevent gun violence, no laws need be written.

The lawful will not give up the right. The criminal will ignore any law.

Your solution?

 

[Nosmo King]

View attachment 159041

Will you be utilizing the argument that you were armed with only a knife and not in effective range to stop the guy with the handgun if the next incident involves only a handgun?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Time to pull out the old YES albums.

I have several Roger Dean prints around the house.

You post this and rate my post as funny. Why should you be taken seriously?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

We have sown the seeds of gun violence by our apathy. We have cultivated the fields with political intimidation through the powerful gun lobbies. We have watered the fields with the blood of the innocent. And now we must reap the whirlwind.

Gun advocates will argue that as no law could prevent gun violence, no laws need be written. The argument of the unimaginative and truly uncompassionate. But those gun advocates insist on using the second amendment as a national suicide note. They see powerful weapons used on the battlefield as their uninfringible right to bear. I ask them: what is the virtue of high capacity magazines and semi-automatic (or modified semi-automatic firing systems). They argue that such weaponry is absolutely necessary to defend themselves from the hordes of gun toting criminals at their door. They live in a make believe world of Rambo and Dirty Harry where they can be the hero gunslinger saving the day.

Gun advocates won't take responsibility for the havoc brought by those weapons. Those of us who want to act are thwarted by their intimidation. And the bodies keep piling up.

If Charleston, Newtown, and Las Vegas couldn't move the needle, no tragedy will.

To quote Sonny & Cher, and the beat goes on.

Pretty words... Why don't you try telling them to the people in the Middle East, South America, and Africa, about how gun laws will make them safer?

Or how about the people in Paris or Derry...

*****SMILE*****

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

View attachment 159041

Will you be utilizing the argument that you were armed with only a knife and not in effective range to stop the guy with the handgun if the next incident involves only a handgun?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Time to pull out the old YES albums.

I have several Roger Dean prints around the house.

You post this and rate my post as funny. Why should you be taken seriously?

I don't expect you to take anything rational seriously.

 

[Nosmo King]

We have sown the seeds of gun violence by our apathy. We have cultivated the fields with political intimidation through the powerful gun lobbies. We have watered the fields with the blood of the innocent. And now we must reap the whirlwind.

Gun advocates will argue that as no law could prevent gun violence, no laws need be written.

The lawful will not give up the right. The criminal will ignore any law.

Your solution?

Your right to bear arms isn't already infringed. Where do you store your thermonuclear warhead? Your flamethrower? Your mortar?

Your right could bear a little more nfringment for the sake of public safety.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gun advocates won't take responsibility for the havoc brought by those weapons.

No, the real problem is that LIbEral filth won't assign responsibility to those who willfully choose to do evil. They openly side with violent criminals, against law-abiding Americans, and openly seek to disarm law-abiding citizens in order to make them easier prey for the criminals.

 

[Nosmo King]

View attachment 159041

Will you be utilizing the argument that you were armed with only a knife and not in effective range to stop the guy with the handgun if the next incident involves only a handgun?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Time to pull out the old YES albums.

I have several Roger Dean prints around the house.

You post this and rate my post as funny. Why should you be taken seriously?

I don't expect you to take anything rational seriously.

Try me. Write something rational.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gun advocates will argue that as no law could prevent gun violence, no laws need be written.

The lawful will not give up the right. The criminal will ignore any law.

Your solution?

He's on the side of the criminal, against that of the lawful. Of course he is not going to offer any solution to protect the lawful from the criminal.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gun advocates won't take responsibility for the havoc brought by those weapons.

No, the real problem is that LIbEral filth won't assign responsibility to those who willfully choose to do evil. They openly side with violent criminals, against law-abiding Americans, and openly seek to disarm law-abiding citizens in order to make them easier prey for the criminals.

As I said, write something's no rational and we'll talk.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We have sown the seeds of gun violence by our apathy. We have cultivated the fields with political intimidation through the powerful gun lobbies. We have watered the fields with the blood of the innocent. And now we must reap the whirlwind.

Gun advocates will argue that as no law could prevent gun violence, no laws need be written.

The lawful will not give up the right. The criminal will ignore any law.

Your solution?

Your,right to bear arms isn't already infringed. Where do you store your thermonuclear warhead? Your flamethrower? Your mortar?

Your right could bear a little more nfringment for the sake of public safety.

The former is puerile, and I reject the latter by the authority of the Constitution.

Now what?

 

[Papageorgio]

We have sown the seeds of gun violence by our apathy. We have cultivated the fields with political intimidation through the powerful gun lobbies. We have watered the fields with the blood of the innocent. And now we must reap the whirlwind.

Gun advocates will argue that as no law could prevent gun violence, no laws need be written. The argument of the unimaginative and truly uncompassionate. But those gun advocates insist on using the second amendment as a national suicide note. They see powerful weapons used on the battlefield as their uninfringible right to bear. I ask them: what is the virtue of high capacity magazines and semi-automatic (or modified semi-automatic firing systems). They argue that such weaponry is absolutely necessary to defend themselves from the hordes of gun toting criminals at their door. They live in a make believe world of Rambo and Dirty Harry where they can be the hero gunslinger saving the day.

Gun advocates won't take responsibility for the havoc brought by those weapons. Those of us who want to act are thwarted by their intimidation. And the bodies keep piling up.

If Charleston, Newtown, and Las Vegas couldn't move the needle, no tragedy will.

To quote Sonny & Cher, and the beat goes on.

Spoken like one that doesn’t have a real clue. It isn’t the guns of those legally possessing guns, it’s those with illegal guns. It is a society not on gun violence, but on violence. It is the cheapening of life, when you can abort a kid because, when you raise a generation of entitlement, a generation where it is all about me, me, me. Where we don’t need a mom and a dad, where God and the family unit are looked down upon, this is what you get.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

View attachment 159041

Will you be utilizing the argument that you were armed with only a knife and not in effective range to stop the guy with the handgun if the next incident involves only a handgun?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Time to pull out the old YES albums.

I have several Roger Dean prints around the house.

You post this and rate my post as funny. Why should you be taken seriously?

I don't expect you to take anything rational seriously.

Try me. Write something rational.

How many more times?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

IMO: ALL automatic and semi-automatic rifles should be banned.

Except for the cops and military, right?? They can have all they want in your perfect world.

 

[Nosmo King]

We have sown the seeds of gun violence by our apathy. We have cultivated the fields with political intimidation through the powerful gun lobbies. We have watered the fields with the blood of the innocent. And now we must reap the whirlwind.

Gun advocates will argue that as no law could prevent gun violence, no laws need be written. The argument of the unimaginative and truly uncompassionate. But those gun advocates insist on using the second amendment as a national suicide note. They see powerful weapons used on the battlefield as their uninfringible right to bear. I ask them: what is the virtue of high capacity magazines and semi-automatic (or modified semi-automatic firing systems). They argue that such weaponry is absolutely necessary to defend themselves from the hordes of gun toting criminals at their door. They live in a make believe world of Rambo and Dirty Harry where they can be the hero gunslinger saving the day.

Gun advocates won't take responsibility for the havoc brought by those weapons. Those of us who want to act are thwarted by their intimidation. And the bodies keep piling up.

If Charleston, Newtown, and Las Vegas couldn't move the needle, no tragedy will.

To quote Sonny & Cher, and the beat goes on.

Spoken like one that doesn’t have a real clue. It isn’t the guns of those legally possessing guns, it’s those with illegal guns. It is a society not on gun violence, but on violence. It is the cheapening of life, when you can abort a kid because, when you raise a generation of entitlement, a generation where it is all about me, me, me. Where we don’t need a mom and a dad, where God and the family unit are looked down upon, this is what you get.

The two step is still a popular dance, and as a means of avoiding responsib. Social Secuirty checks aren't being used to kill dozens of people at once.