Another active shooter

[sealybobo]

How about you start with keeping the known, violent, repeat gun offenders locked up.....?

We could start there, since they are the ones doing almost all of the shooting and killing.....

Why are the released from jail and prison by the democrats, or not charged at all, when they have records of using guns illegally and actually shooting at people?

Mass public shooting deaths in 2019?

73.....

12 shootings.....so 12 people out of 330 million used guns illegally in mass public shootings....

Meanwhile, the democrat party is releasing the shooters in the other 10,258 gun murders in this country.....time after time, convicted gun offenders are released by the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians........and they get out, get another illegal gun, and shoot people....

If we just kept them locked up, they wouldn't shoot people...

See how easy that is?

No waiting period needed it they are already in jail.......

I agree keep violent criminals locked up. Is that just us doing it? Because I think there's more to it than that. Like, prosecutors know they can get them for 2nd degree murder so instead of going for 1st degree, they settle.

Your party should push this message. Longer prison time for violent offenders. That includes your white rapist sons who rape women when they go off to Duke.

 

[sealybobo]

And that is bullshit.......I see you didn't link to the study...please do...so we can all analyze the B.S. they are spewing....

A cooling-off period on handgun purchases nationwide would save lives

How many times have we heard the advice to “count to three” before doing something impulsive — such as sending an angry text or responding to the president’s tweets? We ofte…

www.chicagotribune.com

It's a Harvard study. This is interesting...

Researchers estimated that in 2014 alone, roughly 750 gun homicides were avoided in the states with waiting-period laws, and an additional 910 lives could be saved annually if all 50 states, and Washington, D.C., had mandatory waiting periods.

The Harvard study is important because, since 1996, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been prohibited from researching the impact of gun policies on Americans’ health and safety due to the Dickey Amendment. That rider to an omnibus spending bill, backed strongly by the NRA, mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the CDC may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” This includes research into the potential impact of waiting periods in reducing deaths by handgun.
That hasn’t stopped the American Medical Association from weighing in. In 2016, the AMA voted to expand its gun safety policy to include support for waiting periods as well as background checks for all firearm buyers.

 

[2aguy]

You saw the stats bro. I think they said the 5 day wait reduces violence 17%. Of course that's not enough for you. Covid vaccine triples your chances and even that's not enough to get you to take the shot so 17% won't move you I'm sure.

And here......from Politifact no less...

But a 2003 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reviewed studies on the effects of waiting periods on violence found that some studies indicated a decrease in violent outcomes associated with the delay, while others indicated an increase.

And a 2012 study by one researcher from the University of Cincinnati and another from Arizona State University found no statistical effects from waiting periods on gun crimes.

No statistical evidence that a waiting period for handgun purchases reduces violence, lawmaker says

Amid a surge in murderous gun violence in Milwaukee, the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Senate voted to repeal a state

www.politifact.com

 

[2aguy]

I agree keep violent criminals locked up. Is that just us doing it? Because I think there's more to it than that. Like, prosecutors know they can get them for 2nd degree murder so instead of going for 1st degree, they settle.

Your party should push this message. Longer prison time for violent offenders. That includes your white rapist sons who rape women when they go off to Duke.

You do know the Duke Lacrosse team didn't rape the chick...right? You idiot.

 

[2aguy]

A cooling-off period on handgun purchases nationwide would save lives

How many times have we heard the advice to “count to three” before doing something impulsive — such as sending an angry text or responding to the president’s tweets? We ofte…

www.chicagotribune.com

It's a Harvard study. This is interesting...

Researchers estimated that in 2014 alone, roughly 750 gun homicides were avoided in the states with waiting-period laws, and an additional 910 lives could be saved annually if all 50 states, and Washington, D.C., had mandatory waiting periods.

The Harvard study is important because, since 1996, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been prohibited from researching the impact of gun policies on Americans’ health and safety due to the Dickey Amendment. That rider to an omnibus spending bill, backed strongly by the NRA, mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the CDC may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” This includes research into the potential impact of waiting periods in reducing deaths by handgun.
That hasn’t stopped the American Medical Association from weighing in. In 2016, the AMA voted to expand its gun safety policy to include support for waiting periods as well as background checks for all firearm buyers.

Yeah...no link to the actual study and the column is by a rabid, left wing chicago democrat hack......link to the actual study please...

 

[2aguy]

A cooling-off period on handgun purchases nationwide would save lives

How many times have we heard the advice to “count to three” before doing something impulsive — such as sending an angry text or responding to the president’s tweets? We ofte…

www.chicagotribune.com

It's a Harvard study. This is interesting...

Researchers estimated that in 2014 alone, roughly 750 gun homicides were avoided in the states with waiting-period laws, and an additional 910 lives could be saved annually if all 50 states, and Washington, D.C., had mandatory waiting periods.

The Harvard study is important because, since 1996, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been prohibited from researching the impact of gun policies on Americans’ health and safety due to the Dickey Amendment. That rider to an omnibus spending bill, backed strongly by the NRA, mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the CDC may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” This includes research into the potential impact of waiting periods in reducing deaths by handgun.
That hasn’t stopped the American Medical Association from weighing in. In 2016, the AMA voted to expand its gun safety policy to include support for waiting periods as well as background checks for all firearm buyers.

And there, in your quote is a lie.......

The Harvard study is important because, since 1996, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been prohibited from researching the impact of gun policies on Americans’


So, you link to an article by a Chicago politician......a democrat whose city is awash in blood because of the democrat party attacking the police and releasing violent gun criminals.....

And then, the guy lies in the column......

Good start into destroying your argument..

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.

Dr. Lott testifying in 2019 about gun research and the CDC as well as private research..

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf



No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

 

[2aguy]

A cooling-off period on handgun purchases nationwide would save lives

How many times have we heard the advice to “count to three” before doing something impulsive — such as sending an angry text or responding to the president’s tweets? We ofte…

www.chicagotribune.com

It's a Harvard study. This is interesting...

Researchers estimated that in 2014 alone, roughly 750 gun homicides were avoided in the states with waiting-period laws, and an additional 910 lives could be saved annually if all 50 states, and Washington, D.C., had mandatory waiting periods.

The Harvard study is important because, since 1996, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been prohibited from researching the impact of gun policies on Americans’ health and safety due to the Dickey Amendment. That rider to an omnibus spending bill, backed strongly by the NRA, mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the CDC may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” This includes research into the potential impact of waiting periods in reducing deaths by handgun.
That hasn’t stopped the American Medical Association from weighing in. In 2016, the AMA voted to expand its gun safety policy to include support for waiting periods as well as background checks for all firearm buyers.

And more.......actual research on guns....after the Dickey Amendment.....

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

 

[2aguy]

How leftists lie about mass public shootings in order to stampede uninformed Americans into giving them more power...

The problem is how Bryant and his 20 staffers define mass shootings. When most people hear the term “mass shooting,” they picture a crazed gunman stalking the halls of a school or a shopping mall, coldly and randomly executing innocent young victims.


What does not come to mind are rival drug crews shooting it out in Chicago or Detroit, or a madman murdering his entire family, which no sane person would consider a mass shooting. The GVA makes no such distinction. If four people are wounded, the GVA labels it a mass shooting regardless of the circumstances, and the media and anti-gun politicians lap up the GVA’s inflated stats.
----
When I interviewed Bryant in July for our special report, I asked him if he actually believed that the average news consumer even considers domestic violence or gang warfare when they hear the term mass shooting. Bryant replied, “I don’t know. I know what we want to do is provide numbers and let the journalists, advocates and ‘congress critters’ look at the data, glean details and drill down on it.”
Unfortunately, today’s legacy journalists and anti-rights politicians are too lazy to do any drilling down. They prefer to cut and paste Bryan’s off-the-charts stats.


The bottom line: Bryant and his GVA know full well they’re supplying flawed data, which the media treats as gospel. I’m guessing Bryant and his anti-gun pals are laughing about it, too.



Fake News: CNN Reports Over 640 Mass Shootings in 2021 - The Truth About Guns

“We drill down to granularity of the street level, which is what the FBI doesn’t do,” he said.
According to their new report titled: “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2020,” the FBI defines active shootings as:

• Shootings in public places
• Shootings occurring at more than one location
• Shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act
• Shootings resulting in a mass killing
• Shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter
• Shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims
• Shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects

Shootings were excluded from the FBI’s list if they were the result of:

• Self-defense
• Gang violence
• Drug violence
• Contained residential or domestic disputes
• Controlled barricade/hostage situations
• Crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act
• An action that appeared not to have put other people in peril

By comparison, the Gun Violence Archive excludes nothing, even if the shooting is gang or drug related – the two main causes of most violence in the country today.

Asked if he believed that the average news consumer even considers domestic violence or gang warfare when they hear the term mass shooting, Bryant said, “I don’t know. I know what we want to do is provide numbers and let the journalists, advocates and ‘congress critters’ look at the data, glean details and drill down on it.”
Special Report: The Gun Violence Archive And Its Scaring Of America

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A cooling-off period on handgun purchases nationwide would save lives

How many times have we heard the advice to “count to three” before doing something impulsive — such as sending an angry text or responding to the president’s tweets? We ofte…

www.chicagotribune.com

It's a Harvard study. This is interesting...

Researchers estimated that in 2014 alone, roughly 750 gun homicides were avoided in the states with waiting-period laws, and an additional 910 lives could be saved annually if all 50 states, and Washington, D.C., had mandatory waiting periods.

The Harvard study is important because, since 1996, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been prohibited from researching the impact of gun policies on Americans’ health and safety due to the Dickey Amendment. That rider to an omnibus spending bill, backed strongly by the NRA, mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the CDC may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” This includes research into the potential impact of waiting periods in reducing deaths by handgun.
That hasn’t stopped the American Medical Association from weighing in. In 2016, the AMA voted to expand its gun safety policy to include support for waiting periods as well as background checks for all firearm buyers.

A "cooling-off" period might save lives (sounds like bullshit to me), but it is a infringement on a constitutionally protected liberty. Tough shit.

 

[struth]

There was a lack of TARGETS you fucking moron

what are you talking about? There were plenty of people still alive in 2020. Plenty of people still going to jobs, plenty of people still going to grocery stores etc.

 

[surada]

Are you not aware that you have Obama light right now. In any case who said anything about Obama. Remember when you point a finger, four more are pointing right back at you, moron.

You wrote:

Concerned American said:
How many Christmas parades were plowed through killing 7 and injuring over 50 by black perpetrators during the Trump admin, moron. You fools are ridiculous trying to pin the actions of any whack job to an administration. You dumb fucks are as bad as the perpetrators.

 

[Concerned American]

You wrote:

Concerned American said:
How many Christmas parades were plowed through killing 7 and injuring over 50 by black perpetrators during the Trump admin, moron. You fools are ridiculous trying to pin the actions of any whack job to an administration. You dumb fucks are as bad as the perpetrators.

If you followed the thread instead of banging around in your own empty head--one of your buddies was trying to pin the actions of another whack job on Trump--the hypothetical that I presented went totally over your air head. Troll someone else moron. I don't have time for your ridiculous shit.

 

[surada]

If you followed the thread instead of banging around in your own empty head--one of your buddies was trying to pin the actions of another whack job on Trump--the hypothetical that I presented went totally over your air head. Troll someone else moron. I don't have time for your ridiculous shit.

Trumpies are claiming Biden has had more mass shootings than Trump.. I don't play that stupid game.

 

[sealybobo]

And here......from Politifact no less...

But a 2003 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reviewed studies on the effects of waiting periods on violence found that some studies indicated a decrease in violent outcomes associated with the delay, while others indicated an increase.

And a 2012 study by one researcher from the University of Cincinnati and another from Arizona State University found no statistical effects from waiting periods on gun crimes.

No statistical evidence that a waiting period for handgun purchases reduces violence, lawmaker says

Amid a surge in murderous gun violence in Milwaukee, the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Senate voted to repeal a state

www.politifact.com

You think making them wait 5 days makes them even madder? LOL

 

[sealybobo]

And more.......actual research on guns....after the Dickey Amendment.....

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

That's why we know we need gun legislation. It's happening in our cities. We don't have the fortune of each of us living on 10 plus acres in the country. Of course you nobles don't kill each other. You got it good.

So why did the kid shoot yesterday? 97% chance he's a white kid. What's his problem? Boy will I be embarrassed if it turns out to be a black kid. But I don't think so. He said BRO. That's a white dude thing to say.

 

[2aguy]

That's why we know we need gun legislation. It's happening in our cities. We don't have the fortune of each of us living on 10 plus acres in the country. Of course you nobles don't kill each other. You got it good.

So why did the kid shoot yesterday? 97% chance he's a white kid. What's his problem? Boy will I be embarrassed if it turns out to be a black kid. But I don't think so. He said BRO. That's a white dude thing to say.

White kid?

Young black males make up about 7% of the population...but are responsible for over 50% of all murder......and most of their victims are other young black males...

If you want to throw out the race card, you are throwing out the wrong one....

 

[2aguy]

That's why we know we need gun legislation. It's happening in our cities. We don't have the fortune of each of us living on 10 plus acres in the country. Of course you nobles don't kill each other. You got it good.

So why did the kid shoot yesterday? 97% chance he's a white kid. What's his problem? Boy will I be embarrassed if it turns out to be a black kid. But I don't think so. He said BRO. That's a white dude thing to say.

We have all the gun laws we need....

The problem?

1). The democrat party decided attacking the police was a smart idea.....now, the police are not doing proactive police work because they don't want to lose their jobs, their pensions and their freedom....so criminals who would have been caught with illegal guns, now carry them without fear...

2) The democrat party through it's policies are releasing or refusing to even charge, violent, repeat gun offenders....and they are releasing them over and over again...

Kim foxx, george soros prosecutor in Chicago refused to charge 5 gang members.....caught on video shooting at each other with illegal guns...two of who were on the ground with bullets in them....she refused to charge any of them.....

The democrat party revolving door for gun criminals is the problem.....we already have all the laws we need...

 

[2aguy]

You think making them wait 5 days makes them even madder? LOL

Mass public shooters plan their attacks 6 months to two years in advance....

Hmmmmm....5 day waiting period...is that less than 6 months or two years?

 

[sealybobo]

Mass public shooters plan their attacks 6 months to two years in advance....

Hmmmmm....5 day waiting period...is that less than 6 months or two years?

Well he had to wait for his dad to buy it....4 days ago.

 

[2aguy]

Well he had to wait for his dad to buy it....4 days ago.

And that 5th day would have stopped this?