CNN is so full of sh*t.... can it get any worse?

[Dale Smith]

A coworker here was watching the President's address via CNN.
Immediately following CNN - "really, the President giving his condolences, it doesn't sound like he has a plan to prevent these things from happening".

REALLY??????....it's been what, 21 hours and he is supposed to come up with a magical plan to prevent this from happening again????
These people are so freaking biased and dumb.

The FBI knew about this kid back in September and did nothing.,....zero, nada, zilch.

 

[jillian]

A coworker here was watching the President's address via CNN.
Immediately following CNN - "really, the President giving his condolences, it doesn't sound like he has a plan to prevent these things from happening".

REALLY??????....it's been what, 21 hours and he is supposed to come up with a magical plan to prevent this from happening again????
These people are so freaking biased and dumb.

so what were they lying about?

they aren't supposed to not have opinions. those opinions don't change reality.

but thanks for the rant.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

A coworker here was watching the President's address via CNN.
Immediately following CNN - "really, the President giving his condolences, it doesn't sound like he has a plan to prevent these things from happening".

REALLY??????....it's been what, 21 hours and he is supposed to come up with a magical plan to prevent this from happening again????
These people are so freaking biased and dumb.

Mass shootings have been occurring for years. This school shooting is nothing new. There has been years and years to come up with a plan. Nobody on the right will do anything except offer platitudes.

Again, like I said before, Psychopaths are not new. Teenage Psychopaths who shoot dozens of their fellow school children is new. New as in the past 20 years.
Finding the causation of this is more important than anything else, except no one is even talking about it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

A coworker here was watching the President's address via CNN.
Immediately following CNN - "really, the President giving his condolences, it doesn't sound like he has a plan to prevent these things from happening".

REALLY??????....it's been what, 21 hours and he is supposed to come up with a magical plan to prevent this from happening again????
These people are so freaking biased and dumb.

so what were they lying about?

they aren't supposed to not have opinions. those opinions don't change reality.

but thanks for the rant.

Where did I say they lied?
Right, I didn't.
The point that you miss, no surprise there, is that not but seconds after the President says his condolences, which any President in the past 229 years would do in similar circumstances, is immediately start bashing it and "where is the solution"? That is idiotic and not at all constructive.
Now, you can go back to your Democrat vs. Republican rock throwing that you are so used to doing.

 

[Thinker101]

A coworker here was watching the President's address via CNN.
Immediately following CNN - "really, the President giving his condolences, it doesn't sound like he has a plan to prevent these things from happening".

REALLY??????....it's been what, 21 hours and he is supposed to come up with a magical plan to prevent this from happening again????
These people are so freaking biased and dumb.

so what were they lying about?

they aren't supposed to not have opinions. those opinions don't change reality.

but thanks for the rant.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, I sure didn't see anything in the comment about lying...

 

[Defiant1]

Money talks....

The NRA was Trump's largest backer that he had in his campaign....

BUT if anyone can stand up to the gun manufacturer lobby, and not be afraid of them running a primary candidate against him and not be afraid of losing his followers..... it is President Trump....

I think he is more equipped than any other President, to be able to get something done on this.

Standing against a citizen organization that defends a constitutional right is a vainglorious political game, doomed to failure. The last few decades confirms this.

So that said, what do you believe could prevent such occurrences? You're dealing with matters of human nature.

making assault weapons, not as easily gotten... it won't stop all killings, but it could reduce the deaths?

I build my own.
Ordering the parts now to build one that is untraceable, no serial number, completely legal.
Goggle 80% lower.

 

[CowboyTed]

Obama had 8 years to prevent this from happening, did CNN mention that?

Obama proposed legislation which was killed in Congress (NRA money)...

Obama went back to them and then asked them to give there solution and nothing came...

Unfair on Obama...

Trump said he would do something after the LAs Vegas shooting and nothing was done... So it is a fair comment...

 

[CowboyTed]

What kind of a plan is any President Republican or Democrat supposed to come up with to stop evil people from doing evil things? I really wish there was some magic plan that could stop people from doing this type of stuff but there isn’t.

Mass Shootings in Europe are far less... Even the terrorists can't get guns and up using vehicles. The GOP/Trump plan is to arm Terrorists and Mentally Ill, Great Plan...

 

[blackhawk]

What kind of a plan is any President Republican or Democrat supposed to come up with to stop evil people from doing evil things? I really wish there was some magic plan that could stop people from doing this type of stuff but there isn’t.

Mass Shootings in Europe are far less... Even the terrorists can't get guns and up using vehicles. The GOP/Trump plan is to arm Terrorists and Mentally Ill, Great Plan...

The victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack the Bataclan theatre attack will be surprised to hear this. I won’t bother asking what the Democrats plan is as it is just to spout the same regurgitated bullshit again.

 

[forkup]

There are people who can drink and stop in time to be able to drive responsible. There are people who never get into an accident.So no it's not a strawman.It's the illustration that laws are often used to protect it's citizens. In so doing it restricts the actions of it's citizenry. There are probably people who would be able to own an fully armed Abrams tank and not do anything untoward with it, I suspect you wouldn't applaud making doing so legal. If so you are also for restrictions.

All those burning strawxyrs are not helping to combat the Glowball Worming you likely fear.

Tell me how any of my analogies is a strawman? I don't mind the accusation if you are capable of backing it up. Are you? You don't like the idea of what you consider your liberties being restricted because of the actions of others although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others. My analogies are instances were liberties are restricted because of the harm those liberties do to society as a whole although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others . A concept I then reinforced by pointing out that most sane people already accept certain restrictions on the owning of weaponry, my tank example.

They are strawmen because you are equating negative behaviors (driving drunk) in which large segments of the general population may engage with extreme, fringe outlier acts of evul-sick individuals. As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so. They are a cohort that engages in mass shootings. Everyone who goes to a bar or restaurant and order alcoholic beverages, however, is at risk of getting drunk.

negative behaviors (driving drunk)

Owning an assault rifle is also a negative behavior. In fact since the whole purpose of a weapon is to shoot people I can easily argue that this is more negative then drinking which doesn't have killing other people as it's primary function, but rather giving entertainment. The equation is apt in that light. It goes right to the heart of your original argument since that was, that because you don't personally misuse a weapon it is wrong to infringe upon your rights.

As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so.

You don't think so? I'll put it the same way again. You think it's alright for you to own a fully armed tank? If not, why not? It's illegal to kill people so why not allow people tanks, or a nuke for that matter? After all law abiding citizens would use those responsible. Once you accept limitations, you accept that some weapons are simply to dangerous to allow people to own them.

Owning an assault rifle is not a negative behavior. It harms nobody.

You lose.

Really??? tell that to the 17 who got killed by an AR 15 yesterday,or the 59 in Las Vegas, etc. Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make it so. It just makes you look out of actual arguments..

 

[boedicca]

All those burning strawxyrs are not helping to combat the Glowball Worming you likely fear.

Tell me how any of my analogies is a strawman? I don't mind the accusation if you are capable of backing it up. Are you? You don't like the idea of what you consider your liberties being restricted because of the actions of others although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others. My analogies are instances were liberties are restricted because of the harm those liberties do to society as a whole although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others . A concept I then reinforced by pointing out that most sane people already accept certain restrictions on the owning of weaponry, my tank example.

They are strawmen because you are equating negative behaviors (driving drunk) in which large segments of the general population may engage with extreme, fringe outlier acts of evul-sick individuals. As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so. They are a cohort that engages in mass shootings. Everyone who goes to a bar or restaurant and order alcoholic beverages, however, is at risk of getting drunk.

negative behaviors (driving drunk)

Owning an assault rifle is also a negative behavior. In fact since the whole purpose of a weapon is to shoot people I can easily argue that this is more negative then drinking which doesn't have killing other people as it's primary function, but rather giving entertainment. The equation is apt in that light. It goes right to the heart of your original argument since that was, that because you don't personally misuse a weapon it is wrong to infringe upon your rights.

As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so.

You don't think so? I'll put it the same way again. You think it's alright for you to own a fully armed tank? If not, why not? It's illegal to kill people so why not allow people tanks, or a nuke for that matter? After all law abiding citizens would use those responsible. Once you accept limitations, you accept that some weapons are simply to dangerous to allow people to own them.

Owning an assault rifle is not a negative behavior. It harms nobody.

You lose.

Really??? tell that to the 17 who got killed by an AR 15 yesterday,or the 59 in Las Vegas, etc. Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make it so. It just makes you look out of actual arguments..

Owning a gun is not the equivalent of shooting someone.

You lose.

 

[CowboyTed]

CNN is the enemy of America....and freedom....

What can the president do about this, exactly?

They want a massive disarming of the American people. The democrats can't move forward with white genocide if the people are armed.

Just automatic and even semi automatics. If you need a semi automatic for hunting spend time at the rifle range.

Do you know how hard it is to hit a Mexican running away from you?

 

[forkup]

Tell me how any of my analogies is a strawman? I don't mind the accusation if you are capable of backing it up. Are you? You don't like the idea of what you consider your liberties being restricted because of the actions of others although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others. My analogies are instances were liberties are restricted because of the harm those liberties do to society as a whole although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others . A concept I then reinforced by pointing out that most sane people already accept certain restrictions on the owning of weaponry, my tank example.

They are strawmen because you are equating negative behaviors (driving drunk) in which large segments of the general population may engage with extreme, fringe outlier acts of evul-sick individuals. As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so. They are a cohort that engages in mass shootings. Everyone who goes to a bar or restaurant and order alcoholic beverages, however, is at risk of getting drunk.

negative behaviors (driving drunk)

Owning an assault rifle is also a negative behavior. In fact since the whole purpose of a weapon is to shoot people I can easily argue that this is more negative then drinking which doesn't have killing other people as it's primary function, but rather giving entertainment. The equation is apt in that light. It goes right to the heart of your original argument since that was, that because you don't personally misuse a weapon it is wrong to infringe upon your rights.

As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so.

You don't think so? I'll put it the same way again. You think it's alright for you to own a fully armed tank? If not, why not? It's illegal to kill people so why not allow people tanks, or a nuke for that matter? After all law abiding citizens would use those responsible. Once you accept limitations, you accept that some weapons are simply to dangerous to allow people to own them.

Owning an assault rifle is not a negative behavior. It harms nobody.

You lose.

Really??? tell that to the 17 who got killed by an AR 15 yesterday,or the 59 in Las Vegas, etc. Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make it so. It just makes you look out of actual arguments..

Owning a gun is not the equivalent of shooting someone.

You lose.

Neither does drinking and driving is the equivalent of being a murderer. It's still irresponsible.

 

[forkup]

Tell me how any of my analogies is a strawman? I don't mind the accusation if you are capable of backing it up. Are you? You don't like the idea of what you consider your liberties being restricted because of the actions of others although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others. My analogies are instances were liberties are restricted because of the harm those liberties do to society as a whole although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others . A concept I then reinforced by pointing out that most sane people already accept certain restrictions on the owning of weaponry, my tank example.

They are strawmen because you are equating negative behaviors (driving drunk) in which large segments of the general population may engage with extreme, fringe outlier acts of evul-sick individuals. As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so. They are a cohort that engages in mass shootings. Everyone who goes to a bar or restaurant and order alcoholic beverages, however, is at risk of getting drunk.

negative behaviors (driving drunk)

Owning an assault rifle is also a negative behavior. In fact since the whole purpose of a weapon is to shoot people I can easily argue that this is more negative then drinking which doesn't have killing other people as it's primary function, but rather giving entertainment. The equation is apt in that light. It goes right to the heart of your original argument since that was, that because you don't personally misuse a weapon it is wrong to infringe upon your rights.

As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so.

You don't think so? I'll put it the same way again. You think it's alright for you to own a fully armed tank? If not, why not? It's illegal to kill people so why not allow people tanks, or a nuke for that matter? After all law abiding citizens would use those responsible. Once you accept limitations, you accept that some weapons are simply to dangerous to allow people to own them.

Owning an assault rifle is not a negative behavior. It harms nobody.

You lose.

Really??? tell that to the 17 who got killed by an AR 15 yesterday,or the 59 in Las Vegas, etc. Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make it so. It just makes you look out of actual arguments..

Owning a gun is not the equivalent of shooting someone.

You lose.

Neither does owning a fully armed tank means you're a killer. It's still insane. Again declaring yourself the winner without actually being able to argue the premise of my points, just makes you look desperate.

 

[boedicca]

They are strawmen because you are equating negative behaviors (driving drunk) in which large segments of the general population may engage with extreme, fringe outlier acts of evul-sick individuals. As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so. They are a cohort that engages in mass shootings. Everyone who goes to a bar or restaurant and order alcoholic beverages, however, is at risk of getting drunk.

negative behaviors (driving drunk)

Owning an assault rifle is also a negative behavior. In fact since the whole purpose of a weapon is to shoot people I can easily argue that this is more negative then drinking which doesn't have killing other people as it's primary function, but rather giving entertainment. The equation is apt in that light. It goes right to the heart of your original argument since that was, that because you don't personally misuse a weapon it is wrong to infringe upon your rights.

As it is already illegal to shoot high schoolers to death, there is no need to put restrictions on legal law-abiding gun owners to prevent them from doing so.

You don't think so? I'll put it the same way again. You think it's alright for you to own a fully armed tank? If not, why not? It's illegal to kill people so why not allow people tanks, or a nuke for that matter? After all law abiding citizens would use those responsible. Once you accept limitations, you accept that some weapons are simply to dangerous to allow people to own them.

Owning an assault rifle is not a negative behavior. It harms nobody.

You lose.

Really??? tell that to the 17 who got killed by an AR 15 yesterday,or the 59 in Las Vegas, etc. Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make it so. It just makes you look out of actual arguments..

Owning a gun is not the equivalent of shooting someone.

You lose.

Neither does drinking and driving is the equivalent of being a murderer. It's still irresponsible.

There is plenty of evidence that people driving drunk are at high risk of harming another person. Three people are killed in a drunk driving accidents every two hours in the U.S.

There is no evidence that legal gun owners kill three people every two hours.

 

[Penelope]

CNN is the enemy of America....and freedom....

What can the president do about this, exactly?

They want a massive disarming of the American people. The democrats can't move forward with white genocide if the people are armed.

Just automatic and even semi automatics. If you need a semi automatic for hunting spend time at the rifle range.

Do you know how hard it is to hit a Mexican running away from you?

No I don't , but I mean deer hunting.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

CNN is the enemy of America....and freedom....

What can the president do about this, exactly?

They want a massive disarming of the American people. The democrats can't move forward with white genocide if the people are armed.

Just automatic and even semi automatics. If you need a semi automatic for hunting spend time at the rifle range.

Do you know how hard it is to hit a Mexican running away from you?

No I don't , but I mean deer hunting.

I don't hunt, nor do I see the word anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama had 8 years to prevent this from happening, did CNN mention that?

Obama proposed legislation which was killed in Congress (NRA money)...

Obama went back to them and then asked them to give there solution and nothing came...

Unfair on Obama...

Trump said he would do something after the LAs Vegas shooting and nothing was done... So it is a fair comment...

I thought Obama was the greatest president of all time, Dem's say Trump is a complete moron so if Obama couldn't get it done then why ding Trump?

 

[forkup]

Owning an assault rifle is also a negative behavior. In fact since the whole purpose of a weapon is to shoot people I can easily argue that this is more negative then drinking which doesn't have killing other people as it's primary function, but rather giving entertainment. The equation is apt in that light. It goes right to the heart of your original argument since that was, that because you don't personally misuse a weapon it is wrong to infringe upon your rights.
You don't think so? I'll put it the same way again. You think it's alright for you to own a fully armed tank? If not, why not? It's illegal to kill people so why not allow people tanks, or a nuke for that matter? After all law abiding citizens would use those responsible. Once you accept limitations, you accept that some weapons are simply to dangerous to allow people to own them.

Owning an assault rifle is not a negative behavior. It harms nobody.

You lose.

Really??? tell that to the 17 who got killed by an AR 15 yesterday,or the 59 in Las Vegas, etc. Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make it so. It just makes you look out of actual arguments..

Owning a gun is not the equivalent of shooting someone.

You lose.

Neither does drinking and driving is the equivalent of being a murderer. It's still irresponsible.

There is plenty of evidence that people driving drunk are at high risk of harming another person. Three people are killed in a drunk driving accidents every two hours in the U.S.

There is no evidence that legal gun owners kill three people every two hours.

Really? People killed by driving under the influence in 2015 10265. People killed by guns in 2015 13286 this is not counting suicides. Which is the more deadly? Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia
Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

 

[boedicca]

Owning an assault rifle is not a negative behavior. It harms nobody.

You lose.

Really??? tell that to the 17 who got killed by an AR 15 yesterday,or the 59 in Las Vegas, etc. Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make it so. It just makes you look out of actual arguments..

Owning a gun is not the equivalent of shooting someone.

You lose.

Neither does drinking and driving is the equivalent of being a murderer. It's still irresponsible.

There is plenty of evidence that people driving drunk are at high risk of harming another person. Three people are killed in a drunk driving accidents every two hours in the U.S.

There is no evidence that legal gun owners kill three people every two hours.

Really? People killed by driving under the influence in 2015 10265. People killed by guns in 2015 13286 this is not counting suicides. Which is the more deadly? Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia
Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

Bogus stats. These are not deaths caused by legal gun owners owning guns. The homicides largely involve illegal guns (and most likely are gang related).


We do have a handle on the source of guns recovered from persons arrested and accused of a crime. Of guns recovered from persons arrested and charged with a crime:

84 percent of those guns were stolen in a burglary; including 4 percent stolen from a relative or a friend.

6 percent of those guns were confiscated and resold by a “law enforcement officer.” Legalized armed robbery, in other words.

2 percent of those guns were stolen from the police or the military.

2 percent of those guns were stolen from a parcel or delivery service.

That leaves just six percent of guns taken from arrestees that could properly be considered possible “crime guns” that could also have been legally purchased. And most of those were never used in a crime. If they had been “crime guns” they would already have been ditched.

February 2, 2015 Update In an update to cover the decline in crime and criminal gun use since this was posted: The 2013 National Crime Victimize Survey report there were almost exactly 300,000 crimes, including murders, facilitated with a firearm.

Of those, not more than 5,000 can be shown to have been facilitated with a firearm legally purchased by the offender.

For those seeking more information, there are more than a thousand posts at the Alley covering various aspects of the overwhelming percentage of crimes committed with stolen and trafficked guns.


"What Percentage Of Crimes Committed With Illegal And Legal Guns" | Extrano's Alley