Gunman at DC Navy Yard shoots at least 7

[Spoonman]

The UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Denmark all have murder rates around one per hundred thousand. The US is close to five

Spin that any way you like

The US is perfectly happy with their murder rate as long as we can keep our guns

and they had those rates without strict gun laws. guns are not the problem

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those countries have on average, one third of the gun ownership of the US and one quarter of our murder rate

those countries had those rates before gun laws. gun laws had no influence on those rates. hence - Guns Are Not The Issue!

 

[Brain357]

You mean like paying people to stay poor? It won't help. No matter how much you pay people not to work, they will still feel entitled to more. As long as some people are willing to work harder and longer than others there will be income inequality.

No I mean incentives for companies to create jobs here and give good wages and benefits.

Such as?

I've a better idea, incentives to the lazy to get off their lazy fat foodstamp enlarged obese arses and find work.
There, problem solved.

Companies want to pay no taxes. So if they meet certain criteria including min pay, benefits, retirement.... Let them pay no taxes. It's obviously a complicated formula, but that's basically what I would do.

Yes while jobs are being shipped to other countries they will just run out and get one.

 

[Spoonman]

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those countries have on average, one third of the gun ownership of the US and one quarter of our murder rate

The UK now has a quarter, but it was less before the 1997 firearms act.
13 mass shootings in the UK since the 1997 firearms act.
9 between 1909 and 1997.
What does that tell you?

It tells me that since 1997, England has had a significant shift in demographics and a sagging economy

It also tells me that they still have one quarter of the murder rate we do

and always had a rate the quarter we do

 

[rightwinger]

how many gang members are there compared to whites? lets put things into the proper proportion to get the real picture. you libs love to play the numbers games

Doesn't answer the question

The statement was that if not for minority gangs, we would have the murder rate of Belgium. This is far from the truth

Gangs are clearly a problem in this country but not the reason we have a murder rate at four times similar countries

and guns are not the reason either

The reason? No
But the weapon of choice in two thirds of our homicides

 

[westwall]

If we didn't have minority gangs all of whom have a raging sense of entitlement, we would have the murder rate of Brussels.

No we wouldn't

Whites still account for over 50% of our murder rate. 30% of our murders are domestic violence, not gangs

Gang homicides account for 12% of our murders
Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems

•The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged more than 1,900 annually from 2007 to 2011. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (FBI ? Table 1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually.

Actually, yes we would. Remove the murder rates from Chicago, Detroit, Philly, and DC and our murder rate drops to BELOW European levels. Now, I wonder who runs those cities?

 

[westwall]

Again your comparing us to 3rd world countries. You must think very little of this country. Compare us to to developed countries and we're 4X more likely. You don't even think we belong in the company of developed countries?

And most of our violent crime is thanks to immigrants from those third world countries you speak so poorly of. The simple fact is we have way more third world immigrants than every country in Europe combined. Funny how you ignore that fact.

You see you choose only those facts that support your pre-conceived idea. Not the most ethical person are you...

So you agree we should do something about income inequality, good.

You are a disingenuous little troll aren't you. Good to know and you will now be treated as such.

And for the record no I don't. Instead I think that asshats like you should be given a one way ticket to Zimbabwe. You need to witness the third world in person.

 

[westwall]

The UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Denmark all have murder rates around one per hundred thousand. The US is close to five

Spin that any way you like

The US is perfectly happy with their murder rate as long as we can keep our guns

and they had those rates without strict gun laws. guns are not the problem

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those countries have on average, one third of the gun ownership of the US and one quarter of our murder rate

And they ALWAYS had it. You really are an unethical little asshat aren't you. Report the real stats you propagandist.

 

[Brain357]

And most of our violent crime is thanks to immigrants from those third world countries you speak so poorly of. The simple fact is we have way more third world immigrants than every country in Europe combined. Funny how you ignore that fact.

You see you choose only those facts that support your pre-conceived idea. Not the most ethical person are you...

So you agree we should do something about income inequality, good.

You are a disingenuous little troll aren't you. Good to know and you will now be treated as such.

And for the record no I don't. Instead I think that asshats like you should be given a one way ticket to Zimbabwe. You need to witness the third world in person.

So you say gangs are the problem but you don't want to fix the problem. Brilliant. You must love murder.

 

[westwall]

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those countries have on average, one third of the gun ownership of the US and one quarter of our murder rate

The UK now has a quarter, but it was less before the 1997 firearms act.
13 mass shootings in the UK since the 1997 firearms act.
9 between 1909 and 1997.
What does that tell you?

It tells me that since 1997, England has had a significant shift in demographics and a sagging economy

It also tells me that they still have one quarter of the murder rate we do

And your response tells me that you are intellectually dishonest.

 

[eflatminor]

So no, you'd let felons buy guns. More more guns. You'd do much more damage than good.

So you don't need it. My point is made.

Already laws against felons buying guns. They don't obtain them from legitimate sources, where background checks make no difference.

Your point is clear: Restrict law abiding citizens ability to effectively defend themselves in some vain hope that your good intentions will prevent bad people from doing bad things.

Pass.

They don't obtain them from legitimate sources because of background checks. Duh

Then please, stop rambling on about background checks.

Now your lying. What have I suggested that restricts anyone from defending themselves?

You support gun free zones for one. You support waiting periods. You support limiting the type of firearms, ammunition and accessories we KNOW the bad guys will have, thereby putting good people at a tactical disadvantage. These bullshit 'feel good' rules restrict our God given and Constitutional right to self defense.

 

[westwall]

No I mean incentives for companies to create jobs here and give good wages and benefits.

Such as?

I've a better idea, incentives to the lazy to get off their lazy fat foodstamp enlarged obese arses and find work.
There, problem solved.

Companies want to pay no taxes. So if they meet certain criteria including min pay, benefits, retirement.... Let them pay no taxes. It's obviously a complicated formula, but that's basically what I would do.

Yes while jobs are being shipped to other countries they will just run out and get one.

Ahhhh, the good little NAZI raises his flag. You can't have your little NAZI paradise so long as the people are armed so just like the NAZI's did you want to disarm the PEOPLE so you can set up your little totalitarian nightmare.

No thank you. We have seen the result of your little wet dreams.

 

[Missourian]

Why are we outraged by mass shootings? We can't do a damn thing about them. Just ask any gun lover. There are too many weapons on the streets, so let's not even try to control it. That's an Augean task. There are no such things as assault weapons. Ask the gun lover. He'll verify that. Guns that shoot dozens of rounds in the blink of an eye are just the greatest advancements of technology and help gun lovers play out their fantasies of being Rambo or holding off multiple intruders in a last stand of imagined glory.

Scores of children lying in pools of their own blood is just the cost of second amendment rights.

Guns aren't the problem, the idiots standing in front of them are the problem.

We can't do back ground checks because they are not 100% effective against the mentally frazzled buying the same weapon issued to troops in the field. And if something isn't 100% effective, it just isn't worth doing. Ask any gun lover. They'll tell you the same.

We should just accept mass shootings as the consequence of the second amendment. Turn a blind eye to the tragedy. Rationalize death with freedom. Don't even try to stem the tide of gun violence, that would be a threat to everyone's rights.

And so goes the logic of the gun lover. Indifference to suffering tempered by irrational gun lust.

You accept drunk driving deaths as a consequence of legal alcohol, and it has no Constitutional protection.

And more children are "lying in pools of their own blood" as a direct result of alcohol than guns.

Where is your outrage?

At least guns serve a purpose...hunting and self protection.

Alcohol serves NO useful purpose.

Why is there no push to restrict it?

You should get down off your moral high horse before you fall off.

 

[Missourian]

Why are we outraged by mass shootings? We can't do a damn thing about them. Just ask any gun lover. There are too many weapons on the streets, so let's not even try to control it. That's an Augean task. There are no such things as assault weapons. Ask the gun lover. He'll verify that. Guns that shoot dozens of rounds in the blink of an eye are just the greatest advancements of technology and help gun lovers play out their fantasies of being Rambo or holding off multiple intruders in a last stand of imagined glory.

Scores of children lying in pools of their own blood is just the cost of second amendment rights.

Guns aren't the problem, the idiots standing in front of them are the problem.

We can't do back ground checks because they are not 100% effective against the mentally frazzled buying the same weapon issued to troops in the field. And if something isn't 100% effective, it just isn't worth doing. Ask any gun lover. They'll tell you the same.

We should just accept mass shootings as the consequence of the second amendment. Turn a blind eye to the tragedy. Rationalize death with freedom. Don't even try to stem the tide of gun violence, that would be a threat to everyone's rights.

And so goes the logic of the gun lover. Indifference to suffering tempered by irrational gun lust.

You accept drunk driving deaths as a consequence of legal alcohol, and it has no Constitutional protection.

And more children are "lying in pools of their own blood" as a direct result of alcohol than guns.

Where is your outrage?

At least guns serve a purpose...hunting and self protection.

Alcohol serves NO useful purpose.

Why is there no push to restrict it?

You should get down off your moral high horse before you fall off.

Over 1.2 million drivers were arrested in 2011 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.

(Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States: 2011”)



Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.
- See more at: MADD - Statistics

 

[Brain357]

Already laws against felons buying guns. They don't obtain them from legitimate sources, where background checks make no difference.

Your point is clear: Restrict law abiding citizens ability to effectively defend themselves in some vain hope that your good intentions will prevent bad people from doing bad things.

Pass.

They don't obtain them from legitimate sources because of background checks. Duh

Then please, stop rambling on about background checks.

Now your lying. What have I suggested that restricts anyone from defending themselves?

You support gun free zones for one. You support waiting periods. You support limiting the type of firearms, ammunition and accessories we KNOW the bad guys will have, thereby putting good people at a tactical disadvantage. These bullshit 'feel good' rules restrict our God given and Constitutional right to self defense.

So you'd let felons buy guns, that should really help.

Studies show defense requires no more than 3 shots. Your big guns are just feel good for the paranoid. Meanwhile they are mowing down innocents.

 

[Brain357]

Such as?

I've a better idea, incentives to the lazy to get off their lazy fat foodstamp enlarged obese arses and find work.
There, problem solved.

Companies want to pay no taxes. So if they meet certain criteria including min pay, benefits, retirement.... Let them pay no taxes. It's obviously a complicated formula, but that's basically what I would do.

Yes while jobs are being shipped to other countries they will just run out and get one.

Ahhhh, the good little NAZI raises his flag. You can't have your little NAZI paradise so long as the people are armed so just like the NAZI's did you want to disarm the PEOPLE so you can set up your little totalitarian nightmare.

No thank you. We have seen the result of your little wet dreams.

News flash. There are no nazis. Please seek mental help.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why are we outraged by mass shootings? We can't do a damn thing about them. Just ask any gun lover. There are too many weapons on the streets, so let's not even try to control it. That's an Augean task. There are no such things as assault weapons. Ask the gun lover. He'll verify that. Guns that shoot dozens of rounds in the blink of an eye are just the greatest advancements of technology and help gun lovers play out their fantasies of being Rambo or holding off multiple intruders in a last stand of imagined glory.

Scores of children lying in pools of their own blood is just the cost of second amendment rights.

Guns aren't the problem, the idiots standing in front of them are the problem.

We can't do back ground checks because they are not 100% effective against the mentally frazzled buying the same weapon issued to troops in the field. And if something isn't 100% effective, it just isn't worth doing. Ask any gun lover. They'll tell you the same.

We should just accept mass shootings as the consequence of the second amendment. Turn a blind eye to the tragedy. Rationalize death with freedom. Don't even try to stem the tide of gun violence, that would be a threat to everyone's rights.

And so goes the logic of the gun lover. Indifference to suffering tempered by irrational gun lust.

You accept drunk driving deaths as a consequence of legal alcohol, and it has no Constitutional protection.

And more children are "lying in pools of their own blood" as a direct result of alcohol than guns.

Where is your outrage?

At least guns serve a purpose...hunting and self protection.

Alcohol serves NO useful purpose.

Why is there no push to restrict it?

You should get down off your moral high horse before you fall off.

Do you assume that folks are incapable of multitasking? That moral outrage can be directed in one direction at a time? Or do you find arguing against alcohol easier than finding a workable solution to the plague of gun violence? Is that merely a distraction, or can you find no solutions to either problem?

 

[Spoonman]

They don't obtain them from legitimate sources because of background checks. Duh

Then please, stop rambling on about background checks.

Now your lying. What have I suggested that restricts anyone from defending themselves?

You support gun free zones for one. You support waiting periods. You support limiting the type of firearms, ammunition and accessories we KNOW the bad guys will have, thereby putting good people at a tactical disadvantage. These bullshit 'feel good' rules restrict our God given and Constitutional right to self defense.

So you'd let felons buy guns, that should really help.

Studies show defense requires no more than 3 shots. Your big guns are just feel good for the paranoid. Meanwhile they are mowing down innocents.

do you really need 500 HP to do 55 on a highway?

do you really need an alcohol level of more than 3.2% to get drunk?

do you really need to have gormet foods when a protien powder and some vitamins would give us all we need

 

[Missourian]

Why are we outraged by mass shootings? We can't do a damn thing about them. Just ask any gun lover. There are too many weapons on the streets, so let's not even try to control it. That's an Augean task. There are no such things as assault weapons. Ask the gun lover. He'll verify that. Guns that shoot dozens of rounds in the blink of an eye are just the greatest advancements of technology and help gun lovers play out their fantasies of being Rambo or holding off multiple intruders in a last stand of imagined glory.

Scores of children lying in pools of their own blood is just the cost of second amendment rights.

Guns aren't the problem, the idiots standing in front of them are the problem.

We can't do back ground checks because they are not 100% effective against the mentally frazzled buying the same weapon issued to troops in the field. And if something isn't 100% effective, it just isn't worth doing. Ask any gun lover. They'll tell you the same.

We should just accept mass shootings as the consequence of the second amendment. Turn a blind eye to the tragedy. Rationalize death with freedom. Don't even try to stem the tide of gun violence, that would be a threat to everyone's rights.

And so goes the logic of the gun lover. Indifference to suffering tempered by irrational gun lust.

You accept drunk driving deaths as a consequence of legal alcohol, and it has no Constitutional protection.

And more children are "lying in pools of their own blood" as a direct result of alcohol than guns.

Where is your outrage?

At least guns serve a purpose...hunting and self protection.

Alcohol serves NO useful purpose.

Why is there no push to restrict it?

You should get down off your moral high horse before you fall off.

Do you assume that folks are incapable of multitasking? That moral outrage can be directed in one direction at a time? Or do you find arguing against alcohol easier than finding a workable solution to the plague of gun violence? Is that merely a distraction, or can you find no solutions to either problem?

I know what I see with my own eyes.

Do you see a national movement to restrict alcohol?

Anyone pushing that?

No.

 

[Brain357]

You accept drunk driving deaths as a consequence of legal alcohol, and it has no Constitutional protection.

And more children are "lying in pools of their own blood" as a direct result of alcohol than guns.

Where is your outrage?

At least guns serve a purpose...hunting and self protection.

Alcohol serves NO useful purpose.

Why is there no push to restrict it?

You should get down off your moral high horse before you fall off.

Do you assume that folks are incapable of multitasking? That moral outrage can be directed in one direction at a time? Or do you find arguing against alcohol easier than finding a workable solution to the plague of gun violence? Is that merely a distraction, or can you find no solutions to either problem?

I know what I see with my own eyes.

Do you see a national movement to restrict alcohol?

Anyone pushing that?

No.

The amount you can drink before driving is limited. Just like we should limit magazine capacity.

 

[rightwinger]

and they had those rates without strict gun laws. guns are not the problem

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those countries have on average, one third of the gun ownership of the US and one quarter of our murder rate

And they ALWAYS had it. You really are an unethical little asshat aren't you. Report the real stats you propagandist.

These are the real stats and are linked

The US has twice the gun ownership of the next closest country. Guns are readilly accessible to the American public and we have a murder rate four times that of similar (EU) nations

Nothing is going to change that. We love our guns and are willing to put up with increased murders, assasinations and massacres

It is the price we pay for our second amendment