Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The NRA vs "Me Too" Corporations
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
The NRA has brought this on themselves. Several of their videos have had nothing to do with guns and everything to do with cheap shots at liberals. They are more interested in dividing people. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting they are saying no. There is no reason for bump stocks and it is illogical to assume that a 18 year old cannot handle a handgun but can handle a rifle. Also mental health and background checks need to be looked at. People who are mentally ill should not have guns. However we need to also maker sure that people's constitutional rights are protected. The NRA needs to be a part of the solution not the problem.
There are two situations, the elimination of which would essentially eliminate mass shootings.
Neither of which is the NRA, or even the AR-15.
Yet the Left, the Democrats, Liberals, endorse neither.
In point of fact....these groups are responsible for the mayhem...
The solutions are
Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
And....trained to accept what your masters propose.....I predict you have nothing to say vis-a-vis the above.
Am I correct?
The NRA needs to be a part of the solution instead of saying no to everything. Some of the proposals that have been put and are opposed by the NRA are sensible.
Be sure to let me know when you are ready to conclude that all the hand-wringing and chest-thumping by Democrats/Liberals is simply an obfuscation of their real desire: eliminating the second amendment.
Both sides are extremists. Liberal democrats want to go too far to the left and ban guns while right wing Republicans think that a no-brainer like raising the age for owning a rifle is too much. The NRA is a part of that extremism.
Let's review the facts.
Politicalchick and facts in a single sentence? That would be an oxymoron.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
The source you used is not listed above. But it takes a few seconds with google to see that you used a far right bat shit crazy site to get that quote. In fact, most shootings have been in other than gun free zones. And the fact is, named gun free zones are not gun free. There are typically gun carrying police or hired guards. The public is not allowed to bring guns. And only fools, and the NRA, say the public having guns with them would help stop mass shootings. You see, we can look at the other nations of the world and see that gun free zones do not increase mass shootings.
"deputy communications director Stacey Radnor points to data showing the vast majority of mass shootings take place in areas where guns are allowed.
“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”"
Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
Uh, again, being a con troll, politicalchick has used a right wing nut case source to prove something that is not what we are talking about. No one ever has thought that eliminating assault rifles would reduce overall gun crime. As you should know. And it may not have. Try to read the following, from a reliable and impartial source:
"But the 1994 assault weapons ban was never intended to be a comprehensive fix for “gun violence” writ large. Its purpose, according to gun violence experts and the lawmakers who wrote the bill, was to reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings like the ones in Parkland, Sandy Hook and elsewhere. And on that front, the data shows it had a significant impact'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.7cbfaae604e1
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
I notice you have no source. Though the NRA and every nut case con web site tries to say that mental illness is a normal problem for these killers. It is just, me poor con, that it is untrue.
UH, HERE IS THE PROBLEM. OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE LAW REQUIRING THOSE WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS TO BE PREVENTED FROM GETTING GUNS. AND THE STUDIES SAY FEW MASS KILLINGS ARE BY PEOPLE WITH DIAGNOSED MENTAL PROBLEMS. CONSIDER:
"A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that databases that track gun homicides show that less than 5 percent of 120,000 gun-related killings in America between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with a diagnosed mental illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported fluctuations over the years in the number of people who experienced serious psychological distress in the past 30 days. Since 2007, it has ranged from 2.7 percent to 3.8 percent in 2013. In both 2015 and 2016, the rate was 3.6 percent."
What we know about mass shootings
JESUS, YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE WHERE YOU GET YOUR DATA, DO YOU. OR DID YOU EVEN HAVE A SOURCE. Net is that under 5% of mass killers have had a diagnosed mental condition. Which makes all this drivel about mental illness and drugs largely just that - Drivel.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
Uh, in short, everything you said in your post is based at best on very slanted sources, and is generally provably WRONG. But every single thing that you posted was provided by and supported by:
1. The NRA
2. Far right sources who get their info from the NRA and other right wing sites
3. Politicians paid by the NRA, and graded highly by the NRA
4. Nut case con trolls paid to post drivel friendly to the far, far nut case right and the NRA.
In short, there is no integrity to be found in your post. Just con talking points.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,919
- 1,600
There are two situations, the elimination of which would essentially eliminate mass shootings.
Neither of which is the NRA, or even the AR-15.
Yet the Left, the Democrats, Liberals, endorse neither.
In point of fact....these groups are responsible for the mayhem...
The solutions are
Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
And....trained to accept what your masters propose.....I predict you have nothing to say vis-a-vis the above.
Am I correct?
The NRA needs to be a part of the solution instead of saying no to everything. Some of the proposals that have been put and are opposed by the NRA are sensible.
Be sure to let me know when you are ready to conclude that all the hand-wringing and chest-thumping by Democrats/Liberals is simply an obfuscation of their real desire: eliminating the second amendment.
Both sides are extremists. Liberal democrats want to go too far to the left and ban guns while right wing Republicans think that a no-brainer like raising the age for owning a rifle is too much. The NRA is a part of that extremism.
Let's review the facts.
Politicalchick and facts in a single sentence? That would be an oxymoron.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
The source you used is not listed above. But it takes a few seconds with google to see that you used a far right bat shit crazy site to get that quote. In fact, most shootings have been in other than gun free zones. And the fact is, named gun free zones are not gun free. There are typically gun carrying police or hired guards. The public is not allowed to bring guns. And only fools, and the NRA, say the public having guns with them would help stop mass shootings. You see, we can look at the other nations of the world and see that gun free zones do not increase mass shootings.
"deputy communications director Stacey Radnor points to data showing the vast majority of mass shootings take place in areas where guns are allowed.
“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”"
Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
Uh, again, being a con troll, politicalchick has used a right wing nut case source to prove something that is not what we are talking about. No one ever has thought that eliminating assault rifles would reduce overall gun crime. As you should know. And it may not have. Try to read the following, from a reliable and impartial source:
"But the 1994 assault weapons ban was never intended to be a comprehensive fix for “gun violence” writ large. Its purpose, according to gun violence experts and the lawmakers who wrote the bill, was to reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings like the ones in Parkland, Sandy Hook and elsewhere. And on that front, the data shows it had a significant impact'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.7cbfaae604e1
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
I notice you have no source. Though the NRA and every nut case con web site tries to say that mental illness is a normal problem for these killers. It is just, me poor con, that it is untrue.
UH, HERE IS THE PROBLEM. OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE LAW REQUIRING THOSE WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS TO BE PREVENTED FROM GETTING GUNS. AND THE STUDIES SAY FEW MASS KILLINGS ARE BY PEOPLE WITH DIAGNOSED MENTAL PROBLEMS. CONSIDER:
"A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that databases that track gun homicides show that less than 5 percent of 120,000 gun-related killings in America between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with a diagnosed mental illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported fluctuations over the years in the number of people who experienced serious psychological distress in the past 30 days. Since 2007, it has ranged from 2.7 percent to 3.8 percent in 2013. In both 2015 and 2016, the rate was 3.6 percent."
What we know about mass shootings
JESUS, YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE WHERE YOU GET YOUR DATA, DO YOU. OR DID YOU EVEN HAVE A SOURCE. Net is that under 5% of mass killers have had a diagnosed mental condition. Which makes all this drivel about mental illness and drugs largely just that - Drivel.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
Uh, in short, everything you said in your post is based at best on very slanted sources, and is generally provably WRONG. But every single thing that you posted was provided by and supported by:
1. The NRA
2. Far right sources who get their info from the NRA and other right wing sites
3. Politicians paid by the NRA, and graded highly by the NRA
4. Nut case con trolls paid to post drivel friendly to the far, far nut case right and the NRA.
In short, there is no integrity to be found in your post. Just con talking points.
that's a lot of work - i commend you on addressing individual points and making notes on what is important in proving a point. first off, you need one. other than to tell her she's jacked in the head, what is your counter point to what she has said?
with neutral reference points, as you require. without political input, as you require. which is more qualified to talk about guns than the NRA.
which again, you require.
so way to rip into a post but offer nothing in return for counter views that illustrate how you think discussions should go.
The NRA has brought this on themselves. Several of their videos have had nothing to do with guns and everything to do with cheap shots at liberals. They are more interested in dividing people. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting they are saying no. There is no reason for bump stocks and it is illogical to assume that a 18 year old cannot handle a handgun but can handle a rifle. Also mental health and background checks need to be looked at. People who are mentally ill should not have guns. However we need to also maker sure that people's constitutional rights are protected. The NRA needs to be a part of the solution not the problem.
There are two situations, the elimination of which would essentially eliminate mass shootings.
Neither of which is the NRA, or even the AR-15.
Yet the Left, the Democrats, Liberals, endorse neither.
In point of fact....these groups are responsible for the mayhem...
The solutions are
Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
And....trained to accept what your masters propose.....I predict you have nothing to say vis-a-vis the above.
Am I correct?
The NRA needs to be a part of the solution instead of saying no to everything. Some of the proposals that have been put and are opposed by the NRA are sensible.
Now.....focus like a laser:
These are the two solutions to mass shootings:
Eliminate Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
How....exactly, would the NRA be responsible for accomplishing these???????
That is so much BS.
Turning schools into a armed camp will get more people hurt. A teacher in Georgia fired his gun in class. Fortunately no one was hurt. We should get rid of gun free zones but that is not the total answer. We need to be pro-active and get to these people before they make it to a school or workplace.
There is also no reason to allow the sale of a bump stock or any device that allows a semi-automatic to act like a automatic weapon. Also there is no rational reason to say that a 18 year old can't have a handgun but can have a rifle.
"Turning schools into a armed camp will get more people hurt."
Rumor has it that they have guys with guns in banks......
Why is that?
You have an attention span problem. Subject was about mass killings, which do not happen in banks.
And, bank robbers typically do not show up with an assault rifle. So, a cop or guard with a service revolver is better able to control a bank incident. Though often they do not.
By the way, were you aware that most banks are gun free zones, me girl.
The NRA needs to be a part of the solution instead of saying no to everything. Some of the proposals that have been put and are opposed by the NRA are sensible.
Be sure to let me know when you are ready to conclude that all the hand-wringing and chest-thumping by Democrats/Liberals is simply an obfuscation of their real desire: eliminating the second amendment.
Both sides are extremists. Liberal democrats want to go too far to the left and ban guns while right wing Republicans think that a no-brainer like raising the age for owning a rifle is too much. The NRA is a part of that extremism.
Let's review the facts.
Politicalchick and facts in a single sentence? That would be an oxymoron.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
The source you used is not listed above. But it takes a few seconds with google to see that you used a far right bat shit crazy site to get that quote. In fact, most shootings have been in other than gun free zones. And the fact is, named gun free zones are not gun free. There are typically gun carrying police or hired guards. The public is not allowed to bring guns. And only fools, and the NRA, say the public having guns with them would help stop mass shootings. You see, we can look at the other nations of the world and see that gun free zones do not increase mass shootings.
"deputy communications director Stacey Radnor points to data showing the vast majority of mass shootings take place in areas where guns are allowed.
“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”"
Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
Uh, again, being a con troll, politicalchick has used a right wing nut case source to prove something that is not what we are talking about. No one ever has thought that eliminating assault rifles would reduce overall gun crime. As you should know. And it may not have. Try to read the following, from a reliable and impartial source:
"But the 1994 assault weapons ban was never intended to be a comprehensive fix for “gun violence” writ large. Its purpose, according to gun violence experts and the lawmakers who wrote the bill, was to reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings like the ones in Parkland, Sandy Hook and elsewhere. And on that front, the data shows it had a significant impact'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.7cbfaae604e1
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
I notice you have no source. Though the NRA and every nut case con web site tries to say that mental illness is a normal problem for these killers. It is just, me poor con, that it is untrue.
UH, HERE IS THE PROBLEM. OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE LAW REQUIRING THOSE WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS TO BE PREVENTED FROM GETTING GUNS. AND THE STUDIES SAY FEW MASS KILLINGS ARE BY PEOPLE WITH DIAGNOSED MENTAL PROBLEMS. CONSIDER:
"A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that databases that track gun homicides show that less than 5 percent of 120,000 gun-related killings in America between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with a diagnosed mental illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported fluctuations over the years in the number of people who experienced serious psychological distress in the past 30 days. Since 2007, it has ranged from 2.7 percent to 3.8 percent in 2013. In both 2015 and 2016, the rate was 3.6 percent."
What we know about mass shootings
JESUS, YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE WHERE YOU GET YOUR DATA, DO YOU. OR DID YOU EVEN HAVE A SOURCE. Net is that under 5% of mass killers have had a diagnosed mental condition. Which makes all this drivel about mental illness and drugs largely just that - Drivel.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
Uh, in short, everything you said in your post is based at best on very slanted sources, and is generally provably WRONG. But every single thing that you posted was provided by and supported by:
1. The NRA
2. Far right sources who get their info from the NRA and other right wing sites
3. Politicians paid by the NRA, and graded highly by the NRA
4. Nut case con trolls paid to post drivel friendly to the far, far nut case right and the NRA.
In short, there is no integrity to be found in your post. Just con talking points.
that's a lot of work - i commend you on addressing individual points and making notes on what is important in proving a point. first off, you need one. other than to tell her she's jacked in the head, what is your counter point to what she has said?
with neutral reference points, as you require. without political input, as you require. which is more qualified to talk about guns than the NRA.
which again, you require.
so way to rip into a post but offer nothing in return for counter views that illustrate how you think discussions should go.
It is really simple. Start by following the truth, which means leave the partial sites alone. Use well known rational and impartial sites. If you can not do that, then there is no use proceeding.
The NRA has brought this on themselves. Several of their videos have had nothing to do with guns and everything to do with cheap shots at liberals. They are more interested in dividing people. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting they are saying no. There is no reason for bump stocks and it is illogical to assume that a 18 year old cannot handle a handgun but can handle a rifle. Also mental health and background checks need to be looked at. People who are mentally ill should not have guns. However we need to also maker sure that people's constitutional rights are protected. The NRA needs to be a part of the solution not the problem.
There are two situations, the elimination of which would essentially eliminate mass shootings.
Neither of which is the NRA, or even the AR-15.
Yet the Left, the Democrats, Liberals, endorse neither.
In point of fact....these groups are responsible for the mayhem...
The solutions are
Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
And....trained to accept what your masters propose.....I predict you have nothing to say vis-a-vis the above.
Am I correct?
The NRA needs to be a part of the solution instead of saying no to everything. Some of the proposals that have been put and are opposed by the NRA are sensible.
Now.....focus like a laser:
These are the two solutions to mass shootings:
Eliminate Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
How....exactly, would the NRA be responsible for accomplishing these???????
That is so much BS.
Turning schools into a armed camp will get more people hurt. A teacher in Georgia fired his gun in class. Fortunately no one was hurt. We should get rid of gun free zones but that is not the total answer. We need to be pro-active and get to these people before they make it to a school or workplace.
There is also no reason to allow the sale of a bump stock or any device that allows a semi-automatic to act like a automatic weapon. Also there is no rational reason to say that a 18 year old can't have a handgun but can have a rifle.
"Turning schools into a armed camp will get more people hurt."
Rumor has it that they have guys with guns in banks......
Why is that?
Adults go to banks not kids. You want to wait until they get there to do something. I want to try and do something before they get there.
The NRA has brought this on themselves. Several of their videos have had nothing to do with guns and everything to do with cheap shots at liberals. They are more interested in dividing people. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting they are saying no. There is no reason for bump stocks and it is illogical to assume that a 18 year old cannot handle a handgun but can handle a rifle. Also mental health and background checks need to be looked at. People who are mentally ill should not have guns. However we need to also maker sure that people's constitutional rights are protected. The NRA needs to be a part of the solution not the problem.
There are two situations, the elimination of which would essentially eliminate mass shootings.
Neither of which is the NRA, or even the AR-15.
Yet the Left, the Democrats, Liberals, endorse neither.
In point of fact....these groups are responsible for the mayhem...
The solutions are
Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
And....trained to accept what your masters propose.....I predict you have nothing to say vis-a-vis the above.
Am I correct?
The NRA needs to be a part of the solution instead of saying no to everything. Some of the proposals that have been put and are opposed by the NRA are sensible.
Be sure to let me know when you are ready to conclude that all the hand-wringing and chest-thumping by Democrats/Liberals is simply an obfuscation of their real desire: eliminating the second amendment.
Both sides are extremists. Liberal democrats want to go too far to the left and ban guns while right wing Republicans think that a no-brainer like raising the age for owning a rifle is too much. The NRA is a part of that extremism.
Let's review the facts.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
I am not talking about a assault weapon ban. While I do not support gun free zones, the answer is more complex than that. You assume the drugs are doing it when the shooters were already screwed up.
The fact is that there is no reason for establishing a age limit of 21 for handguns and 18 for rifles. A 18 year old can still be in high school. You are a right wing extremist and you are part of the problem same as far left extremists.
Nonsense. I suppose there may be a few progressives that want to ban all guns, I have never met one. By far the most common is that many want to ban assault rifles. Me included. Because there is no other way to stop mass killings.The NRA has brought this on themselves. Several of their videos have had nothing to do with guns and everything to do with cheap shots at liberals. They are more interested in dividing people. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting they are saying no. There is no reason for bump stocks and it is illogical to assume that a 18 year old cannot handle a handgun but can handle a rifle. Also mental health and background checks need to be looked at. People who are mentally ill should not have guns. However we need to also maker sure that people's constitutional rights are protected. The NRA needs to be a part of the solution not the problem.
There are two situations, the elimination of which would essentially eliminate mass shootings.
Neither of which is the NRA, or even the AR-15.
Yet the Left, the Democrats, Liberals, endorse neither.
In point of fact....these groups are responsible for the mayhem...
The solutions are
Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
And....trained to accept what your masters propose.....I predict you have nothing to say vis-a-vis the above.
Am I correct?
The NRA needs to be a part of the solution instead of saying no to everything. Some of the proposals that have been put and are opposed by the NRA are sensible.
Be sure to let me know when you are ready to conclude that all the hand-wringing and chest-thumping by Democrats/Liberals is simply an obfuscation of their real desire: eliminating the second amendment.
Both sides are extremists. Liberal democrats want to go too far to the left and ban guns while right wing Republicans think that a no-brainer like raising the age for owning a rifle is too much. The NRA is a part of that extremism.
There are over 25 advanced nations in the world. Of those, 0 (as in ZERO) allow the sale of assault rifles to their citizens. And, all have less than 5% as many mass shootings as the US does. Most have almost NONE.
So, the real debate is whether we want to see our people killed by nuts with assault rifles, or if we want to get rid of a gun which has the primary civilian uses shooting refrigerators in garbage dumps or being used to shoot rock chucks. So, the determination in most countries is simple. Kids and adults are more important than getting to shoot appliances. Except to the gun and ammo companies, the NRA, and politicians and trolls paid by the NRA.
What is a assault rifle? It is essentially designed to look like a military weapon but is semi-automatic. It fires one shot at a time. These weapons have a wide variety of uses including hunting. There are hunting rifles that are more powerful than a assault weapon.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,919
- 1,600
So unless they think like you they are not worth talking to is what I'm getting from youBe sure to let me know when you are ready to conclude that all the hand-wringing and chest-thumping by Democrats/Liberals is simply an obfuscation of their real desire: eliminating the second amendment.
Both sides are extremists. Liberal democrats want to go too far to the left and ban guns while right wing Republicans think that a no-brainer like raising the age for owning a rifle is too much. The NRA is a part of that extremism.
Let's review the facts.
Politicalchick and facts in a single sentence? That would be an oxymoron.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
The source you used is not listed above. But it takes a few seconds with google to see that you used a far right bat shit crazy site to get that quote. In fact, most shootings have been in other than gun free zones. And the fact is, named gun free zones are not gun free. There are typically gun carrying police or hired guards. The public is not allowed to bring guns. And only fools, and the NRA, say the public having guns with them would help stop mass shootings. You see, we can look at the other nations of the world and see that gun free zones do not increase mass shootings.
"deputy communications director Stacey Radnor points to data showing the vast majority of mass shootings take place in areas where guns are allowed.
“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”"
Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
Uh, again, being a con troll, politicalchick has used a right wing nut case source to prove something that is not what we are talking about. No one ever has thought that eliminating assault rifles would reduce overall gun crime. As you should know. And it may not have. Try to read the following, from a reliable and impartial source:
"But the 1994 assault weapons ban was never intended to be a comprehensive fix for “gun violence” writ large. Its purpose, according to gun violence experts and the lawmakers who wrote the bill, was to reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings like the ones in Parkland, Sandy Hook and elsewhere. And on that front, the data shows it had a significant impact'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.7cbfaae604e1
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
I notice you have no source. Though the NRA and every nut case con web site tries to say that mental illness is a normal problem for these killers. It is just, me poor con, that it is untrue.
UH, HERE IS THE PROBLEM. OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE LAW REQUIRING THOSE WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS TO BE PREVENTED FROM GETTING GUNS. AND THE STUDIES SAY FEW MASS KILLINGS ARE BY PEOPLE WITH DIAGNOSED MENTAL PROBLEMS. CONSIDER:
"A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that databases that track gun homicides show that less than 5 percent of 120,000 gun-related killings in America between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with a diagnosed mental illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported fluctuations over the years in the number of people who experienced serious psychological distress in the past 30 days. Since 2007, it has ranged from 2.7 percent to 3.8 percent in 2013. In both 2015 and 2016, the rate was 3.6 percent."
What we know about mass shootings
JESUS, YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE WHERE YOU GET YOUR DATA, DO YOU. OR DID YOU EVEN HAVE A SOURCE. Net is that under 5% of mass killers have had a diagnosed mental condition. Which makes all this drivel about mental illness and drugs largely just that - Drivel.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
Uh, in short, everything you said in your post is based at best on very slanted sources, and is generally provably WRONG. But every single thing that you posted was provided by and supported by:
1. The NRA
2. Far right sources who get their info from the NRA and other right wing sites
3. Politicians paid by the NRA, and graded highly by the NRA
4. Nut case con trolls paid to post drivel friendly to the far, far nut case right and the NRA.
In short, there is no integrity to be found in your post. Just con talking points.
that's a lot of work - i commend you on addressing individual points and making notes on what is important in proving a point. first off, you need one. other than to tell her she's jacked in the head, what is your counter point to what she has said?
with neutral reference points, as you require. without political input, as you require. which is more qualified to talk about guns than the NRA.
which again, you require.
so way to rip into a post but offer nothing in return for counter views that illustrate how you think discussions should go.
It is really simple. Start by following the truth, which means leave the partial sites alone. Use well known rational and impartial sites. If you can not do that, then there is no use proceeding.
So unless they think like you they are not worth talking to is what I'm getting from youBoth sides are extremists. Liberal democrats want to go too far to the left and ban guns while right wing Republicans think that a no-brainer like raising the age for owning a rifle is too much. The NRA is a part of that extremism.
Let's review the facts.
Politicalchick and facts in a single sentence? That would be an oxymoron.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
The source you used is not listed above. But it takes a few seconds with google to see that you used a far right bat shit crazy site to get that quote. In fact, most shootings have been in other than gun free zones. And the fact is, named gun free zones are not gun free. There are typically gun carrying police or hired guards. The public is not allowed to bring guns. And only fools, and the NRA, say the public having guns with them would help stop mass shootings. You see, we can look at the other nations of the world and see that gun free zones do not increase mass shootings.
"deputy communications director Stacey Radnor points to data showing the vast majority of mass shootings take place in areas where guns are allowed.
“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”"
Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
Uh, again, being a con troll, politicalchick has used a right wing nut case source to prove something that is not what we are talking about. No one ever has thought that eliminating assault rifles would reduce overall gun crime. As you should know. And it may not have. Try to read the following, from a reliable and impartial source:
"But the 1994 assault weapons ban was never intended to be a comprehensive fix for “gun violence” writ large. Its purpose, according to gun violence experts and the lawmakers who wrote the bill, was to reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings like the ones in Parkland, Sandy Hook and elsewhere. And on that front, the data shows it had a significant impact'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.7cbfaae604e1
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
I notice you have no source. Though the NRA and every nut case con web site tries to say that mental illness is a normal problem for these killers. It is just, me poor con, that it is untrue.
UH, HERE IS THE PROBLEM. OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE LAW REQUIRING THOSE WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS TO BE PREVENTED FROM GETTING GUNS. AND THE STUDIES SAY FEW MASS KILLINGS ARE BY PEOPLE WITH DIAGNOSED MENTAL PROBLEMS. CONSIDER:
"A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that databases that track gun homicides show that less than 5 percent of 120,000 gun-related killings in America between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with a diagnosed mental illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported fluctuations over the years in the number of people who experienced serious psychological distress in the past 30 days. Since 2007, it has ranged from 2.7 percent to 3.8 percent in 2013. In both 2015 and 2016, the rate was 3.6 percent."
What we know about mass shootings
JESUS, YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE WHERE YOU GET YOUR DATA, DO YOU. OR DID YOU EVEN HAVE A SOURCE. Net is that under 5% of mass killers have had a diagnosed mental condition. Which makes all this drivel about mental illness and drugs largely just that - Drivel.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
Uh, in short, everything you said in your post is based at best on very slanted sources, and is generally provably WRONG. But every single thing that you posted was provided by and supported by:
1. The NRA
2. Far right sources who get their info from the NRA and other right wing sites
3. Politicians paid by the NRA, and graded highly by the NRA
4. Nut case con trolls paid to post drivel friendly to the far, far nut case right and the NRA.
In short, there is no integrity to be found in your post. Just con talking points.
that's a lot of work - i commend you on addressing individual points and making notes on what is important in proving a point. first off, you need one. other than to tell her she's jacked in the head, what is your counter point to what she has said?
with neutral reference points, as you require. without political input, as you require. which is more qualified to talk about guns than the NRA.
which again, you require.
so way to rip into a post but offer nothing in return for counter views that illustrate how you think discussions should go.
It is really simple. Start by following the truth, which means leave the partial sites alone. Use well known rational and impartial sites. If you can not do that, then there is no use proceeding.
So unless they think like you they are not worth talking to is what I'm getting from youBoth sides are extremists. Liberal democrats want to go too far to the left and ban guns while right wing Republicans think that a no-brainer like raising the age for owning a rifle is too much. The NRA is a part of that extremism.
Let's review the facts.
Politicalchick and facts in a single sentence? That would be an oxymoron.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
The source you used is not listed above. But it takes a few seconds with google to see that you used a far right bat shit crazy site to get that quote. In fact, most shootings have been in other than gun free zones. And the fact is, named gun free zones are not gun free. There are typically gun carrying police or hired guards. The public is not allowed to bring guns. And only fools, and the NRA, say the public having guns with them would help stop mass shootings. You see, we can look at the other nations of the world and see that gun free zones do not increase mass shootings.
"deputy communications director Stacey Radnor points to data showing the vast majority of mass shootings take place in areas where guns are allowed.
“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”"
Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
Uh, again, being a con troll, politicalchick has used a right wing nut case source to prove something that is not what we are talking about. No one ever has thought that eliminating assault rifles would reduce overall gun crime. As you should know. And it may not have. Try to read the following, from a reliable and impartial source:
"But the 1994 assault weapons ban was never intended to be a comprehensive fix for “gun violence” writ large. Its purpose, according to gun violence experts and the lawmakers who wrote the bill, was to reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings like the ones in Parkland, Sandy Hook and elsewhere. And on that front, the data shows it had a significant impact'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.7cbfaae604e1
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
I notice you have no source. Though the NRA and every nut case con web site tries to say that mental illness is a normal problem for these killers. It is just, me poor con, that it is untrue.
UH, HERE IS THE PROBLEM. OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE LAW REQUIRING THOSE WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS TO BE PREVENTED FROM GETTING GUNS. AND THE STUDIES SAY FEW MASS KILLINGS ARE BY PEOPLE WITH DIAGNOSED MENTAL PROBLEMS. CONSIDER:
"A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that databases that track gun homicides show that less than 5 percent of 120,000 gun-related killings in America between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with a diagnosed mental illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported fluctuations over the years in the number of people who experienced serious psychological distress in the past 30 days. Since 2007, it has ranged from 2.7 percent to 3.8 percent in 2013. In both 2015 and 2016, the rate was 3.6 percent."
What we know about mass shootings
JESUS, YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE WHERE YOU GET YOUR DATA, DO YOU. OR DID YOU EVEN HAVE A SOURCE. Net is that under 5% of mass killers have had a diagnosed mental condition. Which makes all this drivel about mental illness and drugs largely just that - Drivel.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
Uh, in short, everything you said in your post is based at best on very slanted sources, and is generally provably WRONG. But every single thing that you posted was provided by and supported by:
1. The NRA
2. Far right sources who get their info from the NRA and other right wing sites
3. Politicians paid by the NRA, and graded highly by the NRA
4. Nut case con trolls paid to post drivel friendly to the far, far nut case right and the NRA.
In short, there is no integrity to be found in your post. Just con talking points.
that's a lot of work - i commend you on addressing individual points and making notes on what is important in proving a point. first off, you need one. other than to tell her she's jacked in the head, what is your counter point to what she has said?
with neutral reference points, as you require. without political input, as you require. which is more qualified to talk about guns than the NRA.
which again, you require.
so way to rip into a post but offer nothing in return for counter views that illustrate how you think discussions should go.
It is really simple. Start by following the truth, which means leave the partial sites alone. Use well known rational and impartial sites. If you can not do that, then there is no use proceeding.
How would I know what you are getting from me, me boy. I simply prefer rational conversation, unlike what you post.
- Thread starter
- #151
There are two situations, the elimination of which would essentially eliminate mass shootings.
Neither of which is the NRA, or even the AR-15.
Yet the Left, the Democrats, Liberals, endorse neither.
In point of fact....these groups are responsible for the mayhem...
The solutions are
Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
And....trained to accept what your masters propose.....I predict you have nothing to say vis-a-vis the above.
Am I correct?
The NRA needs to be a part of the solution instead of saying no to everything. Some of the proposals that have been put and are opposed by the NRA are sensible.
Now.....focus like a laser:
These are the two solutions to mass shootings:
Eliminate Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
How....exactly, would the NRA be responsible for accomplishing these???????
That is so much BS.
Turning schools into a armed camp will get more people hurt. A teacher in Georgia fired his gun in class. Fortunately no one was hurt. We should get rid of gun free zones but that is not the total answer. We need to be pro-active and get to these people before they make it to a school or workplace.
There is also no reason to allow the sale of a bump stock or any device that allows a semi-automatic to act like a automatic weapon. Also there is no rational reason to say that a 18 year old can't have a handgun but can have a rifle.
"Turning schools into a armed camp will get more people hurt."
Rumor has it that they have guys with guns in banks......
Why is that?
Adults go to banks not kids. You want to wait until they get there to do something. I want to try and do something before they get there.
Actually, unlike Democrats/Liberals, who have the ulterior motivation.....banning all guns and eviscerating the second amendment of the Constitution.....I actually wish to see these sorts of shootings ended.
And toward that end, there are two solutions....
a. mandate the end of Gun Free Zones: trained, armed teachers have been found to be an effective solution
and
b. greatly restrict the prescribing of psychotropic drugs, which have been found to be motivations of almost every mass shooting.
See if you can deny any of my points.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,919
- 1,600
because i read what you put down, son. you bitch a lot about sources so you can counter points she's making but in so doing you DO NOT refute with counter points from sites that you list as examples of what would validate your points to begin with.So unless they think like you they are not worth talking to is what I'm getting from youLet's review the facts.
Politicalchick and facts in a single sentence? That would be an oxymoron.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
The source you used is not listed above. But it takes a few seconds with google to see that you used a far right bat shit crazy site to get that quote. In fact, most shootings have been in other than gun free zones. And the fact is, named gun free zones are not gun free. There are typically gun carrying police or hired guards. The public is not allowed to bring guns. And only fools, and the NRA, say the public having guns with them would help stop mass shootings. You see, we can look at the other nations of the world and see that gun free zones do not increase mass shootings.
"deputy communications director Stacey Radnor points to data showing the vast majority of mass shootings take place in areas where guns are allowed.
“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”"
Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
Uh, again, being a con troll, politicalchick has used a right wing nut case source to prove something that is not what we are talking about. No one ever has thought that eliminating assault rifles would reduce overall gun crime. As you should know. And it may not have. Try to read the following, from a reliable and impartial source:
"But the 1994 assault weapons ban was never intended to be a comprehensive fix for “gun violence” writ large. Its purpose, according to gun violence experts and the lawmakers who wrote the bill, was to reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings like the ones in Parkland, Sandy Hook and elsewhere. And on that front, the data shows it had a significant impact'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.7cbfaae604e1
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
I notice you have no source. Though the NRA and every nut case con web site tries to say that mental illness is a normal problem for these killers. It is just, me poor con, that it is untrue.
UH, HERE IS THE PROBLEM. OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE LAW REQUIRING THOSE WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS TO BE PREVENTED FROM GETTING GUNS. AND THE STUDIES SAY FEW MASS KILLINGS ARE BY PEOPLE WITH DIAGNOSED MENTAL PROBLEMS. CONSIDER:
"A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that databases that track gun homicides show that less than 5 percent of 120,000 gun-related killings in America between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with a diagnosed mental illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported fluctuations over the years in the number of people who experienced serious psychological distress in the past 30 days. Since 2007, it has ranged from 2.7 percent to 3.8 percent in 2013. In both 2015 and 2016, the rate was 3.6 percent."
What we know about mass shootings
JESUS, YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE WHERE YOU GET YOUR DATA, DO YOU. OR DID YOU EVEN HAVE A SOURCE. Net is that under 5% of mass killers have had a diagnosed mental condition. Which makes all this drivel about mental illness and drugs largely just that - Drivel.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
Uh, in short, everything you said in your post is based at best on very slanted sources, and is generally provably WRONG. But every single thing that you posted was provided by and supported by:
1. The NRA
2. Far right sources who get their info from the NRA and other right wing sites
3. Politicians paid by the NRA, and graded highly by the NRA
4. Nut case con trolls paid to post drivel friendly to the far, far nut case right and the NRA.
In short, there is no integrity to be found in your post. Just con talking points.
that's a lot of work - i commend you on addressing individual points and making notes on what is important in proving a point. first off, you need one. other than to tell her she's jacked in the head, what is your counter point to what she has said?
with neutral reference points, as you require. without political input, as you require. which is more qualified to talk about guns than the NRA.
which again, you require.
so way to rip into a post but offer nothing in return for counter views that illustrate how you think discussions should go.
It is really simple. Start by following the truth, which means leave the partial sites alone. Use well known rational and impartial sites. If you can not do that, then there is no use proceeding.So unless they think like you they are not worth talking to is what I'm getting from youLet's review the facts.
Politicalchick and facts in a single sentence? That would be an oxymoron.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
The source you used is not listed above. But it takes a few seconds with google to see that you used a far right bat shit crazy site to get that quote. In fact, most shootings have been in other than gun free zones. And the fact is, named gun free zones are not gun free. There are typically gun carrying police or hired guards. The public is not allowed to bring guns. And only fools, and the NRA, say the public having guns with them would help stop mass shootings. You see, we can look at the other nations of the world and see that gun free zones do not increase mass shootings.
"deputy communications director Stacey Radnor points to data showing the vast majority of mass shootings take place in areas where guns are allowed.
“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”"
Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
Uh, again, being a con troll, politicalchick has used a right wing nut case source to prove something that is not what we are talking about. No one ever has thought that eliminating assault rifles would reduce overall gun crime. As you should know. And it may not have. Try to read the following, from a reliable and impartial source:
"But the 1994 assault weapons ban was never intended to be a comprehensive fix for “gun violence” writ large. Its purpose, according to gun violence experts and the lawmakers who wrote the bill, was to reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings like the ones in Parkland, Sandy Hook and elsewhere. And on that front, the data shows it had a significant impact'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.7cbfaae604e1
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
I notice you have no source. Though the NRA and every nut case con web site tries to say that mental illness is a normal problem for these killers. It is just, me poor con, that it is untrue.
UH, HERE IS THE PROBLEM. OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE LAW REQUIRING THOSE WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS TO BE PREVENTED FROM GETTING GUNS. AND THE STUDIES SAY FEW MASS KILLINGS ARE BY PEOPLE WITH DIAGNOSED MENTAL PROBLEMS. CONSIDER:
"A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that databases that track gun homicides show that less than 5 percent of 120,000 gun-related killings in America between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with a diagnosed mental illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported fluctuations over the years in the number of people who experienced serious psychological distress in the past 30 days. Since 2007, it has ranged from 2.7 percent to 3.8 percent in 2013. In both 2015 and 2016, the rate was 3.6 percent."
What we know about mass shootings
JESUS, YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE WHERE YOU GET YOUR DATA, DO YOU. OR DID YOU EVEN HAVE A SOURCE. Net is that under 5% of mass killers have had a diagnosed mental condition. Which makes all this drivel about mental illness and drugs largely just that - Drivel.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
Uh, in short, everything you said in your post is based at best on very slanted sources, and is generally provably WRONG. But every single thing that you posted was provided by and supported by:
1. The NRA
2. Far right sources who get their info from the NRA and other right wing sites
3. Politicians paid by the NRA, and graded highly by the NRA
4. Nut case con trolls paid to post drivel friendly to the far, far nut case right and the NRA.
In short, there is no integrity to be found in your post. Just con talking points.
that's a lot of work - i commend you on addressing individual points and making notes on what is important in proving a point. first off, you need one. other than to tell her she's jacked in the head, what is your counter point to what she has said?
with neutral reference points, as you require. without political input, as you require. which is more qualified to talk about guns than the NRA.
which again, you require.
so way to rip into a post but offer nothing in return for counter views that illustrate how you think discussions should go.
It is really simple. Start by following the truth, which means leave the partial sites alone. Use well known rational and impartial sites. If you can not do that, then there is no use proceeding.
How would I know what you are getting from me, me boy. I simply prefer rational conversation, unlike what you post.
so - you attack her points, you attack her sources, you tell her how it SHOULD be done, and provide no other commentary to counter her points, using sites that follow your own set criteria than to say "you're wrong" and call this "rational conversation".
no wonder this country is fucked.
this is called trolling.
- Thread starter
- #153
There are two situations, the elimination of which would essentially eliminate mass shootings.
Neither of which is the NRA, or even the AR-15.
Yet the Left, the Democrats, Liberals, endorse neither.
In point of fact....these groups are responsible for the mayhem...
The solutions are
Gun Free Zones
and
Restricting psychologist prescribed psychotropic meds.
And....trained to accept what your masters propose.....I predict you have nothing to say vis-a-vis the above.
Am I correct?
The NRA needs to be a part of the solution instead of saying no to everything. Some of the proposals that have been put and are opposed by the NRA are sensible.
Be sure to let me know when you are ready to conclude that all the hand-wringing and chest-thumping by Democrats/Liberals is simply an obfuscation of their real desire: eliminating the second amendment.
Both sides are extremists. Liberal democrats want to go too far to the left and ban guns while right wing Republicans think that a no-brainer like raising the age for owning a rifle is too much. The NRA is a part of that extremism.
Let's review the facts.
a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.
We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review
c. … the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..
“At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
It is important to note the … cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public. To give an example, although it is known that James Holmes, suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was seeing psychiatry-ist Lynne Fenton, there has been no mention of what psychiatric drugs he may have been taking—though it is highly probably he was taking psychiatric drugs considering he was under a psychiatrist’s “care”.
Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (5 of them) or psychologist (2 of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.”
Columbine | CCHR International
Did you find any reference to 'age' in any of those????
I am not talking about a assault weapon ban. While I do not support gun free zones, the answer is more complex than that. You assume the drugs are doing it when the shooters were already screwed up.
The fact is that there is no reason for establishing a age limit of 21 for handguns and 18 for rifles. A 18 year old can still be in high school. You are a right wing extremist and you are part of the problem same as far left extremists.
The single most effective end to mass shootings....and to most crime, in general....is to remove Liberals from any position of power.
After all...Liberals both encourage anti-social behavior, and shield the guilty from punishment.
Case in point....Nikolas Cruz.
a. "The [Obama] Justice Department already has sued school districts in Florida, South Carolina and Mississippi for implementing allegedly racist disciplinary policies."
Holder's Anti-Discipline Push May Threaten Students | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
b. "The Obama-era Departments of Education and Justice – under education secretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder –issued school guidelines in 2014 that claimed students of color are “disproportionately impacted” by suspensions and expulsions, a situation they said leads to a “school-to-prison pipeline” that discriminates against minority and low-income students.
According to the Obama administration’s 2014 “Dear Colleague” guidance, any school district whose disciplinary measures showed “disparate impact” – meaning a disproportionately greater number of minority students are affected – is open to investigation by the Departments of Justice and Education, regardless of whether the behavior leading to the discipline is unacceptable."
Broward County Likely ‘Inspiration’ for Obama School Discipline Policy to Report Fewer Arrests, Suspensions | Breitbart
c. "Cruz assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other "red flags."
Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.
Cruz was never arrested. He wasn't referred to law enforcement. He wasn't even expelled."
The School-To-Mass-Murder Pipeline
d. Obama warned schools not to discipline school children, no matter their actions, if they were members of an authorized minority....meaning, the group voted Democrat.
As a result, Nikolas Cruz was given a pass....multiple passes.....and that unblemished record allowed him to avoid being identified as a possible homicidal maniac.
e. Liberals are responsible for
creating Gun Free Zones
prescribing psychotropic medicines to children
and for the moronic idea behind the "school-to-prison pipeline" policy that allowed Nikolas Cruz to remain free and obtain a weapon.
You will find this post irrefutable.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #154
- Thread starter
- #155
How either insane, or disingenuous, must a party....Democrats/Liberals....be to pass Gun Free Zone statutes......laws that only law-abiding gun owners will obey????
"For holders of a Florida concealed weapon license, a big question comes up frequently: Where can I carry? And perhaps the bigger question is: Where can’t I carry? This comes up a lot when it comes to school parking lots, because many parents in Florida drop off and pick up their kids from school.
It is my opinion as an attorney that licensed parents can legally carry a concealed weapon in the car during the pickup and drop-off. It is not legal, however, to carry a concealed weapon into a school building and not even to carry one outside the vehicle in the school parking lot. If you think you might get out of the vehicle you should have a secure case under your seat where you can store your firearm before you get out of the car.
Conceal carry licenses (also known as concealed carry permits, CCW or CCL) are issued pursuant to Florida Law Section 790.06, License to carry concealed weapon or firearm. Most of the statute goes over the process that’s involved in issuing licenses. But the “where you can’t carry” is covered in subsection 12. The provisions relevant to schools are:
(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
7. Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
9. Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
10. Any elementary or secondary school facility or administration building;
13. Any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
15. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.
(b) A person licensed under this section shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle for lawful purposes."
Concealed Carry In Florida School Parking Lots
"Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
Obviously, Democrats/Liberals have no intention of ending mass shooting.....they have an ulterior motive.
"For holders of a Florida concealed weapon license, a big question comes up frequently: Where can I carry? And perhaps the bigger question is: Where can’t I carry? This comes up a lot when it comes to school parking lots, because many parents in Florida drop off and pick up their kids from school.
It is my opinion as an attorney that licensed parents can legally carry a concealed weapon in the car during the pickup and drop-off. It is not legal, however, to carry a concealed weapon into a school building and not even to carry one outside the vehicle in the school parking lot. If you think you might get out of the vehicle you should have a secure case under your seat where you can store your firearm before you get out of the car.
Conceal carry licenses (also known as concealed carry permits, CCW or CCL) are issued pursuant to Florida Law Section 790.06, License to carry concealed weapon or firearm. Most of the statute goes over the process that’s involved in issuing licenses. But the “where you can’t carry” is covered in subsection 12. The provisions relevant to schools are:
(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
7. Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
9. Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
10. Any elementary or secondary school facility or administration building;
13. Any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
15. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.
(b) A person licensed under this section shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle for lawful purposes."
Concealed Carry In Florida School Parking Lots
"Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
Obviously, Democrats/Liberals have no intention of ending mass shooting.....they have an ulterior motive.
- Thread starter
- #156
- Thread starter
- #157
"Google Searches For 'NRA Membership' Are Up 4,900 Percent
Google searches for “NRA membership” have reportedly skyrocketed nearly 5,000 percent since the shooting at a Parkland high school that left 17 people dead – a massacre that the gun rights advocacy group had nothing to do with, but which found them the favorite target of a public witch hunt over firearms."
Google Searches For 'NRA Membership' Are Up 4,900 Percent
Hmmm.....no marches, protests, riots.....
....no going to baseball fields and shooting at Democrats...
.....simply individuals reacting to the lying Left.
Google searches for “NRA membership” have reportedly skyrocketed nearly 5,000 percent since the shooting at a Parkland high school that left 17 people dead – a massacre that the gun rights advocacy group had nothing to do with, but which found them the favorite target of a public witch hunt over firearms."
Google Searches For 'NRA Membership' Are Up 4,900 Percent
Hmmm.....no marches, protests, riots.....
....no going to baseball fields and shooting at Democrats...
.....simply individuals reacting to the lying Left.
- Thread starter
- #158
Do you know the difference between Planned Parenthood and the NRA?
One of these organizations sells arms.
The other one is the NRA.
One of these organizations sells arms.
The other one is the NRA.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 349
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 73
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 82
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 285
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 89
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8296
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-