Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So cut down access to guns leaving only the criminals and the 1 percent with access to guns? What will the results be? Well, now that I think about it, I’m sure the illegal market(s) would love such a scenario. Sell unregulated guns along with drugs.Yes guns are weapons that make it easier to kill people. The reason for so many deaths and so many mass shootings is easy to discern. We have a ton of easily accessible weapons that are really good at killing people. This isn't complicated math.
Who thinks we needed to pinky promise that we can eliminate all guns and thereby eliminate all mass shootings except silly little children? As other developed nations have proven we can heavily regulate and severely reduce gun ownership and severly reduce gun deaths and mass shooting event in the process.So in answer to my question, no country has eliminated all guns and no country has stopped all mass shootings.
A hate crime is modifier added on to charges. Since we can't charge a dead person it seems a rather moot point.That could be in another thread but this thread was about this being a hate crime. The OP was interested on why this isn’t classified as a hate crime, it is in hos title. Lots of threads about gun control but you want to hijack the thread.
Fewer gun deaths like every other developed nation? If they can do it why can't we?So cut down access to guns leaving only the criminals and the 1 percent with access to guns? What will the results be?
Drugs are easier to manufacture than guns and people are much more willing to engage in them illicitly because of their addictive qualities or because they're being used as a substitute for professional medical or mental health care.Well, now that I think about it, I’m sure the illegal market(s) would love such a scenario. Sell unregulated guns along with drugs.
MSN
www.msn.com
As predicted, the shooter targeted Christians to unleash her rage upon them for not accepting her transition into being a male.
Specifically, her parents were associated with this church and rejected their daughters transition.
So she went to the school to shoot up a bunch of children.
I reckon, that showed them. That was the whole point to show the country how terrible Christians really are.
Should this be a hate crime?
The GOP is petitioning the DNC controlled DOJ to do just that, but in vain.
GOP senator urges FBI, DHS to launch probe of Nashville shooting as a 'hate crime' | Blaze Media
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri is calling for the federal government to investigate the deadly shooting perpetrated at a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee, on Monday as a hate crime."I urge you to immediately open an investigation into this shooting as a federal hate crime,"...www.theblaze.com
Merick and the democrats are probably happy the shooter targeted a group of Christians that also oppose abortion on demand, which Merick has also been targeting in various court cases around the country.
In fact, when Joe Biden got up to speak about the shooting, right before he and the media started laughing and cracking jokes, as if they were giddy about the shooting up of Christians. Then Joe said "Oh by the way, the tragedy was horrible, wasn't it? (Giggles)
Not sure what happened between the shooter and her parents, but I'm 100% certain that democrats will feel worse for the shooter than the victims that they feel deserved it, just like how Merick Garland and Biden feel about it.
Yes guns are weapons that make it easier to kill people. The reason for so many deaths and so many mass shootings is easy to discern. We have a ton of easily accessible weapons that are really good at killing people. This isn't complicated math.
Sure cosplayer. You keep beating it to those fantasies.It's mental illness.
It Democrats telling the mentally ill that everyone else is out to get them.
They have decided to wage war against society.
This will not end well for them.
Drugs are easier to manufacture - that is not the argument; but that is not to say guns won’t be manufactured. Also, guns are a means as are knives, hammers, cars, bombs, etc. yet unlike guns, knives, hammers, cars, and bombs cannot be used to protect and deter violence like guns can be used. What does law enforcement use for protection, deterrents, and enforcement? GUNS.Fewer gun deaths like every other developed nation? If they can do it why can't we?
Drugs are easier to manufacture than guns and people are much more willing to engage in them illicitly because of their addictive qualities or because they're being used as a substitute for professional medical or mental health care.
You have to remember the other part of the equation. Guns make it much easier to kill people. I suppose bombs could kill people easier but that requires a bit of technical know how and comes with the risk of blowing yourself up. If you had murder people with a hammer or your giantly visible car, you might think twice about it. You might decide against it all together. And so it is that developed nations with a lot less access to firearms have a lot fewer murders per capita than we do. People aren't out there mass murdering people with hammers and knives to compensate.Drugs are easier to manufacture - that is not the argument; but that is not to say guns won’t be manufactured. Also, guns are a means as are knives, hammers, cars, bombs, etc. yet unlike guns, knives, hammers, cars, and bombs cannot be used to protect and deter violence like guns can be used. What does law enforcement use for protection, deterrents, and enforcement? GUNS.
And a lot fewer deaths per capita because those are a lot less effective at killing people. Also I doubt the veracity of this claim considering a quick Google search shows the death rate in vehicular related incidents for the United States is 12.4 and the for the UK its 2.9.In the absence of guns, People motivated to kill innocents will shift to alternative means. The UK is a great example of this. It’s very hard to get guns to commit mass killings yet we see an increase in the use of cars and knives to kill innocents.
But the ability of violent people to murder others with guns will.The culture of violence and willingness to kill innocents will not decline in the absence of guns.
We’ve always had lots of guns, but mass shootings are a relatively new phenomenon. Why do you think this is?You have to remember the other part of the equation. Guns make it much easier to kill people. I suppose bombs could kill people easier but that requires a bit of technical know how and comes with the risk of blowing yourself up. If you had murder people with a hammer or your giantly visible car, you might think twice about it. You might decide against it all together. And so it is that developed nations with a lot less access to firearms have a lot fewer murders per capita than we do. People aren't out there mass murdering people with hammers and knives to compensate.
And a lot fewer deaths per capita because those are a lot less effective at killing people. Also I doubt the veracity of this claim considering a quick Google search shows the death rate in vehicular related incidents for the United States is 12.4 and the for the UK its 2.9.
But the ability of violent people to murder others with guns will.
The doubling of guns per capita that has occurred in this country since 1968. More guns = more mass shooting looks like simple enough math to me but I'm sure you have some convulted explanation you'd like to share.We’ve always had lots of guns, but mass shootings are a relatively new phenomenon. Why do you think this is?
When "experts" say that the cure to a phycological problem is to have perfectly healthy body parts removed and fake body parts cosmetically constructed, I tend to believe that those experts are Quacks. When experts say the the treatment of a phycological problem is the taking of hormones and puberty blockers that impede what would otherwise be the natural and healthy development of a person's body, I believe those experts to be Quacks.
What seems so strange to me is that until recently, the Left deplored female genital mutilation in Africa and among illegals in England and elsewhere; there were whole novels about it. Now suddenly they turn on a dime and are wildly in favor of genital mutilation of BOTH sexes of children and mutilation of much else and poisoning with strong hormone doses. I can't see how they can hate what Africans do and call it brutal cruelty, and then do much worse of the same kind of thing.When "experts" say that the cure to a phycological problem is to have perfectly healthy body parts removed and fake body parts cosmetically constructed, I tend to believe that those experts are Quacks. When experts say the the treatment of a phycological problem is the taking of hormones and puberty blockers that impede what would otherwise be the natural and healthy development of a person's body, I believe those experts to be Quacks.
No. That’s not proof. Very simplistic answer and there is no proof you’re correct.The doubling of guns per capita that has occurred in this country since 1968. More guns = more mass shooting looks like simple enough math to me but I'm sure you have some convulted explanation you'd like to share.
Who thinks we needed to pinky promise that we can eliminate all guns and thereby eliminate all mass shootings except silly little children? As other developed nations have proven we can heavily regulate and severely reduce gun ownership and severly reduce gun deaths and mass shooting event in the process.
A hate crime is modifier added on to charges. Since we can't charge a dead person it seems a rather moot point.
Who thinks we needed to pinky promise that we can eliminate all guns and thereby eliminate all mass shootings except silly little children? As other developed nations have proven we can heavily regulate and severely reduce gun ownership and severly reduce gun deaths and mass shooting event in the process.
A hate crime is modifier added on to charges. Since we can't charge a dead person it seems a rather moot point.
I think I know what is going on here: doctors can't get paid for natural development. They can only get paid for interfering with nature. Same with Covid: they pretended for two or three years that their vaccines (which were no good at all, turned out) were BETTER than natural immunity. But until we all got natural immunity, we were in big trouble. Docs and pharma companies can't get paid for natural! So they have to mess up people's bodies and then treat people forever for the consequences ---- anyone they can talk into THAT, they've got gold.When "experts" say that the cure to a phycological problem is to have perfectly healthy body parts removed and fake body parts cosmetically constructed, I tend to believe that those experts are Quacks. When experts say the the treatment of a phycological problem is the taking of hormones and puberty blockers that impede what would otherwise be the natural and healthy development of a person's body, I believe those experts to be Quacks.
What seems so strange to me is that until recently, the Left deplored female genital mutilation in Africa and among illegals in England and elsewhere; there were whole novels about it. Now suddenly they turn on a dime and are wildly in favor of genital mutilation of BOTH sexes of children and mutilation of much else and poisoning with strong hormone doses. I can't see how they can hate what Africans do and call it brutal cruelty, and then do much worse of the same kind of thing.
It is proof to everyone with a working brain who can add 2+2. More guns = more gun deaths.No. That’s not proof. Very simplistic answer and there is no proof you’re correct.
