When is the time to talk about gun violence?

[BULLDOG]

FAR more violent crime is committed without guns than with -- better than 2:1.
So, rather than focus on "gun" violence, we should focus on all kinds of violence.

That, however, will lead to convulsions that does not advance the liberal agenda-- so it won't happen.

More young people die from guns than die from cars. What other type of violence kills as many of our young people as gun violence?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When crazy people like guano stop killing people.

Guano must be ecstatic...Christians gunned down

Dead kids don't make anyone happy. That's why we want the damn guns...

Matthew 5:
9"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12"Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I hear people on both sides of the aisle saying, now is not the time to talk about guns. Well, when is the time? What is the answer?

Is it more guns? Is it less guns? Is it more gun restrictions or is it less gun laws?

WHY CAN'T THESE POLITICIANS, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INTELLIGENT, SIT DOWN AND FIGURE THIS OUT?

After shooting, angry Obama blasts U.S. gun politics

WASHINGTON, Oct 1 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama angrily said on Thursday America had made a "political choice" to allow mass shootings like the one in Oregon to occur and blasted the National Rifle Association (NRA) lobby group for blocking reform of U.S. gun laws.

So even before the blood has time to dry, B.O. has come out and talk about the crisis(liberals always never let a crisis go to waste)of an increase of GUN VIOLENCE, under his watch. Well if I remember back in 2008 when stinky was running for president, he said that the oceans would lower and the planet was going to heal, that he was Hope and Change, yet whenever a liberal reaches out and kills someone with a gun, he wont man up and admit, his policies have failed the US citizens. So as typical of a liberal sociopath(redundant statement) he spatters lies once again. If you want gun violence to gun down, you get rid of liberalism, as this Oregon shooter was clearly liberal, because when Christians want to live their lives in peace and happiness, the liberal comes up and takes that happiness away. The war in America has started, but many don't see it. Those in Oregon have. Will you be next?

 

[M14 Shooter]

FAR more violent crime is committed without guns than with -- better than 2:1.
So, rather than focus on "gun" violence, we should focus on all kinds of violence.
That, however, will lead to convulsions that does not advance the liberal agenda-- so it won't happen.

More young people die from guns than die from cars. What other type of violence kills as many of our young people as gun violence?

I like how you avoided my point and proved my point at the same time. Nicely done.

 

[Anathema]

As an aside...
Most of the time there can be no compromise because the side seeking concessions from gun owners have nothing to offer in return.

Only when you look at it from an emotional viewpoint. Common sense says there are reasonable things which can be done to stop those attacks without infringing on the RTKBA. Many of those things literally have nothing to do with restricting gun owners at all.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I hear people on both sides of the aisle saying, now is not the time to talk about guns. Well, when is the time? What is the answer?

Is it more guns? Is it less guns? Is it more gun restrictions or is it less gun laws?

WHY CAN'T THESE POLITICIANS, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INTELLIGENT, SIT DOWN AND FIGURE THIS OUT?

Talked about it enough. Either we have the will or we don't and should stfu. Everything being said right this very moment on CNN has been said after every other mass shooting incident. No ones gives a shit. Groups on both sides of the aisle have things to gain following gun violence. Votes either way, money to campaigns proimising to do something for or against, funcing for law enforcement, etc.

No one wants it to stop because everybody's gaining something from it.

 

[BULLDOG]

FAR more violent crime is committed without guns than with -- better than 2:1.
So, rather than focus on "gun" violence, we should focus on all kinds of violence.
That, however, will lead to convulsions that does not advance the liberal agenda-- so it won't happen.

More young people die from guns than die from cars. What other type of violence kills as many of our young people as gun violence?

I like how you avoided my point and proved my point at the same time. Nicely done.

I avoided nothing. Why is the NRA afraid to even study what might or might not work to prevent so many deaths? We spend millions per year studying how and why people die in car crashes, and finding ways to limit the danger. You don't think something that kills more 26 and younger people than cars deserves special study?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No one wants it to stop because everybody's gaining something from it.

Some of us want it to stop. Very, very much so, even to point of saying we know what the Constitution says but you can't handle that right so we're taking it way...

 

[M14 Shooter]

As an aside...
Most of the time there can be no compromise because the side seeking concessions from gun owners have nothing to offer in return.

Only when you look at it from an emotional viewpoint.

No... only when you look a it using the definition of compromise.
For gun owners to compromise, they must be offered something in return for what they give up.
If the side that wants gun owners to give something up and have no intention of offering something in return. that side seeks acquiescence, not compromise.
There's no sound reason for gun owners to acquiesce.
Pro-gun, pro-NRA guy, willing to comprimise! | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[M14 Shooter]

FAR more violent crime is committed without guns than with -- better than 2:1.
So, rather than focus on "gun" violence, we should focus on all kinds of violence.
That, however, will lead to convulsions that does not advance the liberal agenda-- so it won't happen.

More young people die from guns than die from cars. What other type of violence kills as many of our young people as gun violence?

I like how you avoided my point and proved my point at the same time. Nicely done.

I avoided nothing.

Ok then...
Tell us why you focus on gun violence when better than 70% of violent crime is committed without a gun?

 

[BULLDOG]

As an aside...
Most of the time there can be no compromise because the side seeking concessions from gun owners have nothing to offer in return.

Only when you look at it from an emotional viewpoint.

No... only when you look a it using the definition of compromise.
For gun owners to compromise, they must be offered something in return for what they give up.
If the side that wants gun owners to give something up and have no intention of offering something in return. that side seeks acquiescence, not compromise.
There's no sound reason for gun owners to acquiesce.
Pro-gun, pro-NRA guy, willing to comprimise! | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why would anybody need to be given anything before they even consider trying to reduce senseless deaths?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

As an aside...
Most of the time there can be no compromise because the side seeking concessions from gun owners have nothing to offer in return.

Only when you look at it from an emotional viewpoint.

No... only when you look a it using the definition of compromise.
For gun owners to compromise, they must be offered something in return for what they give up.
If the side that wants gun owners to give something up and have no intention of offering something in return. that side seeks acquiescence, not compromise.
There's no sound reason for gun owners to acquiesce.
Pro-gun, pro-NRA guy, willing to comprimise! | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Here's the compromise, for now. You get to keep your small-capacity long guns, we take all the rest, and your kids don't die like the ones yesterday. To any sane person, that is a good deal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

FAR more violent crime is committed without guns than with -- better than 2:1.
So, rather than focus on "gun" violence, we should focus on all kinds of violence.
That, however, will lead to convulsions that does not advance the liberal agenda-- so it won't happen.

More young people die from guns than die from cars. What other type of violence kills as many of our young people as gun violence?

I like how you avoided my point and proved my point at the same time. Nicely done.

I avoided nothing.

Ok then...
Tell us why you focus on gun violence when better than 70% of violent crime is committed without a gun?

Did someone stab 17 people yesterday, or shoot them?

 

[007]

I hear people on both sides of the aisle saying, now is not the time to talk about guns. Well, when is the time? What is the answer?

Is it more guns? Is it less guns? Is it more gun restrictions or is it less gun laws?

WHY CAN'T THESE POLITICIANS, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INTELLIGENT, SIT DOWN AND FIGURE THIS OUT?

 

[Pete7469]

Very simply because neither side is actually interested in solving the problem.....

Democrats want to press for overbearing restrictions that won't fix the problem and will punish honest citizens for being gun owners

Republicans fail to make rhe reasoned case for protecting individual Rights and instead take an overly extreme position to appease their donors and ensure no "compromise" can occur.

You don't compromise with wrong. Period.

The problem is crazy, and you can't be sure someone is crazy until they do crazy shit.

The only way shit like this can be minimized is for not crazy people to be armed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As an aside...
Most of the time there can be no compromise because the side seeking concessions from gun owners have nothing to offer in return.

Only when you look at it from an emotional viewpoint.

No... only when you look a it using the definition of compromise.
For gun owners to compromise, they must be offered something in return for what they give up.
If the side that wants gun owners to give something up and have no intention of offering something in return. that side seeks acquiescence, not compromise.
There's no sound reason for gun owners to acquiesce.
Pro-gun, pro-NRA guy, willing to comprimise! | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why would anybody need to be given anything before they even consider trying to reduce senseless deaths?

Thank you for illustrating that anti-gun loons do not seek compromise.

 

[blackhawk]

Maybe we should try focusing on what is driving people to commit these acts of violence instead of focusing so much attention on the weapon they use.

 

[007]

You want to live in a country with no guns allowed, move.

Oh, and by the way, in case you pick europe, I hope you don't get hacked and stabbed to death by one of the muslims they're allowing in by the millions. Enjoy having no way to defend yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe we should try focusing on what is driving people to commit these acts of violence instead of focusing so much attention on the weapon they use.

Gee... where did I hear that before...?

 

[JimH52]

WHY CAN'T THESE POLITICIANS, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INTELLIGENT, SIT DOWN AND FIGURE THIS OUT?

Very simply because neither side is actually interested in solving the problem.....

Democrats want to press for overbearing restrictions that won't fix the problem and will punish honest citizens for being gun owners

Republicans fail to make rhe reasoned case for protecting individual Rights and instead take an overly extreme position to appease their donors and ensure no "compromise" can occur.

l disagree. There is large segment of the population that feels that a solution needs to be found. But when anyone begins to talk about implementing some reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally deranged, the NRA and its associates begin a campaign to convince gun owners that their firearms are going to be taken away. They use the old, reliable fear mongering method to convince the law makers to do nothing. It has worked up to this point.

Why doesn't the GOP controlled congress sit down and try to figure out some solutions? Because most receive a check from the GOP on a regular basis.