- Messages
- 3,061
- Reactions
- 9,996
That wouldn't happen if Illinois had tougher gun laws.
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.
That wouldn't happen if Illinois had tougher gun laws.
Since we're all talking--I'm not going to get into the argument above about the existence of school shootings--the phrase "mass shooting" should surely include shootings where at least some of the victims were targeted. There are very few mass shootings where all the victims are completely random. Murder of several people with a firearm random or not has the same result and the same common denominators--the use of a firearm and the criminality of the perpetrator--regardless of motivation. Maybe factor out gang shootings, but even those incidents of gun violence have innocent collateral victims. The phrase "going postal" that we all associate with the phenomena of mass shootings came from workplace revenge. The targeting of that newsroom in Baltimore was perpetrated by a guy who had a grudge because of reporting about his DV arrest even if he didn't kill the editor who ran it or the reporter who wrote it. Even Kip Kinkle was after revenge in some way when he attacked his school. To the victims of those attacks, the violence that ended their lives (or their loved ones) was just as unexpected and random seeming as the nice folks watching a concert in Las Vegas. From the perspective of the gun control advocates there is little to no difference. Mass shootings are just bigger more visible and newsworthy incidents of gun violence that can be used as evidence to shape policy, but anyone with a brain knows that most gun deaths in America are from suicide and less newsworthy shootings with fewer casualties.
As gun owners, if we want to remain credible in debates over whether gun control laws are reasonable or too burdensome (yes, I know some of us think that they're all tyranny....I'm not talking about you) we can't ignore facts that the general public sees as relevant and true when they shape the debate.
As an aside, this thread has veered radically off topic.
Any way you sugar coat control, control is control. There is no such thing as "common sense gun control" because control never makes common sense. THAT is where the liberals have you hood-winked. It is not within their agenda to stop gun violence. The statistics, for them, are merely a justification for the control.
I have spent nearly four decades researching, writing about, lobbying, interviewing professionals in the field, collecting data and drafting model legislation related to this issue. NOBODY on either side of the aisle is interested in lowering the numbers of firearm deaths without gun control. I can't count the numbers of people that have attempted to challenge me on unalienable Rights - many are gun owners. Even among the right, they join with the far left because they want to look like they are reasonable people, willing to weaken the Constitution in exchange for the validation of liberals.
Understand this and understand it well: Liberals do not want you to decrease the numbers of people killed by firearms. They want firearms gone. I have written model legislation that would significantly reduce gun violence without gun control, but since the solution doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, nobody is willing to read it. Oh, they will support hundreds of pages of nonsensical legislation written by pabulum puking liberals without bothering to read it, simply on the word of mainstream pundits, but a serious bill to impact gun violence without any gun control???? Not on your life.
. . . . Conservatives want to control who people can sleep with, get married to, how to worship or not worship, fundamental choices about what families look like, whether to have children, what people can put in their bodies, and on, and on. Freedom is a matter of perspective.
To some degree gun control is a sideways attempt to address gun violence that arises out of other social ills, like inadequate access to mental health tx, drug and poverty related crime, and other things that there is very little political will to fix, because it's very expensive (more taxes anyone?), and it's cheaper and easier to just restrict access to guns.
As to the sources, Newsweek and the AP may be the MSM, but IMO are pretty middle of the road as far as political leanings.
Been to Chicago one time for a connecting flight. Good Lord willing it'll be the only time I ever go to that horrible city. Bunch of idiots running the town
They view Conservatives as wanting to socially engineer America to look like it did in about 1962.
This control is related to bedroom issues, victimless "crimes", free speech (I mean actual government actions against those criticizing the government) etc. Conservatives want to control who people can sleep with, get married to, how to worship or not worship, fundamental choices about what families look like, whether to have children, what people can put in their bodies, and on, and on. Freedom is a matter of perspective.
When you start telling me how God wants things you lost the argument. ^^^^
In what way did the bump stock ban go through the house and senate? I'm honestly asking for information, because I didn't follow it closely but that's not how I thought it went.No big deal the republican party had control of house and senate.
And they still let the bump stock ban go through.
How very 1982 of them.What's so ironic about your comment is that progressives/liberals think conservative policies are anti-freedom and designed to control people. They view Conservatives as wanting to socially engineer America to look like it did in about 1962. This control is related to bedroom issues, victimless "crimes", free speech (I mean actual government actions against those criticizing the government) etc.
With no disrespect intended to those who do follow a religious tradition, in America, where the First Amendment really is the first freedom, if you're engaged in a public policy debate and you start talking about what God's plan is then you forfeit. ^^^^
Physician heal thyself.most pro-2A guys just bag on liberals, complain about tyranny (but not facism...) and preach to their own choir
. . . My complaint is that the issue of gun ownership and control has become a "culture war" issue that it really doesn't need to be. . .
Been to Chicago one time for a connecting flight. Good Lord willing it'll be the only time I ever go to that horrible city. Bunch of idiots running the town
(but not facism...
I lived in downtown Chicago for a year and half back in 2003-2005 time frame. We had an apartment fairly close to Navy Pier. I was working for a start up and so I pretty much non-stop work for 5 or 6 days a week 10 to 12 hours or more. We did enjoy the restaurants while living there and we took the bus and the El trains. Blue line went to O'Hare and Orange Line went to Chicago Midway.
We still had our home in Washington so we would fly home ever 4 to 6 weeks to check on everything. Once moving expenses money ran out after over a year I got a job in Puget Sound and moved back. I did enjoy the Chicago deep dish pizza. We knew some areas even in downtown Chicago were not safe to go at night but during the day it was fine at that time.
Walking to work we had to cross over the Chicago River and in wintertime it was fairly cold and the wind would blow inside our coats. I definitely saw the sun more living in Chicago but I miss the mountains in Washington State. You could not pay me enough money to take a job in Chicago again.
Hmmm, I have an urge to be the Spelling Nazi.
There's tons of fascism today. And it is NOT coming from conservatives. They are being shut down at every turn, in the universities and colleges, in grade schools, in workplaces, in the public square of social media, in most social gatherings and even in churches. Most all conservatives are afraid to speak their opinions for fear of being cancelled in one way or another by the "woke" culture. You modern cultural revolution fascists are winning, give it a rest. (AntiFA uses anti-fascism as cover for their violent methodology and won't let others gather/rally... that's at least one example of the way the woke culture rolls.)
I assume you are referring to my comment about rolling things back to 1950... I responded directly to your comment about 1962, please give me the respect of addressing me when you are referring to my comments. Yes I would like to live in the 50s. It was a great life! The new millennium sucks big time. I imagine when you get older, you might be saying "Gee I wish we could go back to the way things were in 2008". It's not an uncommon thought, but you show your true self when you make fun (that's how people of a certain ideology tend to shut people down, and one of the reasons why we can no longer have decent discussions as equals) of older people that think things were better before, that don't like the changes the modern eras have brought, while complaining that gun owners won't recognize the thinking/feelings of those that are truly concerned about gun violence. (As if conservative gun owners aren't concerned.)